Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive286

User:64.53.186.64 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Tkuvho (Result: Warned both users)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Four consecutive reverts at the page The Assayer by User:William M. Connolley within a period of less than 33 hours are first, second, third, and fourth. Recently there had been an apparent improvement and I engaged the user in discussion at the talkpage of the article here, but my overture went unanswered and there is now an additional revert here by User:William M. Connolley. It is disappointing to have an experienced editor behave in a nonconstructive fashion, particularly when this is accompanied by foul language as in this edit. I request a block of a suitable duration so as to prevent future behavior of this sort on the part of User:William M. Connolley. Tkuvho (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD applies. The 4th revert listed above is on the 19th, which is rather a long time ago. Since I'm reverting T, he has exactly as many reverts as me, though he neglects to mention this. Actually, he has more, because he's also been reverting an anon William M. Connolley (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I should emphasize that User:William M. Connolley's deletion of material comes dangerously close to the category of vandalism, because the material being deleted is properly sourced. I recently added yet another source, and pointed this out at the talk page of the article. My comment went unanswered and the wholesale deletions continued. User:William M. Connolley gives no other reasons for his deletions than the cryptic comment "as before" which is not very informative. This accompanied by the foul language as in the comment left on my talkpage does not make for an effective wiki editor, William. Tkuvho (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Tkuvho's edits in many articles in WP come close to lunacy. He says that there is a Jesuit plot against infinitesimals, calculus, democracy, your cell phone and the like. He claims that the Egyptians of 1850 B.C. were early democrats and helped produce your cell phone. Tkuvho also says that George Berkeley was a Jesuit. The alleged "sources" used by Tkuvho are Mordechai, Amir Alexander and the like. Another alleged "source" is Redondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.153.229 (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous comment sadly illustrates what kind of allies User:William M. Connolley has in his fight against sourced materials at Galileo-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Articles in WP about Tkuvho's "sources" are started or partly written by Tkuvho. See Raymond Rosenthal and Redondi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.220.140 (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Amir Alexander. This was started and mostly written by Tkuvho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.125.220.140 (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to User:William M. Connolley's reference to WP:BRD, I would like to emphasize that the "discussion" part of "BRD" has not been followed through by User:William M. Connolley, despite my attempts at dialog at the talkpage of the article. Tkuvho (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tkuvho seems to be at Bar Ilan University in Israel and cannot speak or read or write in English. His effort "This accompanied.. " above is an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.92.201.73 (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

T is once again flinging around accusations of vandalism, though last time I challenged him on this he backed off User_talk:Tkuvho William M. Connolley (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly deleting carefully sourced material without any explanation is an act of vandalism. There is nothing personal here; a very ethical and decent editor can sometimes perform actions that are questionable. It is the action I protest against rather than the person, William. Tkuvho (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Inexplicably, Tkuvho has not written a biography of his fake source, Mordechai Feingold. At least, he has not done this in WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.154.10.14 (talk) 10:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a possible COI here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.61.56.255 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have semi-protected the article The Assayer. The history of that article shows a pattern of strikingly similar removal of content by William M. Connolley and half a dozen IPs. That pattern, and the appearance of multiple IPs at this discussion, suggests that maybe this should become a sockpuppet investigation rather than an edit-warring complaint. --MelanieN (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the IPs are sockpuppets for User:William M. Connolley. They are probably sockpuppets for User:Azul411. I don't think User:William M. Connolley would stoop to that, though I have yet to understand the motive for his multiple unhelpful deletions and failure to engage in dialog at Galileo-related pages. Tkuvho (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that might explain it! It did seem out of character for a long-established user like William M. Connolley. However the IPs do seem to be following him around and echoing his edits. By my count, eight IPs at the article, all brand-new and quacking loudly. Then one of them plus four other brand-new IPs at this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Page semi-protected, both registered editors warned. Neil N  talk to me 16:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:‎MELB1110 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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

and, in response to another user sharing my same opinion

This new user started edit warring after abandoning the discussion on the talk page. He is clearly POV pushing (see also these edits - and  - about Cyprus), refusing to get the point, ignoring the lack of present consensus and going against long time consensus previously established (also in other threads in the archives) on the talk page. Alex2006 (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Given that the user has included a different source every time they insert the material, it seems this is a good-faith attempt to improve the article/add verifiable information. Even if we count his first insertion as a revert, he'd only be on his third revert now. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Then I will bring it to ANI, since what I wrote in my comments remains. Alex2006 (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:114.167.178.175 reported by User:Emeraude (Result: Articles semiprotected)
Also IPs User:153.230.154.119 User:153.202.187.153 and User:153.205.19.189

Page:

User being reported: Also using IPs User:153.230.154.119 User:153.202.187.153 and User:153.205.19.189

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&type=revision&diff=667751968&oldid=667744905]
 * 2) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=667756011]
 * 3) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=667784656]
 * 4) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3ChordFold&diff=next&oldid=668255544]

Also pages: Flyer (album), Clock Without Hands, The Dust Bowl Symphony, The Dust Bowl Symphony, Blue Roses from the Moons

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

Comments:

This issue has been discussed on my talk page where editor admits use of multiple IPs.

The basic point at issue is whether or not I was correct to tag these articles questioning notability for music. This I did on the basis that no assertion of notabilty was given in the articles and, indeed, some are entirely unreferenced. Anon IP reverted on the basis that the albums were notable, writing "meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1". These reverts also removed the rest of my edits when simply removing the notability tag would have been sufficient (or, better still, providing some evidence of notability into the article which is the whole point of the tag). A message was left on my talk page stating that, in their opinion, WP:NALBUMS was satisfied because "multiple, non-trivial, published works" were available. I responded that reviews alone did not establish notability.

I reverted with the comment "Reviews alone do no satisfy WP:NALBUMS". IPs then reverted with comment "meets WP:NALBUMS criterion #1", again removing all of my edits, not just the notability tag. And so it continued.

Now, it may be correct that a collection of reviews and nothing more does confer notability (that could be discussed) but that's not the point. This person, using multiple IP addresses, has repeatedly reverted legitimate edits using misleading edit rationales just to make his point, despite me pointing out on my talk page and in edit rationales that unrelated material has been wilfully deleted. I also pointed out to this person at 16:27, 20 June 2015 on my talk page that 2RR had been reached and to be careful. Emeraude (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Several articles are now semiprotected due to the IP-hopping edit warrior. No comment on the notability issue, which ought to be decided in the usual way. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:KakiTree reported by User:Smurfmeister (Result: Declined – malformed report)
User has reverted my edit to Olly Alexander three times on 22 June 2015. My edit removed irrelevant trivia and poorly souced information, namely WP:OR - interpreting social media posts to suit their viewpoint that the subject is in a relationship with Neil Milan Amin-Smith; something independent sources only describe as a rumour. KakiTree claims this was "approved by Wiki admin" but has not provided any evidence of this. KakiTree has been warned about disruptive edits to this page before on his/her talk page. S/he also seems to believe any attempts to remove unsourced content is an attempt to remove references to Alexander's sexuality, which is not true - this is something which can easily be independently, reliably sourced. An unconfirmed relationship cannot. Smurfmeister (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * 3RR notice issued ; notification of discussion . Keri (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added third-party sources for the content in question which should now prevent any potential edit warring by all involved editors. The reported user is new and inexperienced and wasn't correctly warned. Keri (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the disruption seems to have stopped at least for now. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:92.26.220.49 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Just run of the mill POV edit warring. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

