Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive270

User:189.8.107.196 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Donna Cross, a novelist who spent seven years researching the time period, says the historical evidence is there. "I would say it's the weight of evidence -- over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence."/"
 * 2)  "Even if it was just one, "all but one" = "most", definitely. Definitely not = "all". But I guess "almost all" is equally correct, and will better satisfy the clear personal position of the editors of this article :)"
 * 3)  "Fine, let us discuss then the editions made in the 1st paragraph regarding "most scholars". But why had you removed this neutral paragraph, which states clearly it is one person's POV, from the critique section? That was clearly censorship and abuse"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 643995372 by Dr.K. (talk) I suggest you read the Talk page; there indeed ARE scholars who disagree with this consensus, and this is indeed what is under discussion at the Talk page now"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 643996855 by Dr.K. (talk) No reason has been given as to why the references were removed.  This is censorship."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Scholarly consensus */ comment"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring for days adding unreliable sources for WP:FRINGE theories supporting the existence of Pope Joan against overwhelming consensus on talkpage. Tendentious editing, personal attacks on the talkpage of the article. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This looks like a clear violation to me. It has pov pushing, ignoring warnings and a likeliness to continue. I think a 48 hour block is appropriate with escalation of duration if it continues. Chillum 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment When asked recommended that the IP perform no further edits to the article here. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored. It looks as though we have a WP:RGW situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE Batman131 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First
 * 2) Second
 * 3) Third
 * 4) Fourth
 * 5) Fifth
 * 6) Sixth

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning of his talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article was created for an event that happened 6 months ago. Back then a consensus was reached about the same thing the user is complaining and the result was that it would remain as it was. So much time has passed and WWE Batman131 decides to come now and start acting stubborn by reverting all edits to how the page was. I even removed a word from it so the article looks similar to articles from recent events, but he still removed them. He says he know the rules, but he doesn't respect the consensus and - even if he wanted to open discussion again - he doesn't keep the article the way it was agreed to. He know accuses me of edit warring as well, while I gave him all the chances to realize what he was doing (via summary edit when I mentioned the consensus on the talk page) and via personal message at his talk page. He even dared me to report him. I believe he should get a warning for this situation and be reminded that he can't start doing things on his own, even when people remind him that and he still keeps doing it. I gave him all warnings as possible, but he remained stubborn like plenty of the IPs we deal with that vandalize those same articles. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I must say, it's a nice report. But, I'm not vandalizing. I'm trying to resolve a problem civilly, I've done everything I should do. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As well, I didn't dare you to do anything. You said you would report me. And I told you to go ahead. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User: 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 reported by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |20:04, 24 January 2015
 * 2) |19:24, 24 January 2015
 * 3) |17:37, 24 January 2015
 * 4) |16:57, 24 January 2015‎ - 17:08, 24 January 2015‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct

Comments:

Greetings,

In an attempt to remove unsourced, or unreliably sourced, information I have come into some conflict with the anon user in question. While I am using the Type 093 article here, this is occurring on multiple articles (it may be easier to check both of our contribution logs to see this.) I admit that I am likely in violation of the 3RR rule myself at this point.

The anon user contacted me on my talk page, and I have attempted to impress upon the anon user the importance of reliable sources, and explain the validity of a certain type of referencing style using bibliographies. Unfortunately, the anon user continues to use whatever sources can be find (most, if not all, unreliable) to support the otherwise unsourced information on the pages, and refuses to acknowledge that the bibliography and references to it are valid. In the case of the Type 093 article, I attempted a rewrite using what reliable sources could be found, but this rewrite has been consistently reverted by the anon user. Other articles tend to be over small sections of the article.

My apologies if this is the improper place to bring up this issue, or if I have misidentifed the issue. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, This guy RovingPersonalityConstruct repeated removed massive amounts of multiple sourced content and replaced them with his own personal opinions. When I reverted his vandalism he keeps saying that I have no sources to back up my the original contents. Then I searched and backed up the original contents with multiple sources from Chinese and Western news media he then say that my sources are not reliable and his source is !

Type 093 submarine Chengdu J-20 JL-2

Please take a look at his behavior !

In fact his only source is another Wikipedia page link to the US Department of Defense !

Please see his reverting history for evidences. I have warned him on many occasions yet he does not know how to stop nor proving me wrong. He just keeping saying that his only source is "reliable" while my many sources being "unreliable".

Admins please stop him !--2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . I blocked the IP for 72 hours for violating 3RR and personal attacks. I blocked Roving for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:09I500 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644093825 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) edit warring / pushing pov / battleground behaviour / personal crusade"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 644091956 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) its not"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 644089602 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) abuse of WP:BLP to push POV"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 644087910 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) this is in compliance with WP:BLP"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 644087154 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 644061915 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) use talk page to reach consensus, do not push your pov with edit warring"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
 * 3)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
 * 4)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
 * 5)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
 * 6)   "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
 * 7)   "Lying by omission is a thing."


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


 * Comments:

User is edit-warring to remove reliably-sourced information and in so doing, is presenting a specifically-named living person in a false light in contravention of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. The removal of that reliably-sourced information results in the article lying by omission, as the edit removes the word "false" from the phrase "false allegations" about this specific person. This has the effect of taking negative claims which are well-established by reliable sources to be untrue and presenting them as a subject of debate. There is discussion of this matter on the talk page. I have obviously gone beyond 3RR here, but this is a clear-cut application of the BLP exemption, as the user in question is edit-warring to falsely depict a living person in contravention of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:JimMacAllistair reported by User:Bede735 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644005814&oldid=643964674 ]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644007747&oldid=644005814 ]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644104313&oldid=644025301 ]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644125818&oldid=644112764 ]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimMacAllistair&diff=644108278&oldid=643533824 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644025301&oldid=644007747 here], and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644112764&oldid=644104313 here]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimMacAllistair&diff=644108278&oldid=643533824 here]

Comments: I could use some help with, a new editor who signed up five days ago. I attempted to reason with the new editor in my summary text [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644025301&oldid=644007747 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Cooper&diff=644112764&oldid=644104313 here], and provided further explanation and appropriate next steps on their talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JimMacAllistair&diff=644108278&oldid=643533824 here]. The editor ignored my appeals. This article is a WP:GA and is currently in WP:PR. Bede735 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: was identified as a sock puppet of HarveyCarter and has been blocked indefinitely. Bede735 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell there are three reverts; this edit is not a revert as far as I can tell. You're both currently at three reverts each; a As he is the new user I'll leave a notice at his talkpage to discuss before making further reverts. Bjelleklang -  talk 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User: Hans Barbosa reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&oldid=643311755

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Earlier insertion of dubious information

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643256657&oldid=641881613

Within 24 hour period, insertion of dubious material 4 times

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643892515&oldid=643311755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643968796&oldid=643912778

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=644024465&oldid=644008695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=644026663&oldid=644025183

User has been warned by other editors who have been reverting the edits.

This editor is inserting unsourced material of dubious authenticity, but is being reported here rather than as a content dispute because the editor has gone over 3RR.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. I see you've alerted him under WP:ARB911. Not sure whether he is serious about the secret issuance of $500 million dollar bank notes to Chiang Kai-Shek. But let's hope this kind of thing doesn't continue. It looks like the probably-fake currency images will be deleted soon. This is a new account that was created on 18 January. If it turns out that he is continuing with these ideas an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Deepall66 reported by User:Eeriyaka (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

versions :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=644073056

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=644069699

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=643018182

This user created an user similar to a wiki admin User:Arjayay, fake account is User:Arjayaya is blocked now.

This user notified several times to discuss the matter in the talk page. but not listening. user is reverting things back to since 13th OCT 2014, using unregistered account such that.

The person behind these fake accounts damaging the integrity of Wiki, changing things without good faith. could you please take pessary actions to block this user.

if possible could you protect the article (BLP) Thesara Jayawardane from further editing or protect it editing by unregistered users or any user has less than 10 wiki edits.

kind regards Eeriyaka (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks by User:AlexiusHoratius. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:108.31.156.228 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */ Edited to remove passage that impacts the neutrality of the section per Wikipedia's published guidelines."
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */  Removed irrelevant clause that negatively impacts the neutrality of the section contrary to Wikipedia's published standards."
 * 3)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on The Fosters (2013 TV series). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Fosters (2013 T.V. series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has been repeatedly warned in the past for the same edits, but their block (I believe) and the page's protection did not hault their behavior. This has been going on for quite some time. Whilst they have taken a break, they have returned with the same results and they don't seem to quit and I fear that's their motive. When the edit warring first began, more editors came along, as I suspected there was sock puppetry occurring. Though, now, it's only this user. Callmemirela ( talk ) 05:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Long-term edit warring and POV-pushing by IP. Let me know if you see this person editing elsewhere. This edit summary is worth preserving: "Removal of irrelevant opinion from a shyster organization run by a hypocrite who lives off donations from sanctimonious LIVs. This opinion negatively impacts the neutrality of the section." Myself, I would be asking about the neutrality of the edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston Thank you for your help. Your last sentence made me chuckle. Although, I do have one worry. I believe, through my point of view and opinion, this IP is associated with the One Million Moms organization. They are the only one to constantly make the same edit, with rather invalid arguments to remove such content. Should this be much of a concern? Callmemirela  ( talk ) 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:188.217.107.13 reported by User:Eric (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (two of five articles, 3 diffs each):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This Vodafone Italy IP editor has been campaigning to change English terms to their French synonyms on several articles. The diffs I provide above are to two of them. I assume it must the the same editor who was using a Telecom Italia IP to do the same kind of edits in July 2014 (see Special:Contributions/80.181.225.114) Eric talk 23:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. User has not continued since being given a block warning. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Thanks, Ed. I was placing the an3 notice template there at the same time you were putting the report notice. So I did not add the an3. Eric talk 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wijesekara94 reported by User:EmadIV (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."