101.185.18.37 reported by User:76.107.171.90 (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Fringe pushing at the parapsychology article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * by . Seeing as the article is now protected, a block would serve no purpose. Tiptoety  talk 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

User:50jmd and User:66.192.172.132 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: &

link to stable version:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] diffs showing 1st introduction of non-WP:RS text:, , , link to that version:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), ,
 * 2)
 * 3) ,
 * 4), , ,
 * 5) ,
 * 6), , , , ,
 * 7)  (after being warned on both user talk pages and after article talk page section created with comments from two editors)
 * 8)  edit  13:44, 2015 June 24, which is well after being told of this noticeboard entry
 * 9)  another edit  09:23, 2015 June 25

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , Article talk page section: Talk:Beltway_sniper_attacks

Comments:

WP:SPS WP:FRINGE materiel. Editor continuing to re-add, even after warnings and notice of this noticeboard entry. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging  &  regarding update, above. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Like I noted on the talk page, I'm convinced that 50jmd and IP 66.192.172.132 are the same person. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 week to User:50jmd plus semiprotection for the article. This is a war to insert fringe self-published material about the Beltway sniper attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Bryantriplex reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saoirse_Ronan&type=revision&diff=668330590&oldid=668310016

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (This created user page; no diff link available)

Comments:

also has begun edit warring at Anna Paquin but does not yet have four reverts. also just made a 4th revert at Saoirse Ronan.

Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Several of my reverts were reverting where no edit summary had been left; and/or where references had been removed. I engaged on one user's talk page and at Talk:Saoirse Ronan. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * for continuing to revert after the warning. I've chosen not to block as they ceased once warned.  Tiptoety  talk 04:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Augenblink reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:Blocked 1 week)
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: discussed at length with the user on their talk page

Comments: This user continues to add unsourced material to this article, despite previous warnings and a block. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 6. 4RR . Blatant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT . Continued use of misleading summaries. Keri (talk) 13:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor has also previously indicated that they will continue to add the material regardless of any warnings, and evaded a ban by editing logged out. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 7. 5RR Keri (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * -- GB fan 16:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:404:8000:8166:FD38:3633:756E:CFF1 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Critical response */"
 * 2)  "/* Critical response */"
 * 3)  "/* Critical response */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Please stop edit-warring. Discuss at Talk page."


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


 * Comments:

IP editor edit-warring at multiple film articles DonIago (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Tariq Fadel reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 668581117 by Poliocretes (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 668575527 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 668564542 by SantiLak (talk)"
 * 4)  "added relevant links"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 668431127 by Poliocretes (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Tariq Fadel is a new SPA who has been repeatedly adding undue content over the past several days, in spite of both repeated messages on their talk page and being reverted by several different users, and obviously has no intention to stop. Thomas.W talk 09:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 10:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * has now (at 2100 UTC) repeated the exact same edit over which  was edit warring and has been blocked for 24h.  I suspect the IP is being used for block evasion.  Would you consider also blocking the IP? General Ization  Talk   21:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Tiptoety  talk 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Taoni reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "for marriages Britannica is using some + for dislike of marriage the author is using many, plz avoid POV pushing and original research you did for mewar point"
 * 2)  "please have a look upon Britannica update"
 * 3)  "Britannica update, eastern Punjab + some Rajputs"
 * 4)  "/* Rajput kingdoms */  Britannica update"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rajput. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Rajput. (TW)"


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

The Talk page is full of such discussions.
 * Comments:

Quoting the single source and ignoring all other sources and views of other editors, the user is determined to let only the promotional contents be published. Opposing all the facts the user is consistently disrupting the page. A serious look, review and attention of the Admins is needed to resolve the issue because the user is invoking the Edit war with almost all the editors who so ever edits the page with NPOV MahenSingha (Talk) 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, Taoni also had the generic sanctions warning and continued on their merry way. The account is fairly new. I'm not so sure about the experience but guess I'll have to AGF for now. Sitush (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * see me on Rajput talk page. You people had discussed nothing with me. Taoni (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * as a clear violation of WP:3RR. Additionally, a clear message was left for the editor in question advising that this is a sensitive topic area and further sanctions will be imposed on any additional disruption. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (note the completely false edit summary)

One of these is a little bit out of the 24 hr range, but that's still 5 reverts in just over 24 hrs, with 4 of these within 24 hrs. Against two different editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been blocked for edit (and move) warring twice before. They know what's up.

The dispute is straight forward and I thought the edit summaries were clear. The fact that Axxion reverted any changes to the article within seconds - before it was even possible to comment on the talk page - also made this difficult. Discussion was started here.

Comments:

Could someone please check on this? Axxxion is still edit warring. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Axxxion is warned that this article is covered by the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Neither party has reverted again since 24 June so no block seems necessary. Though Axxxion's good faith is not quite evident, his [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_War_II&diff=668624431&oldid=668509172 talk page response] on 25 June contains the type of analysis that is usually taken seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:MaverickLittle reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
 * 2)  "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
 * 3)  "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
 * 4)  "/* College */"
 * 5)  "/* Career */"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 7)  "/* College */"
 * 8)  "/* Career */ board wk"
 * 9)  "/* Tenure */ award"
 * 10)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 1)  "/* College */"
 * 2)  "/* Career */ board wk"
 * 3)  "/* Tenure */ award"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not using edit summary on Ivy Taylor. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Wild, blind revert by SanAnMan (talk) borders on vandalism */"
 * 2)   "/* Wild, blind revert by SanAnMan (talk) borders on vandalism */"


 * Comments:

User continues to make multiple revisions and edits to article without edit summaries and constantly blanks out any warnings issued to him by multiple parties. SanAnMan (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Your characterization of the three-revert rule on the article's talk page is not correct; any sequence of consecutive edits counts together as one revert. Further, it only counts as a revert if it undoes, in whole or in part, the work of other editors. Pure additions do not count as a revert (at least, not the first time). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . The behavior on this page does not appear to be edit warring per se. If you believe that  is editing disruptively, you'll need to file a report at a different noticeboard such as WP:ANI.  The only editing behavior analyzed here is reversion/edit warring. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

The talkpage discussion is: Talk:David_Cameron. The short of it is that another editor double-checked the originally cited source, a Burke's Peerage biography, and found it has nothing to do with the Mabelina's claim: that David Cameron is descendant of the chiefs of Clan Cameron and an 8th cousin of the current chief. The discussion shows that there's no consensus to add such a statement into the article in the first place, and that there's no verifiable source to even support it. That hasn't stopped Mabelina.

Comments:
 * 00:10, 25 June 2015, I removed the claim which failed verification, and left a note on the talkpage.
 * 00:39, 25 June 2015, Mebelina reverts.
 * 00:41, 25 June 2015, Rjensen reverts Mabelina.
 * 00:46, 25 June 2015‎, Mabelina revert Rjensen.
 * 02:15, 25 June 2015, I revert Mabelina.
 * 03:18, 25 June 2015, Mabelina re-adds the claim though reworded without any source.
 * 22:30, 25 June 2015, I revert.
 * 23:56, 25 June 2015, Mebelina reverts.
 * 00:25, 26 June 2015, I revert.
 * 00:58, 26 June 2015‎, Mebelina reverts.