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

Constant removal of speedy tags. → εϻαd ιν  ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ElCommandanteVzl reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Regime is POV and it is still not a fact that the gov used chemical weapons, despite what this source say"
 * 2)  "Many RS claim that it were the rebels"
 * 3)  "the bild is a RS http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild"
 * 4)  "Again, it is not a fact that the gov used chemical weapons"
 * 5)  "Regime is POV, it has been discussed many times. for examaple here: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_20"
 * 6)  "Please see: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_20"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also requested page protection on WP:RPP, but this editor has continued to war with other editors after the warning (at the time of the RPP it was 1:1). VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User's behaviour was certainly deserving a block, but disruption ceased over 24 hours ago so I don't see how it would be preventive at this point. Talk page seems to be serving its purpose now as well. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Asher Heimermann reported by User:Only (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:03 1/24/15
 * 2) 18:41 1/24/15
 * 3) 19:34 1/24/15 (debatable if the original maintenance template was necessary, so I don't really consider this a significant revert if it is classified as one).
 * 4) 00:13 1/25/15
 * 5) 01:16 1/25/15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:23 1/25/15

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nyth83 started discussion at User_talk:Asher_Heimermann

Comments:

Reporting this as a previously involved administrator; saw this unfolding via my watchlist. only (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding Mirro Aluminum Company, I believe an image of the company building should appear in the infobox. If there is an image field in the infobox, why not use it? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This photo was taken many years after the company no longer existed, and in fact, has now been demolished so it serves to purpose to help identify the company which is the purpose of the infobox. It is of post-company interest which is why I moved it to a gallery in the article space. Besides, the article is about the company itself and not about the building(s) that it owned.  If you disagree with a change made by an editor, you need to start a discussion on the article talk page about it and not to continually revert and redo edits as you have been doing.  Nyth  63  02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, the building still stands. Only a portion of the building was demolished but most of it still stands as of today's date. The pictures I added to the article were taken by myself yesterday afternoon. A picture serves the public's interest in identifying the company. Asher Heimermann (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. If you disagreed with my edit, we should have started a discussion on the talk page rather than continuing with reverts.  Nyth  63  14:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: I have also just warned Nyth83 for 3RR/edit warring with relation to his involvement on the infobox image edit warring. only (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Asher Heimermann is warned to get consensus before making more reverts about pictures. His last edit is more than 24 hours ago so a block may not be needed. User:Nyth83 was creating some copyvios but now appears to have got the message. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The message that I got was that some editors appear to be lazy and heavy-handed in their interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I posted about my disagreement with this to User talk:Only.  Nyth  63  05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:82.20.56.162 (also uses account User:Concept4life) reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:, also edits as )

Previous version reverted to: (Please note that it isn't clear to me which diff this parameter is requesting)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (first warning),  (second warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, also please note previous comment on user's talk page

Comments:

The reported user's history of editing the article this way stretches back to 6 December 2014; the reported edits are just the latest. Note that one of the reported user's edits consisted of page blanking. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the user's sock account - is that not also being blocked? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mckmckmt reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 2)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 644372480 by Claw of Slime (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 5)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 644328511 by Codename Lisa (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644328511 by Codename Lisa (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
 * 1)  "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User insists on removing a section from CL's talkpage against CL's wishes. User has been warned twice, and reverted by multiple users, yet still carries on removing the section. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If this reverts were for an article on wikipedia I am guilty as charged but because it is a section on User Talk Page I have done nothing wrong. The section contains insulting statements towards me so I insist that the section be removed or the insulting statements be removed. Mckmckmt (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR:

''An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. [...] A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. ''
 * There really isn't any wiggle room there.
 * Besides, your insistence on deleting CnL's reply to you is a clear violation of WP:TALK. Per WP:REDACT, you can strike out your comments, but you can't delete them once they've been replied to. And you certainly cannot even strike out anyone else's comments on their own talk page. Not even if you don't like them. If this hadn't been brought to 3RR I expect it would have been brought to AN/I.
 * Say, did you consider asking CnL to archive that section? Jeh (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have filed under ANI Mckmckmt (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the above ANI thread was closed as being pretty frivolous. This 3RR case still needs dealing with, as it's pretty blatant; 3RR applies everywhere (bar certain pages under 1RR restriction, but that's a bit different), not just in mainspace. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me summarize: I have never seen a more self-involved, rude, clueless and hostile Wikipedia editor in my life. The worst of everyone else I've seen so far were either very self-involved, or very vindictive, or very rude or extremely dumb but none of them were all four at once.) These personality traits mean that he will never accept that he made mistake, no matter how many people tell him so. So, please, block him permanently. He is a plague upon Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "I have never seen a more...". Sure you have, just look in the mirror. 108.4.2.206 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, look! It's my Iranian stalker! Well, I have looked in the mirror. I'm just obnoxious. I'm definitely not an idiot. You are three of these, not four. Fleet Command (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far with regards to your description of Mckmckmt; I've seen a lot, lot worse, and they did at least retract some of their personal attacks. The IP above isn't really worth responding to; obvious troll is obvious. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we should compare. I have seen Betacommand/Δ, Dogmaticecelectic, Janagewen, Toddst1 and this Iranian IP stalker above... and myself. Who have you seen worse? Mckmckmt is worse than all of them. Fleet Command (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have seen several of the editors you list there. Mckmckmt isn't the most civil user in the world, but to claim that they're the worst you've ever seen is a tad daft, and also not helpful (as naming "worse" users would also be unhelpful, I shan't do so.) I think you're getting too invested in this situation to act in a neutral manner, and you reversions of Mckmckmt's revocation of their own personal attacks show that; I recommend you take a step back, and let other users deal with it. This is, after all, an open-and-shut case. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But I think you and I have a disagreement; that's all. It is no reason to think because I disagree with you, I am too invested. Maybe you are not as sensitive to harassment as you should be? Let's agree to disagree on that and leave it. But let's compare Mckmckmt with Codename Lisa instead: If she makes a sloppy edit and you tell her "your edit was sloppy", she doesn't responding by going to ANI and saying ":Sob: :Sob: Lukeno94 insulted me! :Sob:". What I am saying is, calling an edit sloppy isn't a personal attack. Personal attacks target editors, not their edits. Fleet Command (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that your actions/language are/is more likely to detract from this case than help it. Questioning my sensitivity to harassment is both bizarre and irrelevant. Yes, Lisa doesn't respond like that, but then, she's an experienced editor who is familiar with the processes here. Mckmckmt is not, and whilst their language has been poor at times, neither involved party is entirely innocent of such things (and nor are either of us two, although at least in this case I've refrained from any attacks). This board is for discussing edit warring, and establishing if there was any valid case for a 3RR exemption; in this case, there wasn't. Further discussions of conduct/language/content are not helpful. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Mckmckmt is warned that the 3RR rule applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including user talk pages. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACodename_Lisa&diff=644390089&oldid=644390038 This version of the affected talk] may be a compromise that people can live with. A complaint at ANI about this same dispute has already been closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey reported by User:MoorNextDoor (Result: both, plus User:Trackteur blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

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

Comments:

There isn't a lot to say really, Curly Turkey seriously thinks that Wikipedia belongs to him. I don't what the exact issue is between him and the Trackteur, but the part that I've restored and that Curly Turkey keeps removing has already been discussed here and the admin EdJohnston agreed with what it said. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is a flat-out lie---the content disputed there is unrelated to the content disputed here, and EdJohnson declined as the report had become stale, not because he agreed with any party. Please don't fall for MoorNextDoor's diversionary tactics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Curly Turkey was present at the time, he cannot claim that he didn't know about it. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 *  MoorNextDoor Note :

I just restored what Curly Turkey deleted from my report (see diff below), apparently, I do not even have the right to report what I want, even here in the presence of the admins he thinks he can do what he wants.
 *  MoorNextDoor Note :
 * This was very obviously an error, as I discuss the deleted diffs in the very edit in which they are deleted. This is exactly the kind of comment MoorNextDoor tends to make to obscure the issues. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) Diff

MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

MoorNextDoor's is a war of attrition. Whatever the outcome, a block will not be sufficient to stop the behaviour—MoorNextDoor is poised to revert to his preferred version again once the block is over, and has proven himself unwilling to discuss or to abide by consensus. Here are MoorNextDoor's reverts:
 * Note 1: MoorNextDoor has already been warned for both 6RR and 7RR, and has since 8RRed. He has been carrying on this edit war with both myself and Trackteur.  MoorNextDoor has a history of aggressive tendentious editing on the page, and browsing through the talk page will demonstrate that he has no interest in building consensus (here is the latest of many attempts to get him to discuss—it just goes endlessly in circles as he refuses to answer direct questions).
 * 1RR
 * 2RR
 * 3RR
 * 4RR
 * 5RR
 * 6RR
 * 7RR
 * 8RR
 * Note 2: the other edit war listed is of a different veriety: an editor whose English skills are not up to the task, and who has avoided discussing it. If I have to be blocked for it, then somebody else had better step in to clean up Trackteur's broken English.
 * Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that three editors have broken WP:3RR: User:Curly Turkey, User:MoorNextDoor and User:Trackteur. Is the right way to close this a block for three people? Or do you think those involved could promise to stop reverting? EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee MoorNextDoor will not stop. I already have, and so has Trackteur. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's capable of deleting someone's report will not stop unless he's made to stop. For my part, you can clearly see that I only restored the deleted content that Curly Turkey never objected to when the definition suited him. MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just how obvious that was an error is explicated above---and, yes, it was obvious to you, too, MoorNextDoor. After all, I discuss the deleted links in the very edit where I deleted them. You're only demonstrating your bad faith with this comment.
 * That link and the content discussed in it are 100% unrelated to this dispute---are you hoping that people won't click through? Anyways, you appear to have committed yourself to continuing the edit war, as long as you're only restoring "deleted content", is it? Because consensus is bunk, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please take note of the fact that MoorNectDoor refuses to promise to stop, and refuses to recognize consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say to someone who's capable of deleting a signed portion of a report. MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note just how many times MoorNextDoor is willing to repeat this even after it's been debunked. Is it even credible to assume he will take part in any discussion in good faith, abide by consensus, or stop edit warring? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The trouble with the Kouachi brothers is that they are French terrorists. We wouldn't have this problem if they were terrorists from another country or French Nobel laureates (so much for WP:NPOV). One can only guess why some would like to hide this simple fact . Because of Curly's objection, some well meaning editor went ahead and butchered the section. EdJohnston: Whatever decision you make, please make sure this dispute is dealt with once and for all. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I also blocked User:Trackteur for two weeks, as he was previously blocked for EW approx. two months ago. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that all involved editors refrain from reverting anything in this article once the blocks wears out, and use the talkpages instead. If that fails to work, please go to WP:DR. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang, thank-you for your sound decision and regrettably necessary action. I am an uninvolved editor who has been reading the discussions. May I please come to you for advice and ask you one very general question: How does a reasonable editor deal with another person who has unlimited energy, who refuses to compromise, and who will stop at nothing to get their way? How could anyone? If it were me, I would have to give up; no one could possibly deal with someone who has unlimited energy, who refuses to compromise, and who will stop at nothing. I wouldn't think anything was that important, so I would give up. But that means that I would "lose" and the other person, who never gave an inch, "wins". That can't be right; I would think that reasonableness should pay off, not the opposite. Is there a simple answer? Thank-you for any thoughts that you have. Prhartcom (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:63.146.79.153 reported by User:Lesahna01 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly making disruptive edits to the "starring" parameter in the infobox of the Charmed article. The user keeps listing Alyssa Milano's name first but it was agreed at Talk:Charmed last year that the lead actresses should be listed in the order of the most episodes they appeared in – Holly Marie Combs (179 episodes), Alyssa Milano (178 episodes), Rose McGowan (112 episodes), Shannen Doherty (67 episodes). The IP editor has reverted in the article 15 times, with 7 being this month. A few other users have helped revert the IP's unexplained edits but it won't stop. I have also explained to the IP editor in edit summaries and on its talk page but the user won't listen. The IP editor was recently warned on its talk page by another user but it is still making reverts. I reported this at WP:ANI and they told me to come here if the behaviour continues. Lesahna01 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that IP63 continued to edit war after I gave them a. Stickee (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wstlngtime reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644367585 by Neljack (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 644556313 by NeilN (talk) BIAS EDITING"
 * 3)  "BIAS EDITING AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED"
 * 4)  "Other sources are listed Undid revision 644560253 by 62.153.225.50 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 and User:Mehmeett21 reported by User:3family6 (Result: )
Page:, , , , ,

User being reported:, ,

Previous version reverted to: ; ; ; ; ;

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Note: Warning was not by me, and was given over a month ago, but for the same page and for the same type of behavior.

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

Comments: I'm sorry if I've filled out any of this incorrectly, or even filed this in the wrong place. It turned out to be a bigger issue than I thought, when I went through this user's contributions. There already is a sockpuppet investigation filed (again) for this user as well. I've included the IP address that's been active on the Turkic dynasties page, as their activity and comments seem to indicate that it was Uniquark9 while logged out. Last, on the Genghis Khan page, where I encountered a problem with this user, I ended up going past 3RR myself, and am willing to be subject to a temporary page or topic ban if that is deemed necessary.

Update: I'm adding User:Mehmeett21 to this, since they have been warned by another user against edit warring on the Turkic dynasties page but have continued to do so in response to Uniquark9.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is was user 3family6 who reverted more than 4 times after my edit. Don't accuse people without any proof for socketing. My ip is different than what he is saying as you can see my logs. Uniquark9 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

you removing even when I have references, it is only you who think the Golden Horde are not Turkic and changing without signing inTurkic_ Warrior 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talk • contribs)
 * . This is complicated as the filer has also been edit-warring. However, see Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DPH1110 reported by User:Bbfan23 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

ADDED
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has failed to reach an explanation as to why their version was better than the original. When asked, they only respond with inappropriate name calling as shown on my talk page. The original was done for the first 2 weeks without any issue, until they started editing. I keep try to get this resolved on the talk page, but they won't attempt to, instead, they just revert, and re-do their edits. Bbfan23 (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I only see two obvious reverts by DPH1110 on 28 January. The submitted diffs are not diffs, they are only versions. (See Diff). Unless this report is clarified to show four reverts, I suggest the report be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see three that are reverts. The first one is not, but got another revert. Bbfan23 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . Both and  are warned that any futher edit warring may be met by blocks without notice. DPH1110 is further warned that the personal attacks in their edit summaries are unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I understand. Is it possible that I can switch it back to the original, or leave it as their other version? Bbfan23 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Salty Batter reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_One&oldid=642686603


 * New version


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_One&oldid=644639988


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's in the references"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 644358800 by Marteau (talk)"
 * 3)  "Continued to add content and references"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=643459128&oldid=643458647
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=643609367&oldid=643459128
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalty_Batter&diff=644362731&oldid=644355714
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=644630504&oldid=644598745


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:The Wild One
 * 2) Talk:The_Wild_One
 * 3)  Talk:The Wild One
 * 4)  Talk:The Wild One


 * Comments:
 * Not sure how to make diffs of the talk page threads. There's four threads all about the same thing which were not edited consecutively. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think what is necessary to do here is look at manner in which the topic is developing and the quality of the references that are being added. To look at the actual topic


 * At first blush, Dennis makes an apparently justifiable complaint, and is obviously skilled in doing so, however his actions betray that this issue have become somewhat personal for him, and petty. For example, also attempting to have the first page I started deleted rather than help develop it.


 * What is this all about? Why is he holding back the development of the page? Why are they persistently deleting my contributions? It appears to be some kind of agenda relating to the labelling of motorcycle clubs as "gangs" that he and Brianhe share. Yes, I continued developing after Marteau reverted it as their rational was unreasonable. They claimed "mob of youths" (accurate quote from a references) was some kind of unique "Varietyspeak" (after the magazine), slang not suitable for here.


 * It clearly is not.


 * It's just part of a personal vendetta for Dennis now. They are acting as a little tag team together and are refusing to discuss and take on board the issue regarding changing definitions of such words as "gang" and "outlaw" relating to motorcyclists, and the need for accuracy instead of POV grinding calling all bike club a gang by default. That is all it is really about.


 * In case they revert it again, this is where I have developed it to, please judge for yourself based on content. --Salty Batter (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * . For cross reference, see Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:XXxfapxXx reported by User:Snowager (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:VAND as a vandalism-only account. No further action is needed.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – Indef by User:Bongwarrior for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:166.137.12.28 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644588152 by Natg 19 (talk) new article/info since"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 644593592 by Natg 19 (talk) does not meet section G4"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 644593912 by Natg 19 (talk) This is newly created article containing different information with different sources, and was not prev deleted. Please use talk page or nominate for 2nd rd"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 644644087 by Loriendrew (talk) This information was not previously deleted. Please use talk page per WP:BRD or nominate or"
 * 5)  "Remove - this is not a "repost""
 * 6)  "Undid revision 644648689 by Stickee (talk) per WP:BRD please nominate or use talk"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 644649009 by Stickee (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ASAP Yams."
 * 2)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ASAP Yams."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Previous AfD


 * Comments:

Also reverted as. Stickee (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 6 months. This is the ceiling fan vandal, who is banned from Wikipedia . I'm also semiprotecting ASAP Yams. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. may also need blocking. Stickee (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bryce Carmony reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Comments:

Troll-like edit warrior who is introducing errors and inaccuracies to make a point. See the sequence of edits starting with my reversion here - note the edit summaries. Plenty of examples in other articles.

Warned several times over previous disruptive edits. Taken to ANI (ineffectually, my fault) here. Recent attempt to report at AIV rejected on the grounds that it's "hardly vandalism at all)"(??) andy (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm Just trying to improve wikipedia. If I delete the word "originally" and you insist on having it, me making it apply to both the writer and illistrator equally isn't "trolling" it's me trying to meet you half way. if you're going to be long winded. we can at least be accurate. sorry if you took it personally. just helping out. I noticed in your evidence you failed to find a single testimony from any other editor. interesting no one but you gets upset. Bryce Carmony (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If User:Bryce Carmony's change (to remove 'originally' from 'originally written') is truly an improvement why does it need a revert war to keep it out? It would be appreciated if he would agree to look for consensus on this type of change. Will he go to Talk:Gray's Anatomy before reverting again? EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel like I have consensus, I added "originally" in front of other articles in various places of wikipedia to see how people felt about it. No one really liked it, so to me I had the answer. if people who watch "hey jude" thought "originally written" was better than "written" then I would say " alright so wikipedia that is sorta the voice we're going with currently" I'm not going to apologize for being bold. I am speaking on the voice of the consensus, Andy has a personal grudge against me, calls me an "idiot", accuses me of vandalism without baseless ( this is the 3rd time he's accused me of some sort of crime or another ) so for Andy it's very personal, he has a lot of ego in this ( for some reason) I don't. No other wikipedians have problems with me. and no one besides andy insists on putting redundant adverbs. If I go to 10 articles and put "originally" in front of something written that has since been re-written. I don't think those articles will like that. because I am speaking in the consensus.Andy can keep on accusing me of this or that, if it gets him through the day I'm happy to give his life meaning.Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm happy to make a talk discussion ( you can see in my edit history anytime I make a large change I create a talk section ) if someone disagrees with me than I'm happy to make any changes and find what's best. I'm not sitting here with an agenda or an ax to grind. I'm just here editing with the consensus of what I've both SEEN on other articles and what editors have said on other articles. Look at the page "executive summary" where I made a talk section. we talked through the issues, and we made progress and improved the article. In chess if both players make the same move 3 times it's a draw. This is not a draw, this is I make a change, andy makes a different change. I make a different change. it's not reverts and just toggling back and forth. it's an active process of improvement. clarifying the work. the "game" ( to extend my already thin chess medaphore ) is being played, it is not a draw.Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will you agree to wait for consensus about 'originally' at Talk:Grey's Anatomy before making the change again? If you do, it might allow this complaint to be closed with no action. So far you've made no use of that talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make use of the talk page no problem. should be easy to come to a consensus between the editors. :) Bryce Carmony (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't accused this editor of acting against consensus and as far as I know he has never done so. The only use of the word "consensus" has been in one facetious edit summary after an act of vandalism. Let's be clear, I'm making a very serious accusation of trolling that could lead to one of us being blocked. Specifically, I would like to see an examination of the edits I listed above and consideration of the other edits I listed previously at ANI. andy (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Please note this edit while this discussion is still underway. If that's not bad faith I don't know what is! andy (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: In the context of this discussion, this edit can only be seen as deliberate disruption to make a point, quite apart from the other issues, including edit-warring. I have blocked Bryce Carmony for 48 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* F.C. Internazionale Milano */"
 * 2)  "Right the message I am receiving here is if the club are known as Inter Milan in England, they must only be referred to Inter Milan. So Real Club Deportivo de La Coruña should be referred to as Royal Sporting Club of La Coruña because that is what they"
 * 3)  "Besides Walter, the link still takes you to the right page anyway!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 644565346 by Walter Görlitz (talk) What English term?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 644565723 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Have you anything better to do? Bayern Munich Football Club"
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xherdan_Shaqiri&curid=23598923&diff=644623818&oldid=644573212 no edit summary.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xherdan_Shaqiri&curid=23598923&diff=644623818&oldid=644573212 no edit summary.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Xherdan Shaqiri. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Reply"


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


 * Comments:

Long-time editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the first diff a revert? I'm not clear that it was a revert to a prior version; the subsequent three clearly are. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears as though this has been an ongoing attempt to use the Italian name of the club rather than the common English name. It's not clear that the first was a revert but it was a change from WP:FOOTY consensus name. The editor is now harassing me for reporting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that is making the same edits as PO so their is a possible socking situation going on as well. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anon's edits were better. They linked to what the anon felt should be the club's name but did not change COMMONNAME of club. The link did resolve to the COMMONNAME. I didn't see it as socking. Of greater concern is that PabloOsvaldo17 has indicated a desire to become an admin. See editor's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:PabloOsvaldo17 has been continuing to revert while this report is open. He wants to change all references to Inter Milan to use the club's Italian name, Internazionale. On 29 January he once again reverted the name [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xherdan_Shaqiri&diff=prev&oldid=644714565 here]. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashurbanippal reported by User:Gouncbeatduke (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Ashurbanippal has repeatedly removed the POV tags added by User:Cathar66, User:Malik Shabazz, and myself

Diffs of the user's reverts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouncbeatduke (talk • contribs) 17:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=643684169&oldid=643668428

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=643470452&oldid=643354350

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&diff=643219195&oldid=642966217

User:Ashurbanippal edits push an Anti-Arabism POV and make the Israel article a less NPOV Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks by User:Salvidrim! for abusing multiple accounts. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashurbanippal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kubrickrules reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

While the article talk page was not used attempts to explain were made here User talk:Beyond My Ken, with the posting of my warning here and at the thread here Help desk. Obviously all of these have been ignored.