User:Mabelina - hello: I have no wish to engage in Edit War, especially since I have detailed my sources and explained not only the kinship but also the reasons for its mention numerous times; I have simply been blanked without good reason as to why this info should not be included save various dubious, somewhat hostile and slanderous retorts.

The whole justification provided by Rjensen and Brianann MacAmhlaidh for removing the simple and well-known fact that David Cameron and the present Chief of Clan Cameron (known as The Lochiel) is founded on the "consensus" basis that Burke's does not detail David Cameron's ancestry. This is totally inaccurate: qv. either www.burkespeerage.com and/or BPB 2003 and/or BLG 1952.

Furthermore the David Cameron article highlights at length descriptions of his "posh" matrilineal descents, yet fails to make any mention of how he descends from the senior Cameron family. The logic for this non-inclusion / reversions have been variously stated along the lines of "how would 8th cousins know each other?" (answer: Michael Ancram is married to the present Lochiel's sister).

I have no wish to engage in Edit War but naturally would like to see balanced and accurate articles appear on Wiki. And, needless to say, whatever view you reach (ie. inclusion or non-inclusion of Cameron's patrilineal ancestry) shall be followed by me. Many thanks.

Best M Mabelina (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * due to the clear violation of 3RR. Block duration based on previous block history., it doesn't matter whether you genuinely think you're improving the article, or whether your information is "right" or "wrong" or any other reason you may have. Edit warring is never acceptable, and you already know this because you've been blocked for it in the past. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3
 * 4) diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning diff

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

Comments:

This user indicated he won't stop. So expect more edit warring and junk editing. And he removed the link to this Noticeboard from his talk page.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected one week. Admins are unlikely to put up with an ongoing war on this article, so please be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Request Review: I would like to protest this decision. The user who edit-warred and breached 3RR has been let off without any sanction and the users who have been defending Wikipedia have been punished by barring from edits for a week (essentially a block as far as this page is concerned). This seems quite backward to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. There is now a ridiculously long list of edit requests from me, and many more that should be sorted out that I have not listed. And all the contributors with experience are singing from the same hymn-sheet. The real problem has been missed completely here, sorry. I've got a lot of respect for EdJ, who does wonders here, but I think they've missed the point on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The alternative to full protection would have been a block for both User:Twobells and User:Sitush for 3RR violation. If you can show that agreement has been reached on the talk page the protection can be lifted, but I don't yet see that. Because the role of the British in the caste system is complex, it's likely that an RfC may be needed as a basis for the future. You might even need WP:RSN to get rid of low-quality sources. When edit-warring reports come here, they don't get deep analysis, they get a count of the reverts. If you want to accuse one party or the other of reverting against consensus you need good evidence of the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Where did I breach 3RR, please? And did you not notice the consensus that Twobells was doing the wrong thing? I said it, VG said it, Kautilya said it and Twobells was removing sourced material without discussing first. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, had done two reverts (probably reasonably because Twobells was removing sourced content), and Sitush did two reverts, because Twobells was overwriting his edits. Twobells was making a show of participating in the talk page discussion, but it wasn't genuine. My question about whether he has read the cited sources  hasn't been answered. At a minimum, Twobells should have been given a stern warning. I believe  is making it difficult for us to maintain this page due to his leniency towards edit warriors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is pretty much my reading of the situation, Kautilya, although EdJ isn't usually prone to be anything but fair. FWIW, my edits at that time were entirely uncontroversial maintenance/cleaning stuff. In hindsight, I do wonder whether, despite being here since 2006, Twobells doesn't understand how to deal with edit conflicts. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJ perhaps wasn't aware that Twobells had already been notified of the sanctions. That's the only reason I can think of for this edit. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree Thanks to I am now aware of this discussion (having previously deleted the message believing the notice to be of another type). To be frank I am astonished at the assumption of bad faith, users  and Sitush proceeded to edit conflict the moment I started to improve the article, no sooner had I updated the article both users proceeded to over-write all my work, I then moved to the talk page, a debate that  now suggests was not genuine, (an incredible assumption of bad faith considering the level of passion I put into the debate) requesting that they please stop removing my contribution, to instead wait, then, once the article was improved discuss it, none of my updates were controversial in any way, my intent was a sincere attempt to improve the article, bringing it to both neutrality and balance. Any deletion of sourced material was, I expect, a result of edit conflict rather than the assumed 'edit warring'. However,  rather than make any attempt at informal resolution rushed to this board crying foul in an attempt to get any legitimate view other than the existing one on Wikipedia frozen out.  Although I always try to assume good faith such behaviour reeks of attempted article-ownership in that the level of hostility reflected by  is highly unusual. I have agreed with  that I will in due course put forward a rfc and ask that users refrain from deleting any more of my uncontroversial work. In closing, I think that editors   must realize that there is more than one truth, that there are valid opposing views that must be allowed equal presentation within the article. Twobells''t@lk 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Funkatastic reported by User:OldSkool01 (Result: malformed report, page prot.)
Page:

User being reported:

Funkatastic has broken the 3RR and is deleting all messages off of their Talk page without reading them. I've tried several times to reason with this user and they've refused. -- OldSkool01 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Users are allowed to blank messages from their talk page (with a few exceptions stated at WP:BLANKING). --TL2<b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I read all your posts on my talk page besides the last one because I could tell by the very first sentence that it was a personal message and had nothing to do with the page we interacted on. Also, I have every right to remove posts from my talk page as I please. It's my user page. Funkatastic (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As for your edit warring allegations, it was on an unprotected professional wrestling page, which are constant targets for vandalism and "internet trolling". You removed verifiable references with citation requests on multiple occasions and your only reason for doing so was that the reference wasn't worded the exact way you wanted it. That is a personal edit and is in no way productive or community friendly. In order to end YOUR edit warring, I was forced to overlook your complete refusal of compromise and spent nearly an hour searching for a reference that was word-for-word exactly the way you wanted it. How is that at all fair on my part? Funkatastic (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It would have taken you no time to see that I am not a troll nor have I ever vandalized any pages. Also this is not an edit warring allegation. You broke a strict Wiki rule. The 3 Revert Rule. This is not the space to have this conversation. I am not the one that was rude and disrespectful. If you want to continue this conversation then let's use my talk page. If not then so be it. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Not the place to discuss? I'm defending myself.  Maybe it's obvious that you're not a troll, but I'm trying to stop the page from being vandalized until it gets locked like all wrestling event pages are.  I can't research every single person that makes an edit on the page.  If anything this should be chalked up as a misunderstanding, but that's not for me to say. Funkatastic (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OldSkool01, you are obligated to notify any users you report here by leaving a {{subst:an3-notice}} template message on their talk page, but you did not. There is a big, red, bold notice at the top of this noticeboard indicating this. Please remember to notify users you report in the future. --Chris (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are misusing the "minor edit" checkbox. Please read WP:MINOR and follow it going forward. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rojava, 1R rule (Result: Withdrawn)

 * User being reported:

Rojava is under General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. User Multi-gesture reverted and deleted sourced materials keeping sentences that fit his agenda well by focusing on Syrian violation of Human rights and trying to hide Kurdish ones.