Comments:


 * I am peripherally involved through the Help desk thread that the subject user started, a misuse of Help desk. Multiple attempts to explain editing process, beyond talk page templating, were ignored and EW continued. Suggest a short block. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * to other administrators. I left a message on the user's Talk page telling them that unless they stay away from Clara Bow for one week, they risk being blocked for edit-warring. However, I will not be around (bedtime) to follow up. Obviously, any administrator is free to take whatever action they deem appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Terminal WP:IDHT, but at least they have stayed out of mainspace for almost two hours. Maybe some rope is in order. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am being hassled and threatened with suspension for trying to correct the use of the outdated Imperial system on Wikipedia pages by two users by the name of NarnetteD and Mandruss. This needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubrickrules (talk • contribs) 01:38, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC)
 * I'm insulted that I wasn't mentioned, since I was the first editor to revert Kubrickrules, and to explain on my talk page why he was reverted. There's obviously no "hassling" going on, since the two mentioned editors, and others, have simply tried to explain WP:UNIT to KBR.  I've also advised him to read WP:POINT. BMK (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't be insulted, I'm sure it was just an oversight. We have also tried to explain things like WP:EW and WP:BRD, to deaf ears. For a new editor I think it's important to establish a clear understanding of those ground rules before anything like WP:UNIT. Combining them only confuses things. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it would certainly appear so from their behavior, KBR is not a newbie. He's been editing since 2007, although his edit total is only 163. BMK (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IK'm sure others have thought about this as well, but this could also be delberate trolling, perhaps a sock, or perhaps someone else is editing on the account, since I can't find any evidence of previous problems with the account, nor of a particular concern over metric vs. Imperial (which, actually, we call "United States customary units" in the U.S., having divested ourselves of Imperial rule a number of years ago). BMK (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Kubrickrules has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kubrickrules&diff=prev&oldid=644663917 warned] by Bbb23 that they risk being blocked unless they stay away from the Clara Bow article for the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker reported by User:Squinge (Result: Withdrawn by submitter)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

   
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Mutt Lunker has repeatedly reverted to various disputed versions of the article, while discussion is proceeding and before there's a consensus, erroneously claiming he has consensus and erroneously accusing me of canvassing. Please see Talk:Haggis for the discussion. Also please note that I changed the article to what I thought was the consensus, before Mutt Lunker reversed on that consensus and starting acting in a condescending manner towards me. Squinge (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also see User talk:Mutt Lunker for further discussion. Squinge (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A fuss about very little. Just needs a bit of further discussion and cooler heads without anyone jumping the gun. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I've been trying that for days and all he does is revert and insult - he's reverted four times now and is getting increasingly aggressive. All I want is for him to stop being so condescending and stop reverting while the discussion is continuing. Squinge (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To note, my last edit was a reversion to Squinge him/herself's last and professed then and current favourite version of the article. The previous edit was after a day or so's worth of meticulous and careful explanations on the talk page about disagreements with Squinge's position, which they largely did not actively dispute, appearing to not have taken them on board or to be actively ignoring them, then simply re-expressing their view without even addressing the point I had repeated. After a day or so of attempting to get Squinge to address the same points, with all other contributors at least critical of Squinge's preferred article version, and Squinge the only expressed exponent of their preferred version, I decided to draw the issue to a close. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we arrived at what I thought was a compromise on Swede, but then you launched into a condescending attack on me at the talk page telling me how wrong I was after I thought I'd agreed with you! What you need to now do is *stop* all reverting, for or away from any version, until there is a consensus, and step back from your increasingly aggressive stance and start assuming a bit of good faith. Escape Orbit's comments clearly mean there is not a consensus yet, and their change was to the version before the dispute - and that is correct according to WP:BRD. Squinge (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the version before the disputed change was first made, as per WP:BRD, and I would ask all participants in the discussion not to change anything further until a consensus has been achieved. I'm off for the rest of the evening and will be happy to read all further thoughts and to contribute further some time tomorrow, and if Mutt Lunker is prepared to stop reverting and wait, I think there will hopefully be no need to take this further. Squinge (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * After further discussion, I'm happy to withdraw this report. I'm not sure if it needs an admin to close it, but I've marked it as "Withdraw - No action needed" and I hope that's OK. Squinge (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: various


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Rapid-fire revert-warring against several users over poorly-sourced population figures. Was blocked only recently for apparently similar bout of revert-warring over Vienna. Responses on talk seem to indicate serious WP:COMPETENCE issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Editor was blocked 48 hours in early January due to a similar issue. People have made efforts to discuss with him but it doesn't do any good. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Phieuxghazzieh reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644474646 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) now you're blatantly lying to drive your agenda. rv per sources once again"
 * 2)  "wwe.com gives one main event for each, with the exception of wm8. rv per sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 644464241 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) lets just make up our own main events, shall we?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Main events */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Main events */"
 * 3)   "/* Correct main events */"


 * Comments:

The user was warned not to revert the edits for a third time. Despite failing to heed the warning, the user was then given two further opportunities to revert the edits and avoid being reported. The user then attempted character assassination rather than revert the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * RealDealBillMcNeal (the user who made the complaint about me) repeatedly introduced uncited WP:OR into the article. He has been blocked from the community four times, is on a final warning, routinely uses profane and aggressive edit summaries, and has been characterised by an administrator as someone with a "history of vandalism" who is "engaged in a long campaign to lightly troll everyone, just enough to have fun, but not so much that he gets blocked". This would be his latest trollfest. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in essence, the defence is "wah wah wah he started it". Bold move. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * More like, 'he violated WP:OR three times, then pointed to someone else as the problem'. Your glaring inability to admit to your wrongdoings, especially after all the blocks and warnings, is staggering. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Big fan of you continuously ignoring the fact that my findings are coming from WWE's own advertising and merchandise, ergo WP:OR is completely and utterly irrelevant. The deflective tactics are neverending. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well done. Rather than provide anything resembling citations, you Googled posters saved on random sites (high chance some of the findings were fan-made) and expect us to accept the main events you came up with. On top of that, you blatantly ignored the pre-existing cites and just added your own main events. WP:OR and WP:VNT patently failed. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Big fan of you blatantly not even checking those sources. Your protestations are wholly inaccurate, and therefore worthless. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't provide any "sources". All we got was your word, based on the WP:OR you'd done. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A tragic failure to utilise common sense by you here. If you're going to bang on about sources yet again, there are no sources for the last 17 WrestleMania's and yet you have neither removed that information or corrected it. Your failure to understand the policy you are citing is disgusting, and the pertinent part is mentioned in the second paragraph of the policy - "The prohibition against OR (original research) means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed". WWE television, advertising posters and DVD covers are all official published sources for how their own company's scripted matches were promoted, and therefore an in-line citations isn't necessary, particularly for such a minor piece of information. (By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source) RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMON is exactly what I'm using. The final match for the last 17 WrestleManias is listed, and that's the main event unless said otherwise. The last contest on a wrestling, fighting or boxing card is, you know, the main event.
 * Given wrestling fans' penchant for creating their own promotional materials, Googling and using random sites as "sources" is extremely questionable. Phieuxghazzieh (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Goalposts being moved yet again is it? You are aware that PPV's can have multiple main events, right? I mean, Fully Loaded back in the year 2000 was promoted as having three mainevents. Since then, obviously it has become the norm, particularly for WrestleMania, and is no longer such a rarity. WWE's weekly programming, official promotional material and DVD covers aren't fan made, therefore they're the actual source. You seem painfully unaware about literally every aspect you're arguing. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Jidhin George reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added content"


 * Comments:

Continuing to put back the same unsourced content even after having been recently blocked for his actions on the same article. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Keijhae reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/*  Italy */Reverted edit by a troll"
 * 2)  "/*  Israel */Reverted edits by Murry1975 (talk): THE REFFERENCES ARE RELIABLE SOURCES, AND IT'S A FACT. DO SOME RESEARCH.WP:BRD. (TW)"
 * 3)  "/*  Japan */Fixed ref"
 * 4)  "Added Japan"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of military special forces units. (TW)"


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


 * 1)
 * Comments:

Editor has added poorly sourced inforamtion and been reverted, not responded to talkpage and has been slighty uncivil in this es. Murry1975 (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Editor has not respond directly to tp, he has tried to address the sources but on a quick view today has not added RSs (blog added in one case). Admin yesterday request they stop until consensus is reached, they have not. Also a note on the page, , was placed there for this very reason. I will not be around until some stage tomorrow evening GMT for further comment. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

walter gorlitz (Result: Incomplete report)
I am the chief editor on Kit Carson. It has been sent to GA noms. Wlater gorlitz is making inappropriate, irrelevant changes and reverts to the article. Please help! This behavior seems his operating procedure from a glance at his archives. SeeSpot Run (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * A) There is no such thing as a chief editor on any article. B) This is not the way to file a 3rr report. C) This will be blanked soon if not before I am done typing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that. Please see WP:OWN.
 * The consensus on the talk page (a discussion between at least three editors, including SeeSpot Run) is that the removal of a specific infobox is not appropriate for the article, but SeeSpot Run's attitude is that he's the primary editor and he knows what's best for the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Carson had a "multi-faceted" career. He was not simply a "military man". The infobox needs to reflect this rather than focusing on his lackluster, tired 8-year military career. WP is not under an obligation to the "military fans". SeeSpot Run (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. This report is incomplete. See instructions at the top of this board for making a proper report of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:70.190.111.213 reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked)
At first I noticed his non-stop revert warring in Portal:Current events pages I happened to edit. But boy! This guy went berserk! Give him some time to cool off. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * 08:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+601)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644862882 by 86.188.249.71 (talk)dude we have a source specifically saying he is dead you have a neboulous source saying an age which might be in error)
 * 08:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644862926 by 86.188.249.71 (talk))
 * 07:40, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+644)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644855581 by Brook8987 (talk)dude you dont have a citation to support and you dont know the 55 age is the error)
 * 07:40, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644856571 by Kobechrome (talk))
 * 07:01, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+619)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644852141 by Udar55 (talk)dude many sources say it was actor terry and you dont know that the age of 55 is not the error here) (Tag: removal of Category:Living People)
 * 05:38, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-126)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644819901 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
 * 05:38, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820016 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
 * 05:37, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820053 by 108.85.151.130 (talk))
 * 05:37, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820197 by DivineAlpha (talk))
 * 05:36, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+481)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820643 by 76.180.38.195 (talk))
 * 05:35, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644820913 by 76.180.38.195 (talk))
 * 05:35, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+175)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644821365 by 169.232.239.35 (talk))
 * 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644821447 by 108.89.111.45 (talk))
 * 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822101 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
 * 05:34, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822549 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
 * 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822625 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
 * 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644822770 by 107.5.3.97 (talk))
 * 05:33, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-36)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644824521 by 173.58.85.148 (talk)) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)
 * 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644824560 by 173.58.85.148 (talk))
 * 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-267)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644827269 by Image2012 (talk))
 * 05:32, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644828831 by Bgwhite (talk))
 * 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+154)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644828963 by Canuckian89 (talk))
 * 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+131)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829516 by 76.219.189.199 (talk))
 * 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829542 by 76.219.189.199 (talk))
 * 05:31, 30 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . Terry Carter ‎ (Undid revision 644829949 by John of Reading (talk))
 * . The Carter article was also semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:58.106.54.113 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original layout

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First he adds it...
 * 2) Then he removes it.
 * 3) Adds it again.
 * 4) Clearly is something he adds on his own will to disrupt the article.
 * 5) As seen on the page's edit history, there's plenty of edits of the same pattern. The IP adds this non-existent event, removes it and does it again. Other IPs did it as well, there's also some people that take advantage of it to add vandalism.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:58.106.54.113 I've sent a warning to this specific IP.

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

Comments:

The article works fine with the registered editors that update it's content. Due to constant vandalism - and should I say edit warring as IPs keep doing it - I believe the best thing for the article would be to give it protection. Maybe a month. It might be enough time to get this ones away as we didn't have problems like this before. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Add on: User keeps edit warring and has also gone all the way to personal offense (here and here) I maintain my suggestion of protection of the page as there's chance it will happen with a different IP address, as well as blocking this one. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Amblerdrive reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644877938 by Capitalismojo (talk) -- This charge is not unverified.  The source is identified in the edit and in the Talk section on Use of "Alleged""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 644881404 by Amblerdrive (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 644737665 by Gaijin42 (talk) -- See talk page for "Marquette""
 * 4)  "Undid revision 644660197 by Capitalismojo (talk)  Blog link to transcript replaced to link to reputable news source."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 644659889 by Capitalismojo (talk)  -- Not undue. This was the Marquette student newspaper offering valuable early insight.."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 644624123 by Gaijin42 (talk) -- Edits remove factually supported and documented elements of Walker's college and political careers.  Appears to be politically motivated."
 * 7)  ""Alma mater" implies a school from which one has graduated.  Walker did not graduate from college."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 644624123 by Gaijin42 (talk) -- Edits remove factually supported and documented elements of Walker's college and political careers.  Appears to be politically motivated."
 * 2)  ""Alma mater" implies a school from which one has graduated.  Walker did not graduate from college."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Marquette Scandal */ WP:V Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others per contributors"
 * 2)   "/* Marquette Scandal */ r"


 * Comments:
 * Result: Warned. If User:Amblerdrive continues to revert at Scott Walker he is risking a block. The safest approach is to wait for a talk page consensus. At first glance it appears that Amblerdrive wants to make this article more negative about the subject. So when he reverts and includes in his edit summary "Appears to be politically motivated" it looks ironic. I don't see a clear 3RR here, otherwise a block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Nograviti reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Semi, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 23:04, 29 January 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 14:28, 30 January 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 14:30, 30 January 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 19:20, 30 January 2015
 * 5) Revision as of 19:21, 30 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: IP-hopping user edit warring over misleading material. Apparently switched to using a single purpose account when he/she reached three reverts. Middayexpress (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Only logged in today and requested the user attain consensus before making edits to the British Nigerian page. The user wishes to use a report from one London borough (Please be aware there are 32 in London alone and the report is not a national level report) citing general statistics on Africans to replace specific data of the academic attainment of British Nigerian children.


 * I reverted Midday's edits as I assumed they were in good faith, instead of engaging in discussion, the used has been dishonest about IP hopping and immediately raised a 3RR request.


 * All I would request is that this warring request is ignored and Midday's changes be reverted until he achieves consensus. Additionally the reports he has cited can be defined as WP:OR as he attempting to use a local report for one region in London against data collected specifically on that ethnic group at a national level.Nograviti (talk)


 * . Even assuming both IPs are the named account, there are only three reverts. You are counting consecutive edits as separate reverts. BTW, you also have three reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood Bbb23, but there's apparently more to this. Please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Nograviti: Nigerians are aggregated within the official African total indicated by the Camden Education Commission, while the 78% figure that you have been trying to force through is a WP:REDFLAG figure only found in that one editorial. This is irrelant anyway, as this venue isn't for continuing disputes (see note at the top). The fact that you apparently haven't logged in since this summer, never edited the British Nigerian page with this account prior to today, wrote virtually identical messages as the ip hopper, and showed up just when the ip hopper had reached three reverts, also strongly suggests that you are indeed the ip hopper (who, btw, already admitted to ip hopping ). Ironically, I wouldn't have even bothered with all this had you simply stuck with one ip and actually engaged my various attempts at discussion on your talk page instead of ignoring them. By the way, it's remarkable that your very first edit on Wikipedia just so happened to be to this very board, and on the same British Nigerian page you never even ostensibly edited prior to today. Middayexpress (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion is not fact. Please revert your changes as your sources are WP:OR and in the meantime we can go into a dispute resolution process about the data. I am a British professor and I take a keen interest in minority achievement (Nigerians being a wonderful black success story)  and look at the page periodically to see what new information has been provided and saw your recent edit warring and decided to intervene.


 * I don't take kindly to a man who is obviously of Somali extraction removing information for what are probably personal reasons then trying to pass of flimsy material as a more worthy replacement. .Nograviti (talk)


 * I already explained why I removed that editorial's WP:REDFLAG figure, and it has nothing to do with the odd conjecture above. Unfortunately, I also don't volunteer personal info, nor do I take personal claims at face value. They must first at the very least make sense. At any rate, I've replied on the talk page (a discussion which I also started); please direct any future responses there. Middayexpress (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected one month, and user warned for ethnic remarks. If User:Nograviti is IP-hopping in addition to using his registered account, it violates WP:SOCK. Nograviti is warned not to attack other users per what he assumes to be their ethnicity. You are expected to get consensus for any controversial changes. See also the comments of User:Bbb23 above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Prhartcom reported by User:MoorNextDoor (Result: No action at this time)
Page: Multiple pages

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff
 * 2) Diff
 * 3) Diff
 * 4) Diff
 * 5) Diff
 * 6) Diff
 * 7) Diff
 * 8) Diff
 * 9) Diff
 * 10) Diff
 * 11) Diff
 * 12) Diff
 * 13) Diff
 * 14) Diff
 * 15) Diff
 * 16) Diff
 * 17) Diff
 * 18) Diff 18:33, 30 January 2015
 * 19) Diff 18:49, 30 January 2015
 * 20) Diff 22:18, 30 January 2015
 * 21) Diff 22:21, 30 January 2015

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1) Diff
 * 2) Diff

Unsigned diff added to the list by Prhartcom at 20:07, 30 January 2015. MoorNextDoor (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Diff

Comments:

Prhartcom has repeatedly reverted to various disputed versions of the articles, while discussion is taking place. In the edit summary, he also made it clear to JOJ (see edit summary) that he intends to abuse the editing power that WP:AWB gives him. MoorNextDoor (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . This report has a history to it (see this discussion at 's Talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . This report is about edit warring and WP:AWB abuse, it is completely unrelated to the other one. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you'll have to do a better job demonstrating your case because after looking at a few of your many diffs, it seems to be a small battle across many pages between Prhartcom and . Nor am I sure why you are reporting this.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What you call a small battle is nothing less than edit warring and WP:AWB abuse. You mean we need a good reason to report such behaviour ? MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All I see is one change by Prhartcom, a revert by Jojhutton, and a revert back by Prhartcom. Where's the edit warring? Nor do I see any "AWB abuse". The ones I looked at didn't even involve AWB. OTOH, I do see that based on your previous interaction with the reported user, you may have an ulterior motive for reporting this. That's all I have to say on this matter. I do not intend to take any action. If another admin feels differently, that's fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that there is one change by Prhartcom, a revert by Jojhutton, and a revert back by Prhartcom in all listed pages. Furthermore, you'll also notice how Prhartcom made it quite clear (in the edit summary) that he intends to abuse the editing power that WP:AWB gives him. As for the ulterior motive, I have noticed his bullish behaviour and the way he plays the system, it's that simple (but if you want to bring his canvassing issue into this, then by all means do). Some editors have been around for so long, they feel that the rules don't apply to them any more, I can't help but feel that a small reminder wouldn't do them any harm.
 * Maybe I misunderstood the rules, but I thought that the part that stipulates that "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached" meant that such behaviour could and should be reported by anyone. MoorNextDoor (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That user was clearly Taunting me, but I didn't take the bait. Yet this is clearly disruptive behavior when a user is willing to abuse the tools in order to push an edit war. I may just go to ANI.-- JOJ Hutton  21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action at this time. This report is wide ranging and could use a better focus. If the dispute is about the title of the Tintin movie, then User:Prhartcom's effort to open a move discussion at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)/Archives/2021/December may solve the problem. See also the above comment by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the wise administrators of this board including EdJohnston and Bbb23. As EdJohnston wondered aloud what the dispute is about, it's about the WP:WIKIHOUNDING of me by recently blocked user MoorNextDoor, whose statistics show he prefers typing on Talk pages over improvements to Wikipedia articles, because of his resentment to consolation and advice I once gave to another editor whom they have also have an unhealthy grudge against. I fully expect to see some sort of retort by MoorNextDoor below, but as for myself, I have long since returned to productivity and suggest this editor do the same. Cheers all. Prhartcom (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider yourself lucky this time, you're getting away with 3RR in one page and many others across different pages, your name will be remembered the next time someone complaints about your behaviour. In the meantime, fire up WP:AWB and go back to doing what you do best "gaming the system". I didn't want to bring up the other subject or say what I think of someone who manipulates others and engages in blatant canvassing, but since you insist, I have no other choice but to let the others judge for themselves what your so called advice consisted of and most importantly, why you gave it. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about 3RR. Prhartcom and Jojhutton both reverted three times on that page. I'm closing this. Any comments by anyone other than an administrator will be reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingchamar reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: text added by Kingchamar first edit 31 December 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 31 December 2014 2nd edit
 * 2) 11 January 2015
 * 3) 17 January 2015
 * 4) 24 January 2015
 * 5) 28 January 2015
 * 6) 29 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slow burn edit-warring that is starting to speed up. SPA repeatedly adds the same text to an Indian caste article over the last month despite being reverted by 4 different users. The text is unsourced or poorly sourced. SPA does not engage except to make statements on his talk page to say that he knows the information is true because he is a Chamar and he got it from his family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeCausa (talk • contribs)
 * He is still edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert no. 7. Could an admin please take a look at this. DeCausa (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:77.49.169.33 reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

And on what is presumably his previous talk page:

Comments:

IP editor, who's probably the same editor as before, insists on classifying this party as 'centre to centre-left' despite consensus to the contrary. Not a 3RR breach. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus. The party belongs to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats which is by definition centre-left. There are also many sources citing the party as centre-left. The party is centrist to centre-left. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is consensus -- which might've changed if you'd been willing to argue the merits of the classification. If you revert yourself and post on the article's talk page, I'll withdraw my report. Alakzi (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus by me. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus isnt the agreement of everyone its the agreed on opinion after discussion.See WP:CONSENSUS Amortias (T)(C) 23:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus among two or three users? So what? There are VERY strong arguments against that "consensus". And there are many sources supporting these arguments. 77.49.169.33 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not 'two or three'; it's exactly three. There are VERY strong arguments against that "consensus". Which you're very welcome to expand on at the article's talk page. If they're indeed 'very strong', it shouldn't prove too difficult to persuade us. The fact here is that you've been edit warring against consensus. Alakzi (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Using a fluctuating IP to engage in a revert war violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * he now continues to edit war using his account:, , . Alakzi (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reported again below. Alakzi (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Liberal36 reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user logs in to continue edit warring after the article was semi'd (see above). Alakzi (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * . I've also left a message on 's Talk page about their violation of 3RR. I'm waiting to hear from them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User:200.83.136.145 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked by Kww)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP keeps removing brief quotes from lead of the article. He oddly claims that the use of the quotes is a copyright violation. Even in the discussion on my Talk page he on the one hand says it's impermissible and on the other hand seems to say that quotes are okay.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not odd at all. They are not quotes.  They are non-free text being used in place of free text, masquerading as quotes, and thus in contravention of core policy.  Quote are OK, non-free text instead of a free alternative is not OK.  Not hard to understand, surely.  I have explained this carefully; you reverted without giving a reason, which appeared to be purely disruptive.  200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll make one last effort at this and then leave it to others. If you're saying the language is "non-free text", that must mean it was copied from a copyrighted source. How can such text marked clearly with quotation marks be "masquerading as quotes"? What is the difference between these quotes and other quotes in articles that are, according to you, "OK"?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So let's start Winston Churchill as follows:
 * "Sir Winston Churchill, in full Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill (born Nov. 30, 1874, Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire, Eng.—died Jan. 24, 1965, London), British statesman, orator, and author who as prime minister (1940–45, 1951–55) rallied the British people during World War II and led his country from the brink of defeat to victory."
 * It's in quotes so it's OK, even if it's copied from Britannica. Right?  200.83.136.145 (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 200.81.136.145 aka Best known for IP, how you could forgot about the 0 revert restriction that was imposed on you?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (e/c) This IP is supposed to be editing under a 0RR restriction, which was a condition of his unblocking . An admin unblocked him with that specific condition, which he agreed to . Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's who this is. That explains a lot. ?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHERE seems to apply. Looking at all of this IPs edits from the second one on, the user pretty much does nothing but revert the edits of others, leave negative and cutting edit summaries with personal attack-like comments, and edit war.  Certainly doesn't look like a new user, likely evading a block or sanction. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I have highlighted in my previous comment, you can check Best known for IP.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey Bbb--thanks for the ping. Yes, this is the editor that some other editors have given a nickname and an LTV page. They weren't supposed to be reverting; has the paperwork, somewhere. Eh...what shall I comment on?, don't shoot from the hip; this editor is certainly HERE, though they're here with an attitude, certainly. Their positive edits far outweigh the negative ones, and you of all people should be able to understand how they feel. That doesn't make them automatically right, of course. We're not here for content, I suppose, since this is the EW board; I do not agree with the restrictive, too-principled stand of the IP editor, but everyone knows (esp. ) that I'm no expert. Anyway, if the editor broke the deal, then I suppose they're blockable. I won't be the one to do it, since I'm also babysitting this morning, plus, I don't feel like blocking anyone right now. (And I haven't looked at the diffs--but if Bbb says "it's edit warring", then I trust it was.) Can you hold on/off/out until Yngvadottir has seen this? I appreciate that. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't feel like blocking anyone? Are you ill? I can't speak for other admins, but I can certainly wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Point(s) taken, Drmies. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to wait: the editor was unblocked on a 0RR restriction and has clearly violated it. That he could not be trusted to follow any restriction was obvious at the time that the arrangement was made. It was also unfortunately clear at the time that the administrators that were entering into the agreement were unenthusiastic about actually enforcing it. I've reinstated the block on the IP, and suggest that, as a project, we recognize that whatever we might think about the motives behind unblocking the IP in the first place, it's an experiment that failed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I agree with your first sentence. What follows is unnecessary. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just got home from work ... and I'm afraid he/she is indeed in violation of the agreement. has shown at least 3 reverts above (I'm not sure about the first diff), and zero reverts was indeed the condition for unblocking him/her, as cited by . I see the editor's point, but he/she had options other than reverting. Damn. I was just wondering where this person had got to. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article, which is undoing another editor or editors' work. But I'm more interested in your comment that you see the IP's point. I'd sincerely like to be illuminated on that.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * the first edit counts as a revert because it's removing text from the article ... So the IP would be in breach of 0RR for removing any piece of text? Alakzi (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the circumstances. 0RR is a difficult restriction, and in this instance, had I known/remembered about this IP's restriction, I would not have blocked them for the first edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Bbb23's belief that every removal of text is a reversion isn't widely embraced. Most reject it on the basis that, while it's hard to disprove with pure logic, it's an example of pure logic leading to an absurd result.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Far be it from me to state that I disagree with Bbb. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it leads to an "absurd result", but this has been rehashed too many times for me to explain in detail why.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (ping didn't work) As I understand it, the IP's point is that we are to minimize our use of quotations, since for works that are not copyright-free they are in effect a form of fair use. In this instance the passage can be reworded with little or no quotation, so it should be. This is distinct from the requirement to clearly indicate the source, which obtains for both paraphrase and quotation. (Copyright experts, how did I do?) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. First, the IP didn't just say this would be better reworded. He claimed keeping it was a copyright violation, which is simply not true. Second, this quote and many other quotes would go out the window if one followed the IP's logic. Third, sometimes it's more eloquent to quote the source than it is to reword it. Did this ping work? If the first one didn't, you should report it at here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That one worked :-) Again, I'm a doctor not a copyright lawyer, but I believe that would be the fair use requirement that if we don't have to quote, we don't (which was the intended force of my "should"). The major limiting factor is whether an editor can think of a way to paraphrase or summarize with minimal quotation; that editor is extremely good at rewording, and so can undoubtedly see options where many others don't (I'm not sure he/she fully realizes that others likely just didn't see how to reword it). In this instance, an added factor is that it's in the lede: unless a quote is iconic, I can't see much justification for quotes in the lede. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair use is a mushy concept in the law and there's a lot of discretion by courts as to when something qualifies and when it doesn't. Nor are the decisions necessarily consistent. However, if it's fair use, it's not infringement. So, there's no "fair use requirement" per se. Additionally, copyight violations are predicated on substantial similarity, not necessarily verbatim copying, so you can reword it and still infringe. In this instance, I have trouble imagining a court finding that the quotes infringed. I do take your point about the lead, though. As for the rewording itself, the IP might have been able to accomplish their objective if they had approached the whole thing in a more cooperative fashion. Apparently, that's not one of their skills.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Joe.vike1987 reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Made the owner up to date"


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


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

Materialscientist (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Nikolaserbboy1995 reported by User:Luxure (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

continued after being warned after FPaS  Lux ure Σ  08:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Already blocked. Why are you reporting someone who has been blocked since 30 January? EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user aergas, who was just banned for edit warring, has returned yet again to engage in another edit war. This is part of a long-lasting edit war in which he was banned before. However, immediately following his ban-lift he has returned to engage in an edit war, yet again. This dispute in question is for a long-settled matter from a DRN . The conclusion was to specifically allow the line of '7/8ths european descent' in question, yet he has decided to engage in an edit war to remove it as part of his continuous edit warring. Alon12 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The filing party is forum shopping, having also filed at WP:NORN. The filing party states that the conclusion at WP:DRN was to allow the line of "7/8 European descent".  That is the old Spanish definition.  The dispute resolution was inconclusive because, as volunteer mediator, I was unable to get the parties to make specific suggestions for improvement of the article.  The reported editor has not violated 3RR since coming off block.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue I filed at WP:NORN is a separate issue, regarding a separate line in the article, which has nothing to do with what I posted here. With regards to the Spanish definition, the other party originally agreed to include it, and only decided to remove it recently. You can see his history of edit warring. So, if I add it back, since he removed it, the next thing that will happen, is that he will remove it again, and we will be back here again, so what changes? Talk page discussion has been completely unproductive with this member. But, what basis would there be to remove sourced data if I were to add it back? The line was originally proposed to be in the lede. The other user, aergas, has proven to lack credibility on many fronts, and has even been suggested of not meeting WP:CIR requirements as Robert even suggested of him. Alon12 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As the editor Robert McClenon stated above, Alon12 is forum shopping, he was blocked for two weeks for doing exactly this thing, he even managed to drag me on that chaos despite that I'm the only party that has been inclusive of other people's suggestion here and has been opened to discuss the issues, Alon12 comes and opens a case here and in another noticeboard after he was directly told to drop this issue . Another thing to note here is that Alon12 seems to be a single purpose account, thing that was pointed by an administrator before . Additionaly, despite being created only one month ago he has edit and argumentative skills that require years to develop, aswell as a specialized handling of sources and a full knowledge of Wikipedia's noticeboards (his eight edit ever was a DNR case  and his fourtenth edit was a request for page protection ). In his time on Wikipedia he has only edited one article, 12 times, 9 of which were reverts. Aergas (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit war in particular is for another on-going dispute which started earlier as you can see in the diffs, and is unrelated to the last 3rr ban, which was reported on other content between aergas edit warring against a third party user. Aergas seems to just like starting edit warring for his own entertainment, as that edit for the line in question, wasn't disputed by him in all the discussions since the DRN, and he did not even remove it in intermediate edit wars, he has only started to remove that sourced data now. My separate discussion with Robert, was for the lack of credibility of Aergas over his WP:CIR violations, as documented here:, Robert was talking about another issue over aergas' credibility, which even he has claimed to be questionable. Alon12 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The WP:DRN thread did not result in consensus. It isn't possible edit against a non-existent consensus.  It didn't result in consensus because the editors didn't propose specific changes in wording to improve the article.  They mostly complained about each other.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only one of the diffs listed in this report is recent. The rest are very stale.  I suggest that this thread be closed as stale, but that both parties be warned about battlegrounds and bad blood.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

American Horror Story: Freak Show
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Katana (comics):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

The user was warned on his usertalk page by Gloss less than 24 hours ago that edit-warring can lead to a block even if the bright-line rule of three reverts isn't crossed. LLArrow almost immediately removed the warning. Recently, this user has come right up to the 3RR line on several articles, including Katana (comics) and American Horror Story: Freak Show (see Diffs above). As well, the user is a bit aggressive when his edits are questioned, characterizing opposing edits as "vandalism" and "reckless".

I am not sure a block is appropriate here, but LLArrow is clearly either unaware how his aggressiveness is being perceived, or simply doesn't care. He's fairly new and doesn't have a lot of edits under his/her belt. I think they mean well, despite the occasional ass-hattery, and might be best served by some advice from an uninvolved party. The user's behavior is pretty disruptive to the idea of collaborative editing, and I am certainly not the only person who has noticed this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (LLArrow quickly removed the warning from Gloss).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: American Horror Story: Freak Show (wherein Callanecc warned that subsequent edit-warring would result in blocks instead of page prot).
 * Katana (Comics)

Comments:

Like I said, I think counseling is going to be of more use than a block. The user needs to understand that (s)he isn't helping collaborative editing with his behavior or reverts. I've just met the user, and they've used up my AGF with their toolish behavior. LLArrow needs someone to help them be more civil and less OWN-y. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:LLArrow notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * His history of edit warring is pretty extensive, given his short time on Wikipedia. Also on American Horror Story: Freak Show:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * - as you see, LLArrow has a VERY hard time accepting when his way is reverted. And although he'll often write on the talk page, he'll continue reverting the edits that go against his version in the mean time, very often against multiple editors with an opposite opinion from his.  G loss  04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Administrator(s), I realize some of my actions do not reflect that of a competent contributor to Wikipedia, and though I do have worthy explanations for each of them, I will not waist your time. For what it's worth, I tremendously enjoy being an editor on this encyclopedia, and will strive to perfect my means and interactions with other peers. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. User:LLArrow has not reverted again on any of the listed articles since 05:00 on 1 February. Also he has made a conciliatory statement above. Let's hope this means he'll wait for consensus on these articles. But if any of these wars resumes, an admin might consider a block without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Anticomintern reported by User:STSC (Result: )
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Anticomintern (a SPA) has violated the 3RR to insert mostly non-neutral contents not from the sources into the article. STSC (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mistery Spectre reported by User:Lvivske (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1. full rollback changes at part of her criticism
 * 2. Tribune and the substitution of the event, again a complete rollback without discussion
 * 3. minor mischief in the presence of a section on the topic

Member with ill-concealed conflict of interest, deletes the view of one of the parties, at the same time placing the other charges as established fact. My attempts to explain the principles of neutrality party were ignored for general remarks and accusations.