 * He reverted here claiming to restore deleted sourced material
 * When I reintroduced the info he deleted and kept the info that he claimed to restore, he reverted again
 * He also reverted here and here

4 reverts in two hours.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that after I told him that I reported him, Multi-gesture showed a sign of good well and restored the sourced material he deleted to Rojava. I would like to withdraw the report.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Tigerboy1966 reported by User:Dr John Peterson (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Tigerboy1966 has gone way beyond the 3RR (about 6 or 7 times) and ignores the Talk page.--Dr John Peterson (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * please view the edit history of the page. It's pretty obvious what's happening.  Tigerboy1966  15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have filed a relevant SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Dr John Peterson. Winner 42 Talk to me!  16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr John Peterson indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This IP User talk:2.123.6.113 has also be antagonistic and is probably also a sock.  Froggerlaura  <sup style="color:maroon;">ribbit  02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also User:2.120.186.252 today - showing a similar pattern --Bcp67 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2.120 IP is now blocked as well. The most recent SPI is now under the name WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Snackbag. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This one popped up today User:2.125.172.76. Froggerlaura  <sup style="color:maroon;">ribbit  17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And this one User:2.122.170.80. Froggerlaura  <sup style="color:maroon;">ribbit  00:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:39.47.184.157 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I have already used the talk page as well as dispute resolution mechanism. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute."
 * 2)  "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
 * 3)  "I have already explained . read again. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
 * 4)  "THis para is bone of dispute so is removed till Dispute resolution decides. Do no intimidate on my talk page. Face the Dispute resolution discussion. Do not try to play admin"
 * 5)  "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP repeatedly removing properly sourced content and demanding that it not be readded until a dispute resolution discussion that was started two weeks ago, and has seen no progress, is over. The article has been protected to end similar previous disruption by IPs, but the protection ended yesterday, and the disruption started again today. And the IP obviously has no intention to stop. Thomas.W talk 17:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sir, there is generally accepted practice in the world that once a matter is disputed between two parties then legally and ethically neither party try to impose his version and get page protection by using his greater WP knowledge or alliances again and again to keep it for ages. I used talk page for disscussion 20 days ago see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict then by mutual agreement we all went to dispute resolution noticeboard here https://en.w days ago ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . Please stop clever childish and unethical practices; 39.47.184.157 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If you are a true nuetral admin then I request you to also initiate sock puppet investigation user Human3015 and Rsrikanth see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history they edit togather to avoid three edit rule. they have done two times on kashmir confict and i am sure they must have done at other pages too. Similarly see offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I want justice for all including me 39.47.184.157 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: CosmicEmperor is indefinitely blocked. Dustin  ( talk ) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected one week by User:Philg88, though the IP would otherwise deserve a block for 3RR violation. The issue of how to describe the 2014 elections is also being discussed at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston I will try to comply with WP rules. What about sock puppetry investigation of Human3015 and Rsrikanth065 and SPI should also include Kautilya3 CosmicEmperor including investigation for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring and trapping users like us who have lesser WP knowledge.   39.47.184.157 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Salar80s reported by User:Samak (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Add a fake map in Kurdistan article & manipulating entries <font size="+1" face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">SaməkTalk 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC) -->
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * – 24 hours. Salar80s has been edit warring to try to force a map created by himself into the lead of the article. The map is unreferenced. It proposes a much larger area for Kurdistan than the one given in the CIA map. User:Salar80s is missing the need to explain why his map is better, and where he got the data. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Rojava, Tell Abyad, 1R rule (Result: Malformed report)

 * User being reported:

The user removes sourced contents or changes it with his prefered one .--Multi-gesture (talk)
 * Comment : considering that Multi Gesture has already reverted five times in less than ten hours, then I dont think he is in a good position to complain [.--[[User:Attar-Aram syria|Attar-Aram syria]] (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have also broke the three revert rule so there is no actual reason to complain really. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 02:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Multi-gesture reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This new user is only for edit-warring. This is the second time they are reported within a few hours. I have left a message to them (that they have also reverted), and we were with user Aram trying to reach a consensus with the user, but they always revert and stick to their point of view. The user has removed substantial amounts of sourced material, simply because it did not fit with their editing direction/agenda. They also did the same thing in Tell Abyad article here, here and here They are trying to fill the article with propaganda glorifying their side of the conflict. This is a third article where they are edit-warring. I urge the Admin to go through all their contributions. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Multi-gesture isnt just edit-warring, but he is a kind of Ethnic fighter. He went so far as to claim that ISIS, the multi-Ethnic terrorist group is an Arab group. He also tried to delete the accusation against Kurdish Militias while keeping only the accusation against the Arab ones. He restored them but only after I told him that I reported him here .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not allowed to describe me as an Ethnic fighter. Your contributions in wikipedia (you and عمرو بن كلثوم) shows that your only goal is to prove the racial superiority of the Arab race and it isn't fitted into Wikipedia Policies. I only opposed this idea by accredited references.--Multi-gesture (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My contributions revolve around Historic sites and ancient kings, bringing them to GA statues . PS. Im not an Arab and I edited the Arab article perhaps twice. But trying to stick ISIS to Arabs and make it their shame is kind of Ethnic fighting aiming at deforming an ethnicity. Remember, ISIS leader who destroyed Kobane was a Kurd. Other signs of your mission is adding the word claims next to every violation ascribed to Kurds, while presenting the violations ascribed to Arabs as facts not just claims.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are honest when you say you are not a Sunni Arab But I must mention that the Cristian Arabs (Aramians) are more nationalist than the regular arabs. Your edits in Kurdish related articles are mostly in the area of proving that Semetic christians are the original inhabitants of Middle East and Kurds are not aborigine to their area. It's the manner you have choosen toward these subjects.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dont need to prove it, its proven by archaeology and written on the stones, artifacts and historical records of the region. Yet, again you are wrong, Im not a Christian :) By the way, this argument should have happened on Rojava talk page or your own talk page. But you chose to edit-war and revert our attempts to communicate with you But since you opened the topic, it is true that for most of its history Syrian Jazira was Semitic, but that doesnt change the fact that today, Jazira have Kurdish majority (in some areas) and that Kurds should have their full Human, Political and Cultural rights.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gesture, could you give me one example where my contributions show the "racial superiority of the Arab race"? Still, your claim is irrelevant here. You simply can't reach a common ground with other users. Your only aim is to spread PYD propaganda like the stories (e.g., HERISH ALI story) and quotes you add. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I gave some of the examples in my complaint section.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , for 24 hours,  for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1/User:Rmkop/User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Rangeblocked 72 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported: //