The problem is that the participant perceives the article as a kind of place "fight for justice", where you can edit in any way to remove if it is in his version of a lie, or make as a fact, if it believes it Mistery Spectre (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I was restoring content you were blanking (re: disruptive editing on your part). Also, my edits are like...3 in 4 days? Hardly worth an edit warring report. Calling out "ill concealed conflict of interest" is pure bad faith on your part. --LeVivsky ( ಠ_ಠ ) 16:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you correctly, by some rules I am not allowed for any reason to remove your text, while you can without any arguments to delete my? Even if it is only the opinion of one of the parties and have already indicated within the text? Original. And now you suddenly disappeared, but there was a friend of yours, well, just open that provokes me to kickbacks, yes. Judging by the lack of arguments in fact, as I understand it, you have nothing to say? P.S Something I did not see in my text, charged with violating the rules of the three edit cancellation, only your edits war under false pretenses, yes. Mistery Spectre (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In general, someone adding material bears the burden of providing citation of reliable sources. Just because something has a good source does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, but someone wishing to remove well-sourced material has the burden of explaining why (with reference to some policy, guideline, or logic, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT). If reliable sources disagree on the facts, an effort should be made to describe various viewpoints and who they are accepted by.
 * The area of your dispute is under discretionary sanctions, so if someone seems to not be here for the purpose of building a better encyclopedia, you can seek a remedy at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Rhoark (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the problem that the user can not understand why the opinion of one of the parties can not serve as a fact. I'm not even talking about trying to save his text for the text itself. Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have good-faith difficulties understanding Wikipedia policy. I suggest you redirect your efforts to wiki projects in your native language. Rhoark (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. I suspect a malformed report because the complaint says it's about User:Mistery Spectre but the diffs are of edits by User:Lvivske. In any case there aren't enough reverts to break WP:3RR. Some of Mistery Spectre's edits do seem to be removing references, and that normally calls for an explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Enlightened editor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 645189876 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) These references directly link her to several controversies. Saying she has been involved in controversies is a neutral statement."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 645107245 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) The introduction should reflect the contents of the article."
 * 3)  "This change to the introduction purely summarisers what is in the rest of the article. It is not making a new claim."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 645056360 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) See previous comments."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 645037160 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) This is not a breach of NPOV. It factually reports that she has been involved in several controversies."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 645036988 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) Daily Mail is middle market. It is not a tabloid newspaper. Further these tabloid sources are not being used alone."
 * 7)  "She is not being called controversial. Her involvement is several controversies is being noted. BBC, Herald etc provide information on this."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 645035390 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) Tabloids are not the only source."Material should not be added to an article when the *only* sourcing is tabloid journalism""
 * 9)  "Undid revision 645034912 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) You shouldn't just remove a whole section without any debate."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 645032760 by Jmorrison230582 (talk Half the article is about controversies she is involved in. Surely this should be reflected in the introduction."
 * 11)  "Added an extra clause to the introduction to better reflect the contents of the article"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 645034912 by Jmorrison230582 (talk) You shouldn't just remove a whole section without any debate."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 645032760 by Jmorrison230582 (talk Half the article is about controversies she is involved in. Surely this should be reflected in the introduction."
 * 3)  "Added an extra clause to the introduction to better reflect the contents of the article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Stern warning time for a clear newby. Or we could WP:BITE, I suppose. Collect (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . As one can see from the diffs but is glaringly obvious when one looks at the complete history, has also clearly breached 3RR under the (mistaken) impression that their reverts were exempt under WP:BLP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would personally consider anything sourced to the Daily Mail/Mirror/Sun to be a BLP violation, but then again, my opinions on those newspapers are pretty low. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly dispute your assertion that I "clearly breached 3RR". WP:3RR says "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." The material was clearly biased and poorly sourced (if it was sourced at all). I warned the other user that it was breaching 3RR. When it was clear it would not back down I asked for a second opinion. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Stale. But it seems to me that both parties may be risking a block if this continues. I don't see a justification for the reverts by User:Jmorrison230582 under WP:BLP. Perhaps they would consider getting opinions at WP:BLPN. User:Bbb23 has already expressed doubt that Jmorrison's reverts can be justified by a BLP argument. It is not defamatory for an article to say that a controversy exists if sources are provided, assuming that tabloids are not the only source. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:100menonmars reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Aftermath */"
 * 2)  "I have reinserted paragraphs that were removed without a valid explanation. I have now formally made a complaint  demanding that the sockpuppetry stop.,"
 * 3)  "/* Withdrawal and surrender of the Greek army in Epirus */I have now included primary sources to back up Italian claims. Please show good faith or I will have to  make a formal complaint.."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 645449637 Please explain your conduct on the talk page and read about the source (De Felice (1990), p. 125  ) you've gotten so angry about.h."
 * 5)  "The De Felice (1990), p. 125 source about "tied down Greek forces" appears in previous section. Please show  good faith and stop removing sourced information."
 * 6)  "/* Withdrawal and surrender of the Greek army in Epirus */ Please do not remove sourced information again."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Greco-Italian War. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* This wikipedia page  */ Advice"


 * Comments:

Edit-wars adding POV information to article without consensus. Personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours for 3RR violation. The behavior of 100menonmars at Talk:Greco-Italian War raises concerns about disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Undid revision 645315193 by Paulmcdonald (talk) Irrelevant. Only this non-mma editor insists in his opinion with something that doesn't belong in this article.
 * 2)  →‎See also: restored entire section removed without discussion
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Gsfelipe94

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I attempted to resolve this issue on the article talk page and the editor's talk page but was met with hard opposition and refusal to discuss the issue. Disagreement has quickly become apparent, the editor refuses to work collaboratively, and does not move on to appropriate dispute resolution. Therefore, I have started this discussion.

Comments:

I believe the information in question about the broadcast of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl in conflict with this match is worth mention. It had received coverage in third party sources. While I agree it is not a major part of this topic, it should be mentioned. It has been placed in the past at the bottom of the article. We could make an article about the "broadcast" or maybe the "controversy" but I think that would dilute the information and not concentrate it.

I have not restored the section that was blanked at this time--no need to respond with throwing fuel on the fire. Whatever the outcome, the removal of the information, refusal to discuss it, and the editors threat of edit warring are uncalled for. --Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is that I don't see any edit warring at all. There two reverts: one was completely normal as other editors (registered or IPs) also reverted it based on relevance to the article. The second was that you reverted mine and I went to the talk page of the article to show me opinion. I also replied to your message in my talk page. I see no threats at all in this situation. All I see is a user that has no updates whatsoever related to mixed martial arts articles that decided to add one info that has no place at all in such article. While I understand the good faith at the beginning, Paul McDonald found opposition on the article's talk page and still decided that his opinion was the consensus. I was another user that stated I'm against this update and I'm sure others that didn't see will feel the same. It shows me that you're making a big deal of something that is completely uncalled for. There's no edit war at all and if you reverted my second edit, I would just gather all the people that seem to be necessary for you to understand that people related to the MMA articles also disagree with that content. It honestly has no sense at all to be added in that article. And if other editors do see it, I'm certain they'll agree with the editors (including me) that felt it was a non-sense edit for the article. I'm open to discussion there as you can see on the article's talk page. Instead of taking a moment to see there was a majority of editors against his edit, he decided that we were approaching a 3RR situation - something incorrect. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was User:Technical 13 that closed the discussion as "not done" on the talk page. I don't see any other discussion.  That I haven't edited a lot of MMA articles has no bearing on this discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not questioning semi-protection whatsoever that was requested. I'm questioning a majority (at that moment and with another user now) saying that they do not agree with your update based on the relevance of that fact to the event. How many situations of a establishment supposed to show one thing and then showing other should be added to wikipedia? You had a good faith edit at first, but many people had the same questioning to it. That's why I said that we should spare time and realize that. If you reverted it once again (I wouldn't find it an edit warring as I would do what I said - "It will happen": I'd gather the people (like I had to now) to also voice their opinion. It's a group of editors I've seen frequently in mixed martial arts articles with a good possibility of giving a fair opinion to the situation. I do believe they'll agree (probably all of them) with what other editors said (including myself) and tell you that there's no relevance to the info added and the event's article. I wouldn't revert you as it would be 3RR violation and I would have to do what I'm doing now.
 * With that being said, I do not believe there was an edit warring (neither yours or mine). You wanted to prevent it, I give you props for that. It wasn't going to happen, but ended up as I said it could end and as you probably wanted to: a newer discussion. I say leave it as it is as let's wait for the other editors opinion on the matter. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully my last comment: I requested that the editor discuss the issue on your talk page at User talk:Gsfelipe94.  The response was to revert without discussion and then... well, the reviewers can read the details there.  Less than 10 days ago, the editor had a 24-hour block and was given the advice to first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus.  Because it is so recent, I think it bears consideration again that this editor does not take these measures.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And the block was reverted right away as the administrator didn't check the entirety of the situation. I was blocked for a moment because I did break the 3RR rule. Wasn't my intention as I was constantly reminding the other user that we had a consensus about that situation. I don't see how that can relate to this, specially if you do check the entire situation instead of just seeing I was blocked and unblocked right after it. If you check my contributions page, you'll see from that day on how I have acted in other situations. You rushed a edit warring discussion here presuming I would do it. The discussion is on, yet you accuse me of canvassing - once again I bring here this word: funny. One of the editors I pinged to the discussion was the one involved in the situation one week ago. 1- You asked me to create a discussion on the talk page: I did it. I manifested my opinion there and there were already 3 opinions similar to mine while your remained alone till that moment. 2- Your denial of those opinions and removals gave me the impression of you wanting to defend your update at all costs until the end. Just like you said you have the impression I'm canvassing, this was my impression. 3- More info on the talk page. Please spare our time, I don't want to get more editors just to make it clear and obvious for you. It will happen. -> Here I confirm you that I gave my opinion there (as you asked me to) and then asked you to avoid a longer discussion (like this one actually) as you already had 4 users disagreeing with your update, while you were the only one defending it. If you didn't do that and reverted it again (or a situation like this happened - something I honestly didn't predict), I would get the editors to opine and I believed they would agree with the 4 people who already voiced their thoughts. Once again, this has nothing to do with a semi protection request by an IP user. I've said it on the article's talk page. We should focus on the situation: 3 editors against you in the past. I came up, found that out and I also disagreed with the update. Despite the 4x1 situation, you still thought there was room for the update. I just pinged some editors that are known to contribute to MMA articles (I asked you to bring people too) and let's see how it goes. If in the end there's a majority vote to keep your update, I would respect that. There's nothing complicated about that. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Several editors at Talk:UFC 168 agree with removing the paragraph in question from the article. If anyone is not convinced of this, they can open a formal WP:RFC to gather opinions. But the material (about televising of football versus MMA in Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants) does appear too trivial to include. Not everything that can be sourced belongs in an article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B102:5588:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 645672907 by 41.142.112.36 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 645671315 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) reason previously stated"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 645669650 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) still a parent category"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 645662927 by 41.142.112.36 (talk) parent category, per WP:SUBCAT"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also 41.142.112.36's edits. ToonLucas22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

User:108.6.38.122 reported by User:Gloss (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Jan 22, before the DRN discussion was opened
 * 2)  - Jan 22
 * 3)  - Feb 2, Another IP just opened a DRN discussion, but this IP decided to revert back to their preferred version for the time being
 * 4)  - Feb 2, DRN still open
 * 5)  - Feb 3, DRN quickly closed but talk page discussion quickly opened, 108 didn't comment there since
 * 6)  - Feb 4, talk page discussion still open, 3RR warning had been given already

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Survivor: Worlds Apart

Comments:

The issue was brought up on the talk page and the IP has not commented there since. They've continued reverting to their preferred version despite an edit warring/3RR warning.  G loss  17:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually did comment there and filed a WP:DRN. Look carefully. 108.6.38.122 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You filed that DRN? That was filed by a different IP address than yours. - so you're admitting to having used two different addresses first of all. And secondly, you commented after making your fourth revert… after receiving an edit warring notice. The comment after the final revert doesn't make the final revert okay.  G  loss  19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There haven't been three reverts in 24 hours. The reverts have been in a longer period, so that the edit-warring doesn't cross the bright line.  Also, since IP addresses change, the use of multiple IP addresses is not considered sock-puppetry.  However, I do advise the IP to register an account, because the article is likely to be semi-protected.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the edit warring noticeboard, no? Not the 3RR noticeboard, specifically? 24 hour time period or not, the IP was reverting to get their way throughout the discussion and after 3 reverts over Feb 2/3, a warning was given and an additional revert took place. If a block isn't issued for something like this, I don't see what this noticeboard is for.  G loss  03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Grinbriar reported by User:The Stick Man (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, only a disruptive editing warning was given

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The week before, Grinbriar made an attempt to revise the plot summary in the Streetcar article. I liked the idea of someone coming in to improve it but reverted it, due to the presence of several grammatical errors, unnecessary detail, and what I felt was just not good writing. We had a brief discussion in the linked article dicsussion page and my own talk page, but it didn't lead to anything. After about half a week he resumed making the same edits with the same errors and stopped responding to talk page messages altogether. I even tried to explain myself on his own talk page, but seeing how he hasn't even commented on any talk page for over a week it's clear that I'm being ignored. He did stop for a few days, so I had assumed he had just given up, but he went back to making the same edits (with the same vague explanations like adding "key details" or describing "what the play is actually about") just last night. I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do at this point.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 16:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:109.145.70.145 reported by User:SuperMarioMan (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Add: (same editor/edits)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: See below


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: See below


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


 * Comments:

Blatant edit warfare, with reverts carefully spaced out to avoid violating the letter of WP:3RR. Repeated insertions of content – unsupported or insufficiently supported by sources – on a BLP.