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a rather complex issue, with user:Rmkop, logging out which shows up as two(or more) alpha-numerical accounts[2A03:2880:3010:6FF4:FACE:B00C:0:1], to edit war their POV/OR ridden nonsense into three articles. I have posted multiple sources on Talk:Kalinjar Fort and have been summarily ignored. This appears to be some sort of personal dislike of what transpired. Attempts at discussion have been fruitless. I could have listed more diffs of Rmkop's logged out diffs, but I see no reason to overload the page. The edits of Rmkop(8 edits) and their logged out identities speak for themselves. At this point there may be even more alpha-numeric identities being used by Rmkop. If Rmkop is blocked for edit warring, page protection for the articles in question will be necessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rmkop continues to edit war whilst logged out, this time reverting Edward321, this being the 4th revert on the Kalinjar Fort article in 24 hours for Rmkop. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP range 2A03:2880:3010:6FF0:0:0:0:0/60 has been . I am reluctant to assume  is the same as the IP editor, though it will quickly become apparent if he logs back in to continue editing (in which case, ping me or repost here). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Multi-gesture (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] --Multi-gesture (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I don't think I need to defend myself here given the links provided of the "alleged reverts" :) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , for 24 hours,  for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:R2d2 ka baap reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has been warned quite politely not to edit war and the implications of continuing to revert. They instead chose to ignore it telling every one involved not to revert them while they appear to revert any one who has reverted to status quo (2 users have reverted R2D2 at the moment and a third has told them at the talk page that their edit is useless and to drop the issue). Furthermore, after reverting to his preferred version for the 5th time, the user has unilaterally claimed that the issue is now closed. I have no confidence that he will stop this slow edit war due to the WP:Wall of text he is throwing and being self righteous in reverts not giving a zich of value to what consensus means. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The last edit which has caused User:TopGun to refer the matter here was not a revert. A well referenced note was added whilst leaving the original disputed number as is. This was explicitly stated in the edit summary that the previous version's information has been left intact, whilst adding a referenced note to explain the term's well-known ambiguity for WP:NPOV. The reason I said the issue is closed, is because the last edit is not a revert, and after having a thorough conversation with User:Human3015 whereby the well referenced version was left on the page pending addition of sources for original number, User:TopGun reverted without disputing the validity of sources but rather claiming, off-tangent, an 'interchangeability of terms' between South Asia and Indian Subcontinent, which had no relevance to issues of extent being discussed up to that point. My request would be to compare the original version before this string of edit-reverts, with the version before TopGun's last revert, and adjudge whether my last edit was a reasonable compromise that helped improve WP:NPOV through a referenced note, or a "revert" worthy of referral that deleted or altered any information whatsoever of the original version. Thanks, and awaiting your verdict. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already referred to the possibility of a compromise version but you unilaterally readded a slightly changed version of the claim which was reverted. This is actually a revert. Changing the article whether with the same content or different still counts as a revert. The fact that you added "new" content which was inherently the same claim using the same word explicitly and claiming it's not a revert would be gaming the system. Also, you're the only one who said it was a compromise. That's not the definition of compromise - you have failed to achieve consensus but continued to revert inspite of being made aware of what edit war was and clearly showing that you had gone through warnings (and then re adding the claim). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not find where you proposed compromise, other than demanding 'extraordinary proof' and ignoring the two sources provided. The change in question is simply not a revert because the original and disputed number has been left entirely intact. I had called it a compromise because nothing had in fact been changed in the article other than an addendum/note below the unchanged number, which explained both points of view at the heart of this conflict. My aim is simply to improve this and other articles with references where they are lacking. It is not to pick fights with anyone. I am more than willing to resolve this amicably, even if by chance you incorrectly assumed my edit was an altering/deleterious revert and referred the issue here on that basis. Lets be clear, however, that you have referred the matter here after this change, which is not a revert of the nature you had been doing, in that it left all prior information unchanged whilst adding a referenced note explaining the number and alternate definition which the article admits do exist. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . While 3RR was not violated, 's last four edits to this article were pure reverts against multiple different users over a period of three days. A slow edit war is still an edit war. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 668865627 by The Almightey Drill (talk) because it's wrong"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 668878065 by The Almightey Drill (talk) no, it is not certain, so stop that"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 668878235 by The Almightey Drill (talk) only include teams, if their position is certain!!!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 668902582 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 668902844 by ToonLucas22 (talk) final pos. of Colombia is not known yet!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Copa América. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continues to edit war even after being warned. <b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, reverting vandalism is edit-warring. LOL. Putting Colombia in the list is against WP:CRYSTALL and so is nothing but vandalism.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You were not reverting vandalism, you were reverting normal edits. An edit against WP:CRYSTALBALL is not vandalism but rather another type of disruptive editing. The edits you were reverting are not disruptive, vandalism or a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL (since its the final score of Colombia after being eliminated). Please also see what is not vandalism. Since you weren't reverting vandalism, your edits do not qualify under WP:3RRNO and as such it is edit warring. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 15:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . Violations of WP:CRYSTAL are not vandalism and do not qualify for a 3RR exception. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, since the editor in question apparently disputes my ability to count, there were six reverts during a 24 hour period: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Again, these reverts did not qualify for an exemption to the three-revert rule, because they are not obvious vandalism. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have reverted this pure vandalism 10 times if necessary.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Curse of Fenric reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user refuses to accept the source given, citing his personal knowledge to disprove it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You may have seen a big, bold and red notice at the top of this page, which tells you to notify any user you report. I have done so for you, but please remember to do this yourself in the future. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I am acting in good faith removing a contentious source under WP:BLP. The claim being cited is controversial and requires independent back up. Under BLP, contentious claims through poor sourcing can be removed without question and that is what I have been doing. Continual re-additions without a consensus is disruptive. This action of mine is not about my personal knowledge of the subject - ie it's absolutely not true. This is about it being at best questionable. Heck I know who originally trained Emma, but I'm not about to add that to her article! Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, I suggest taking the discussion to WP:BLPN. There's clearly an edit war going on here, but as all participants appear to be acting in good faith and not with an intent to disrupt, I don't see the need for any blocks at this time. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done, and thanks. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff (switches to IP, but clearly same person)
 * 4) diff

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

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

Comments:

Nearly identical edit warring on Tervel of Bulgaria. Same User / IP combination that is clearly the same person. <span style="text-align: center; clear: both; font-family:Georgia, serif; font-size: 10pt; font-variant: small-caps; font-style: normal;"> — Toдor Boжinov — 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , both the IP and the account. (I took care of this several hours ago but apparently forgot to close this report.) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:62.44.134.3 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Obvious edit war.


 * as obvious blanking vandalism. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have run into problems with before. S/he seems to have serious article ownership issues involving extremely idiosyncratic image sizing and placement. These idiosyncrasies diverge from WP:IUP and other image placement guidelines. Several of these idiosyncrasies significantly degrade the Wikipedia experience on mobile devices and for blind and visually-disabled users. The editor refuses to engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page about reasons for these divergences on the talk page, basically resting on personal stylistic preference as their only reason. They attempt to get their way by edit warring and provoking edit warring in other editors. They do this on every article they watch on which I try to correct the image usage, citing "status quo" but refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Therefore I believe that despite having made only three reverts, this behavior should be examined to determine whether it is a regular WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Skyerise (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and, you're both experienced editors. Stop edit warring and use the bloody talk page. That's what it's there for. If it doesn't work, go seek dispute resolution. Don't revert again. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockybiggs reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This article is part of WP:ARBPIA, therefore it's under the WP:1RR restriction. User continues to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, and keeps adding the word "terrorist" in the opening sentence despite there was no consensus on the talk page to do so. He was repeatedly asked to stop, but he refuses to give up on his behavior.