User has reverted myself and others seven times to date: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/109.145.70.145

I gave them a standard 3RR warning (which they later removed from their talk page): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:109.145.70.145&diff=prev&oldid=645208883

Another user explicitly invited them to discuss the edit on the talk page in lieu of further edit-warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Giuliano_Mignini&diff=645088208&oldid=645026066  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 00:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverting BLP issues is exempt of the 3RR, see WP:3RRBLP. --<b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 01:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes – but the text that the user kept adding was problematic with regard to WP:BLP. They were creating BLP issues rather than reverting them.  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I just added a second IP they started out with.TMCk (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: Since the article has now been semi-protected for two weeks, I have no particular objection if this report is closed.  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sirtaki36 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Note: 2015020610024486 related, for anyone with OTRS access. ~ Matthewrbowker  Give me a ring! 22:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:85.164.61.86 and User:80.212.4.12 reported by User:Ldvhl (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I believe both IPs are the same user. Note how 80.212.4.12 has a warning for using multiple IP addresses to vandalize Wikipedia.


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. Three different IPs, all from Norway, have made similar edits to the article. Edit warring by an IP-hopper violates WP:SOCK. The IPs assert continuity between some rebellious activity in present-day southern Ukraine and an anarchist experiment called the Free Territory that existed between 1918 and 1921. It is unclear if there are any reliable sources to support the thesis promoted by this IP-hopping editor. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I confirm the two IPs are same editor, changed due to power-outages - i.e. no "IP-hopping" or other deliberate change, and would've preferred the IP to remain the same. Don't get distracted by arcane WP-rules abused or claimed, but stay with the issue and facts, pls: The people in the region consider themselves heirs to Makhno's "Free territory". 85.164.61.86 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You still need reliable sources to include that information on Wikipedia. ldvhl (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Antigng reported by User:Starvisionstar (Result:No edit warring on going)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Janagewen

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASockpuppet_investigations%2FJanagewen&diff=646008845&oldid=645775583

I have no ideas to be reported and mistaken by. I just passed by talk of PAE, and found the block of user Janagewen and Najagewinnen there who involved in that discussion. So I feared to be blocked so I have already declared. I have to say once again, I am not Janagewen. And this is not IP evade. I just found that talk section interesting, and want to involve, at least I think I have that right. Because I am a new comer, from China mainland, I do not know how to do, so I start a section here. I am sorry Starvisionstar (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whatever is going on here is not edit warring. only (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:JoesphBarbaro reported by User:JustPlaneEditing (Result: Reporting user blocked for 72 hours, the other user warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646031195 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646031147 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646031047 by JustPlaneEditing (talk) The sources are all right in your face."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 646030836 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 646030432 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 646016349 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646016349 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646016349 by JustPlaneEditing (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* February 2015 */ Not 1 not 2 but 3"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by JoesphBarbaro (talk). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Won't give a WP:RS for his info. And infringed the WP:3RR rule... JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and both stations are officially named Harlem -148th Street and Times Square - 42nd Street, though. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As I told you a few minutes ago, I hope you were happy that I made those edits so that way, you'll finally shut the hell up. You're talking about me but look at you...Who's the pot calling the kettle black now? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, this matter is still ongoing. And no one gets your reference JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I count six reverts by JPE on the 7th alone. Do you have boomerangs where you live per chance?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to the Admin, JPE tried to remove my comment, for no reason. Looking at the sources, it appears that JoesphBarbaro is indeed correct in his edits.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Lugnuts. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow Lugnuts, why must you follow me. And By the way, look at the personal attacks JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you're gonna get blocked too, because of your constant trash-talking towards me. Those are also considered personal attacks as well. Again, pot calling the kettle black? JoesphBarbaro (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So by saying that I'm going to get blocked too it means you're already resigned to the fact your getting blocked? Ouch JustPlaneEditing (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Pity. Looks like I'm seeing through your age already. This kid is so annoying since I met him. He really needs to drop it. This whole "issue" is worth nothing and won't get us anywhere. First, the constant trash-talking, then hypocrisy, and now he's sending me more annoying messages. Seriously kid, hop off my back and get on with your life. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . The diff supplied of a supposed edit warring/3RR warning wasn't that, but a different kind of warning. JoesphBarbaro hasn't been warned about edit warring as far as I can see. Joesph, consider yourself warned now. If you edit war again, you will be blocked. Note that neither editor has behaved very well. There is not a single solitary word from them on article talk; instead they have been angry and aggressive on each other's pages. That's not acceptable from either of you. However. I have blocked JustPlaneEditing for edit warring (which they know all about and have been blocked for previously) as well as for this unacceptable removal of another's comment on this very noticeboard. Considering all that together, the block is for 72 hours. (I'm choosing not to block Joesph at this time, partly in consideration of their clean block log, but if another admin elects to block them for personal attacks and stubbornness, I won't object.) Bishonen &#124; talk 14:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad and User:JHunterJ reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: No action)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: *

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Slow moving edit war so avoiding 3RR but at 8 reverts between them already too much.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit summary here covers it: Maintain noun phrase descriptions, which is the point of repeating "song". No problem with WP:MOSDAB, so take it up on talk per WP:BRD. Which Bkonrad has failed to do. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No more reverts and it seems to have moved to the talk page now.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 22:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since reverting has stopped. User:Bkonrad and User:JHunterJ are advised to wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Seahawks65 reported by User:JustPlaneEditing (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Season 14 (2014) */"
 * 2)  "/* Season 14 (2014-15) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 14 (2014-15) */"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seahawks65&diff=645950914&oldid=645950728
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Has done this so many times. Resolution efforts have been in vain can someone just block this 'editor'. Again JustPlaneEditing and again  (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 16:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 reported by User:Ialiabbas (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:44, 21 January 2015
 * 2) 19:48, 5 February 2015
 * 3) 23:15, 2 February 2015
 * 4) 20:44, 21 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:33, 6 February 2015

Links to attempt to resolve dispute on the article's talk page: Talk:Husayn ibn Ali, Peacock features, Overlinking (Thanks Toddy1 for creating the new sections.)

Other discussion: User talk:Own.Pak

Ialiabbas (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Keep in mind that you have been reverted by multiple editors, Toddy1 is just one of them. Please use the talkpage to discuss issues rather than blatantly reverting to your own preferred version. Bjelleklang -  talk 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ialiabbas reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:12, 31 January 2015
 * 2) 13:37, 1 February 2015
 * 3) 14:26, 5 February 2015
 * 4) 16:29, 5 February 2015
 * 5) 15:15, 6 February 2015
 * 6) 15:29, 6 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:50, 5 February 2015

Links to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Husayn ibn Ali, Peacock features, Overlinking

Other discussion: User talk:Edward321

-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Thanks for your report. The issue has been addressed in another closure below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Elblanco123 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed Category:1980s births using HotCat"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk) to last revision by Elblanco123. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by NiciVampireHeart (talk): Wrong else? (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See user talk page for attempts at discussion. Also noticed previous EW notification. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The last revert was on February 5. Whatever this dispute is, there is no mention of it on the article talk page. It is hard for others to judge who might be right if neither side is explaining their edits. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi and User:ATinySliver self-reported by User:ATinySliver (Result: declined)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of second user's reverts:
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 2)  (full)

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

Section re attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bobbi Kristina Brown

Comments:

If nothing else, request clarification on encyclopedic content. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 02:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(Non-admin opinion) Normal BLP policy is wait for multiple reliable sources before adding controversial or otherwise misleading details. TMZ in my opinion isn't, but let's see what others think. More importantly, while yes its edit warring, it doesn't appear serious or intentional, just trying to keep BLP's clean. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a content dispute over keeping unencyclopedic content out of a sensitive BLP. Sensitive, because the article subject is currently in a medically induced coma and on life-support.  The article subject was found face-down in a bathtub.  No indication of foul play has been announced by law enforcement, only an announcement of an investigation - and this reported by TMZ (an unreliable source).  User:ATinySliver is attempting to add content that talks of an investigation regarding "a possible altercation" prior to the individual was found.  It is, from what I can see, trying to tie the two events together by synthesis at worst.  At best, the content is unrelated gossip and trivia.  It has nothing to do with anything as long it is in the investigation stage.  It definitely serves no purpose in helping the reader better understand the article subject and simply doesn't belong in the article until there's more meat to it (if at all).  I've already indicated in my last edit summary at the article that the second time I removed the disputed, tabloid-type content was the last time I was reverting it out.  I have no intention of continuing to edit there for the time being.  The editor opening this report started a discussion at the article talk page, I responded, they abandoned the discussion and are now forum shopping.  They went to ANI first (a report that was immediately closed by an uninvolved editor) and now they have come here.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

See here ("TMZ ... has received criticism ... but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies")

Sensitivity, with no disrespect toward the Brown and Houston families, is irrelevant within an encyclopedia. Regardless of "possible" or confirmed, it is an active police investigation and, therefore, germane. IMO.

&mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 03:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And how on earth could you possibly know there is an active police investigation? You don't. Just some TMZ clickbait. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly, assessments by other editors of a source's reliability mean nothing to you. Meantime, please avoid argumentum ad hominem. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 03:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If TMZ ever becomes a credible journalistic entity, I'll hand over my credentials and leave the profession. Wikipedia isn't the place to find the latest information, but the place to find reliable information that can be verified. If the information from the notoriously unreliable TMZ is backed up by other reliable sources, it can be used - but I don't see that happening right now. Thanks for self reporting but leave it be. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  03:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "TMZ - has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies". I was a long-time print journalist; in my experience, though TMZ does tend toward the sensational, its sources rarely steer them wrong. See also Wikidiscussions here, here and here, to name a few. Meantime, to threaten me with an immediate block does not strike me as conducive to cooperation, which I am attempting herewith to maintain. &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you quit pointing people to that silly essay. There is a reason it's an essay, its the opinion of a single editor and often nothing more. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See also: this, Talk:Bobbi_Kristina_Brown, WP:ANI
 * See comment on the article talkpage. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)