 * – 24 hours for violation of the WP:1RR restriction at King David Hotel bombing. The user was making a similar revert (about the attack being terrorism) as long ago as March. There is extensive discusssion on Talk about the terrorist aspect which seems to have had no influence on his thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:129.127.13.227 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This IP user has been disruptive and has engaged in edit war. Doniago & I have been reverting his edits in Die Hard and tried to be reasonable, but he refuses to talk about on the talk page and continues to edit war on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not much to say here given that the IP is blatantly edit-warring and refusing to discuss their edits despite several warnings. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, you two have been unreasonable and have refused to even start a discussion on the Talk page. You two have ignored my comments and will not allow others to introduce more suitable wording and are thus, indirectly misleading the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.13.227 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * These are your talk page contributions. None of them are at Talk:Die Hard.  If they are to blame for ignoring one user's comments, you are twice as much to blame for ignoring two users' warnings.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I am twice to blame for ignoring them, then you are four times to blame for ignoring everything else and for not getting your eyes checked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.13.227 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? Your argument that them supposedly ignoring your comments somehow makes this their fault assumes that blame comes with ignoring other's comments, which you also did to both of them.  If you hadn't ignored their comments, you would have started a talk page discussion yourself and not reverted more than three times.
 * I've looked at what you had to say (as evidenced by me pointing out the flaws in your argument) and what they had to say. What they said is actually supported by our site policies and guidelines (such as WP:BRD and WP:3RR).  Your arguments are not connected to any site policy or guideline, but trying to blame others without any consideration of what you could have done to avoid this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Obligatory "WP:BRD is not a policy or guildline!" But the IP did clearly break 3RR. Winner 42 Talk to me!  19:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . 5 reverts now, I see, and lucky not to get extra time for silly trolling comments like this Bishonen &#124; talk 19:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

User:98.180.138.204 reported by User:Aus0107 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How is it not a good episode?"
 * 2)  "What do you mean?"
 * 1)  "How is it not a good episode?"
 * 2)  "What do you mean?"
 * 1)  "What do you mean?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Twilight's Kingdom. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected. An IP is warring to add a Good Article tag to Twilight's Kingdom although that status was never earned. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Saul Grant and IP 220.241.242.203 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Saul Grant is IP 220.241.242.203; compare Saul Grant's edits here, here, here and here to the IP's edits here, here, here, here, here and here. Especially compare this edit to this edit, and where I noted that Saul Grant was caught. Saul Grant, either while logged in or as the IP, repeatedly reverts without discussing anything. If he is really is ten years old, as he claims on his user page, that explains this (and, yes, I know that's generalizing young kids), but this behavior of his needs to stop. Soon after I made this post to the talk page, he showed up with his registered account to make this, this and this edit. He has also recently used another IP; see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EdJohnston. But the WP:Semi-protection won't keep the Saul Grant account from editing the article and edit warring when he is reverted. Isn't it a good idea to sternly warn that account against editing while logged out in this way and edit warring? As seen by the content I provided above, the "especially" content in particular, he is IP 220.241.242.203. If he continues this type of behavior, should I bring the matter to you or take it to WP:ANI? I don't think that starting a WP:Sockpuppet investigation is the best solution unless the IP denies being Saul Grant (as he seemingly did on the IP talk page). Besides, if that were the case, while I have no doubt he would be blocked for WP:Sockpuppetry, the WP:CheckUsers would not publicly confirm that the IP is his. Well, unless they see that it is needed to do so. We also have to keep in mind that we are likely dealing with a young child in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you notice any more problematic edits by Saul Grant, let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Penelope37 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669121209 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) Same problem as before. Not reliable source and not independent research."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 669076224 by NinjaRobotPirate (talk) It's not original research. The production companies are listed."
 * 3)  "Baseline source incorrect. The production houses are listed and conflict. They are US, Mexican, and South African. Actually check them."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring over many days, removing NYT source as 'original research'. Warning given, continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Five reverts of the country of production since 25 June. The NYT says it was United States. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:5.80.198.100 reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Diffs
 * 1.
 * 2.

Comments is reverting my edits at the talk page, please give warning or block is a possible sock of Special:Contributions/109.155.60.103 this administrator said this --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Only one diff shows anything unusual -- he's moving a talk page comment of yours. I don't see where you requested him not to post on your own talk. If you think anything more should be done, ask User:Doc James. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, my side of the story was/is summarized under "FYI" here (posted immediately after the diff reported above) and under "Talk page guidelines" here. While I would not wish to claim that I haven't myself (inadvertently) made any minor WP:TPG mistakes, I hope I don't do anything substantially misleading as the OP did here (in this thread) . For the benefit of everyone – and of course without wishing in any way to discourage the user's constructive contributions – I believe the OP needs to understand: 1) the spirit of WP:TPG, and 2) that WP:AGF extends to all users, including gf IP contributors in general . And also maybe that it's better to avoid making wild accusations, such as  that I'm a sockpuppet of my previous (stable) IP address. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 5.80.198.100, it seems you must have moved someone else's talk post and then [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&diff=669179625&oldid=669176186 reverted the original editor's restoration of it: "Undid revision 669176186 by Ozzie10aaaa (talk)"]. This behavior is risking a block. You don't get a personal right to police talk page format all by yourself. Why not ask others to fix any defects you perceive in talk page threading. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)ere in the diff did
 * Huh? I don't know where in that diff I'm supposed to have "moved someone else's talk post". My understanding was that I simply replied *above* a (confusingly indented?) post by the OP , who then moved my post  . How could that possibly be cause for a block? (Though if you do wish to block me that would probably be good for my blood pressure right now!) It would also have been civil for the OP at least to have informed me that he/she was taking me to ANI (to accuse me of WP:SOCK!). 5.80.198.100 (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding: On the other hand I have requested the OP several times (eg ) to respect WP:REDACT, but they apparently (looking at the detail of this diff) refuses to WP:LISTEN. In particular, this substantially affected the sense of the whole thread (but no, there's nothing "sneaky" about it... far better make unfounded personal accusations of sock puppetry?). I really think this editor needs to understand the *spirit* (not to mention the content) of some of these guidelines. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD (Result: Page restriction applied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: initial add of WikiProject Organized Labour banner

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  excerpt relevant passage from WP:PROJSCOPE, including clear admonition not to edit war over project banners

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Wikiprojects are free to add tangential articles"

Comments:

Edit warring removing WikiProject Organized Labour banner. Reported user's talk page comments and edit summaries seem to indicate familiarity with WP:PROJSCOPE, though perhaps somewhat selective in understanding; possible WP:IDHT. Respectfully request administrator warning to reported user with clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Hugh (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a bit absurd. HughD is just back from his third (or is it 4th?) block from edit warring on this page, and his consistent refusal to obey the consensus on the talk page.  On June 13 Hugh added a project box to the talk page of the AfP article as yet another way to attempt to assert his POV into the article. I reverted, as per WP:PROJSCOPE, which states further down, "If an article is only tangentially related to the scope of another WikiProject, then please do not place that project's banner on the article."  Hugh then went beyond mere statement of position and actually campaigned on that project's talk page for support, SEE HERE. Campaigning which gained zero support. On June 15th, HughD added a tag for another project Organized Labour, two minutes after joining that project. I reverted based on the same guidelines as the earlier reversion.  Hugh reverted both project tags.  I reverted both, but not wanting to get into an edit war or 3RR situation, self-reverted, explaining in the edit summary that I would ask for clarity on the projects' talk pages. In the interim, another editor,  reverted the Labor tag. In the interim, Hugh has joined the other project.  In light of his history of edit warring, non-consensus building, and attempting to assert his POV on this (and other articles), I would say his joining those projects is disingenuous at best, as a way to game the system.  In a vacuum, the policy that project members choose which articles to include in their project is sound, however, when an editor does so to game the system, other factors, such as the tangential warning should definitely come into play. This is the third or fourth time HughD has bandied my name about on some noticeboard or the other, or placed warnings on my talk page.  All to no avail.  His attacks are getting a bit tiring.   Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 00:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Some additional background clarification. After the reported user first deleted the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, I sought feedback from my fellow project members at our project talk page, at which time I discovered that the reported user had nominated the article for exclusion from the project. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Organized_Labour. Significantly, the reported user made no mention of his anti-nomination at article talk. Please see Talk:Americans_for_Prosperity. I nominated the article for inclusion in the project, briefly summarizing the evidence for inclusion. My fellow project member, whom the reported user mentions above, concurred for inclusion "If there is that kind of evidence, then you're probably right and I guess it should be added to Wikiproject Organized Labour," as did a third editor (the same editor who had attempted in vain to explain to the reported user, back at article talk, about how guideline clearly states that projects define their own scope). Significantly, this consensus at project talk was not mentioned by the reported user in his above defense. Subsequent to reading WP:PROJSCOPE, and subsequent to an explanation of WP:PROJSCOPE from another editor at article talk, and subsequent to the consensus at project talk, in which both threads the reported user participated, the reported user reverted the project add five more times.

Also, please note the article is a member of Category:Labor relations in the United States.

Thank you again for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

An additional relevant excerpt from WP:PROJSCOPE, not included above:

"A WikiProject's participants define the scope of their project (the articles that they volunteer to track and support), which includes defining an article as being outside the scope of the project. Similarly, if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then do not edit-war to remove the banner."

Emphasis in the original. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is starting to get ridiculous. This is the at least fourth time this article or its related pages have been reported at this noticeboard in the past 5 weeks.  This article is subject to discretionary sanctions and it's starting to look like high time some are imposed, because nobody seems to be able to edit this topic with a clear head.
 * I am proposing a page restriction of a one-revert rule per 24 hours to apply to this article and its associated talk page for the next two months (to expire at the end of August 2015, for easy record keeping). Any objections or suggestions should be made here in reply; I will log the restriction and add the editnotice to the article tomorrow, pending any discussion.
 * Furthermore, I am going to leave official WP:AC/DS notices on the talk pages of everyone who has participated in the reports about this page here at ANEW, as well as the top 5 contributors to the article itself (if different). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for for comment. Thank you for restoring a ds alert to the talk page. In March 2015 I added brief ds alerts for climate change and the Tea Party movement to the article talk page, in hope that the humble advice to "please edit carefully" might have a moderating effect. The alerts were recently deleted by the reported user . The brief alerts had a negligible effect, best I can tell. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion of 1RR. Respectfully, a this time I opened this edit war report asking for advice from an administrator on the appropriateness of a warning and a clarification of WP:PROJSCOPE to the reported user, which I still seek, thank you. Being squarely at the intersection of American politics, climate change, and the Tea party movement, as the article has approached the topic coverage of good article standards, it has attracted contentious editing, I plan to seek, through WP:NPOVN and RfC if necessary, a reversal of the reported user's recent ill-conceived section blanking of "Transparency" and "Funding" sections, as well as a radical reduction of well-referenced content with respect to the relationship of the subject of the article to the Kochs, which was not consolidated into own section. This content was work-shopped collaboratively over the last four months and deleted last week by the reported user without discussion. The reported user's recent content blanking included dozens of reliable sources. The reported user's recent content blanking is blatantly non-conformant with WP:DUE, and is a serious embarrassment for our project as it leaves our article in a state grossly disproportionate to reliable sources. I would support a warning to the reported user, or 1RR, particularly 1RR in conjunction with a restoration to a state prior to the recent content blanking by the reported user. Thank you again. Hugh (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction - my recent edits were to bring the article into line with the consensus on the talk page to conform with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, which Hugh has consistently ignored. But I'm not surprised HughD has once again miscategorized them. I let the other editors know I was about to do a major overhaul, and after I finished the edit, informed the page. Not a surprise that the only editor who has an issue is the single editor who refuses to follow the consensus.  And of course HughD wants it restored to a point where his voluminous edits have created a biased and non-neutral article, with a very distinct agenda.  But I would like to point out, that without this single user, HughD's activity on the page, there are really no issues. At this point HughD has engaged in WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, ignoring concensus, and WP:FORUMSHOP (through his multiple postings on different admin boards and project talk pages), all to get is singular point of view in, which is definitely not a neutral one.  As a result, he has been blocked multiple times, and continues to make attempts to disrupt he article, of which this ANI is yet another. This clearly demonstrates a continuing pattern of behavior, and detracts from more useful editing which other, serious, editors could undertake, rather than having to babysit this article from a single editor. But perhaps that's the type of editor Wiki wants. I attempt to stay away from political articles, focusing on other avenues of contribution.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I don't have an issue with the restrictions, now that the article has been restored to a neutral POV.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 16:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Above the reported user, nominally an experienced editor, clearly re-states his fundamental misconception that due weight is proportional to Wikipedia editors rather than reliable sources, his mistaken belief that neutrality means blanking content considered negative, his inaccurate perception that a group of editors may override our pillars, and his disrespect for the efforts of the collaboration of his fellow editors. Respectfully, may I suggest that a warning to the reported user, including a clarification of WP:DUE, may be recommended. Thank you for your attention to this. Hugh (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The admonishment/warning you seek is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, which is for edit warring and related behaviors. Since, however, you brought it up, WikiProject Council/Guide is a guideline, not a policy, and I do not see a need to admonish or warn anyone for the way they choose to follow it. If you honestly believe that Wikipedia guidelines are not being followed, and the disruption is severe enough to warrant administrative action, open a thread at WP:ANI.
 * Regarding the remedy I proposed above, it is clear at this point that enough POV editing is going on here, from whatever sides, that some kind of restriction is necessary. Therefore, I will log the page restriction as follows: "Americans for Prosperity and its associated talk page are subject to a restriction of one revert per 24 hour period ('1RR') until 2015-08-31 23:59 UTC due to repeated edit warring by multiple parties" Editors who violate this restriction will be subject to block or further sanctions per Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:72.186.123.12 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669249114 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669249114 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669249114 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669249114 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Cuban American. (TW)"

I've tried to direct the user to the talk page where a section regarding the use of the gallery has been up for discussion.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The IP has been adding and changing the image gallery without ES, asked to discuss the issue on the talk page. A fourth instance appears to be via IP2601:585:1:47AA:6116:BD77:CF70:A854, also on the 29th. No responses to myself or another editor = NOTHERE. This is a carry-over from the 28th where the IP reverted yet another editor's reversion without any attempts to communicate in any form. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gazmie reported by User:Goalie1998 (Result: Blocked)
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 / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

One user has been making repeated edits despite requests to discuss first, and reverts to previous versions by two other editors pending discussion. A discussion on the talk page has been started, but the user has not engaged in the discussion, only making his changes. Goalie1998 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite being invited to discuss her/his concerns at WikiProject Israel or WikiProject Palestine, and being warned about the WP:ARBPIA sanctions that apply to Proposals for a Palestinian state, Gazmie chose to edit war instead. I recommend a short block so the editor can familiarize her/himself with the applicable policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Violation of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction at Proposals for a Palestinian state. Brand new account (June 26) immediately gets into hot ARBPIA topics and starts revert warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Danielburruss reported by User:MopSeeker (Result: 60h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '              Chawn Antonio Rivers Born in Los Angeles'"
 * 2)  "←Created page with '              Chawn Antonio Rivers Was Born in Los Angeles at Cedar Sinai Hospital on May 23, 2000. He Is An American Singer.  At a young Age He use to love to d...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "warning"
 * 2)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Chawn Rivers. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated removal of Speedy Deletion templates and re-creation of content MopSeeker (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:169.57.0.214 and User:169.57.0.211 and User:169.57.0.212 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: Range 169.57.0.208/28 blocked for 2 weeks)
Page:

Page:>br/> User being reported: and  and

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

A disruptive troll. whose previous comments a month ago required rev del, returning after range block expired. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Duplicate case, see above. You will abide by your topic ban. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor is also editing from - range block would be incredibly appropriate. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm saddened to see a long-time editor won't show the decency to respect an AE-enforced topic ban, forcing myself a lowly IP to enforce it. I bear the burden out of respect for the encyclopedia - you're all welcome. 169.57.0.210 (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest immediately blocking the IP for trolling. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A search on 169.57.0.210/28 shows that IPs *.210-*.219 are all being used by the same editor, and noone else... Thomas.W talk 17:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Blocked the range 169.57.0.208/28 for 2 weeks for block evasion, edit warring, trolling. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC).

User:Pudist reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -- User warned
 * 1)  -- User warned
 * 1)  -- User warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but reverted by multiple editors. Edit: User:Inks.LWC has started Talk:Alex_Jones_(radio_host), which fully explains why everyone has been reverting Pudist.

Comments:

Pudist has been attempting to add WP:OR claims based on an isolated primary source (a Youtube video which has possible copyright problems) in contradiction to multiple secondary sources which actually explain a few things the subject mentions in the Youtube vid. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why the third diff above says user warned as it's just an ordinary diff. I was one of the editors reverting Pudist. After I wanted them about edit warring, they attempted to leave nasty messages on my Talk page, which I reverted. I eventually warned Pudist to stop restoring posts to my Talk page. I also told them that the proper place to discuss the material at issue was on the article Talk page. They didn't heed my advice, even though one of the other editors reverting Pudist started a topic on the Talk page. Pudist's account was created a long time ago, but they have edited only sporadically.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the third diff, my guess is that Ian.thomson meant that the Pudist was warned after the third revert. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe that's when User:Bbb23 warned Pudist. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They do it again.... -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And again -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By my count they are on their 6th revert. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should I be warned for correcting an erroneous claim in a Wikipedia article? Reverters, do read the source. It is actually Alex Jones himself on his programme, being clear about the issue that the article tackles. Dont you see how lame it would be to not use himself as a source on himself, instead claiming that his own ideas are unreliable source on himself (and possibly infringement) ? GET A BIG IDEA, not harass other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudist (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . It doesn't matter whether or not you think you're "right", edit warring is never acceptable. Please read Edit warring if you intend to continue editing Wikipedia. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:169.57.0.214 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

IP repeatedly reverting 's comments on talk page. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor in clear violation of topic ban. I will continue to remove these violations. If anyone feels the editor should be reported for these violation they are free to do so. My only concern is the integrity of the topic ban. 169.57.0.214 (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop your lies. None of these are related to Gamergate, any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any of the previous things I told. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 10:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for 24h by . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Move to Atletico confirmed by Poro's official website"
 * 2)  "No edit-warring please. Move appointed but not officially confirmed"
 * 3)  "It was the last warning"
 * 1)  "Move to Atletico confirmed by Poro's official website"
 * 2)  "No edit-warring please. Move appointed but not officially confirmed"
 * 3)  "It was the last warning"
 * 1)  "Move to Atletico confirmed by Poro's official website"
 * 2)  "No edit-warring please. Move appointed but not officially confirmed"
 * 3)  "It was the last warning"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Jackson Martínez. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Jackson Martínez. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User just reverts me and refuses to discuss. Also, see this diff. SLBedit (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, just bear in mind it was you who started it all, it was you who didn't explain your edits, it was you who did not have reliable references for big statements, and it was you who reverted the most edits. Other than that, I don't mind getting banned, it's only that you do. O l J a  16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User also added a fake report to my talk page. SLBedit (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down mate, it was a flipping JOKE! And was only done because I was getting pissed with your behaviour. (Awright, I know what you are about to do next - add a report on me for the use of 'unacceptable' language!)

User continues the disruptive behaviour and refuses to sign posts. Called me spammer and prickhead, and called a hater. SLBedit (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Those edits and name callings are completely unneccesary and seeing this editor having been reported a week ago (which I reverted after he started talking when it ended up here, his history is not working in his favour). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . He didn't need to report you for "unacceptable language", I could see it quite well for myself. Your behavior is clearly violating our policy of civility, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia&mdash;our most important policies. Please read and understand those "five pillars" before you resume editing when your block expires. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:82.61.61.14 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "isn't block evasion...etc"
 * 2)  "I m not troll blocked... yuo and JhonnbleackBourne are troll (There is The Game of Death? yes or no?)"
 * 3)  "isn't block evasion...etc"
 * 4)  "this isn't damaging edits & block evasion."
 * 5)  "isn't block...etc"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Charliewolf79 JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 17:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 2 weeks. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cscawley reported by User:2600:1006:B14D:6435:B945:D20A:9451:85D (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk:Indian Removal Act

Comments:


 * and are both  for violating WP:3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Vimal varun reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (on user talk, because his edit appears to be a misunderstanding of what a redirect is). -- Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments: Diannaa (talk) You are an administrator. Why are you reporting a user to other administrator when you can block yourself. Count Chimera  17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because this admin is taking WP:INVOLVED into consideration.  <font color="008B8B">78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 19:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted the last edit, warned the user and will block them if they continue edit warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: is nice admin, she won't block people when acting as editor. But I want to say something(which I should say on talk page but still..). Kumari should be used before name of unmarried girl,  not after her name. It should be "Kumari Mayawati". Kumari is not surname of Mayawati. Kumari simply means "Miss". We don't write "Mary Miss", we write "Miss Mary". See translation of word Kumari, also on official website of her party name written is "Kumari Mayawati". BBC also used it. Moreover "Kumari should not be written in infobox as we don't use "Miss", "Mrs", "Dr" etc in name on Wikipedia, its not her official name, she is still unmarried thats why word "Kumari" usually used before her name.-- Human 3015  knock knock  • 21:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Human3015. I will start a discussion on this point on the talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Use:Vimal varun is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert about Kumari, unless they get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Which indeed happened soon after they received the warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jørgen88 reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669608676 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)Stop removing sourced content. Just because you disagree with it doesn't mean it should be removed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 669608461 by 199.48.245.215 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 669600361 by Wikimandia (talk) It doesn't matter what he said afterwards. His statements were real and can't be excused."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adam Kotsko. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* If someone has any problem relating to sourced and verified content, yet controversial, discuss it here instead of engaging in an edit war */ stop"


 * Comments:

Edit warring at Adam Kotsko; discussion ongoing at talk page. SPI also opened as suspicious IP edits being made to continue edit war while evading 4RR Keri (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My content is sourced. And the IP is not me, but I don't know how to prove that. Jørgen88 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, what a remarkable coincidence that another editor in Norway suddenly finds that dispute at the same time and wants to make identical reverts... Keri (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've checked the IP. It's from the other side of the country... Jørgen88 (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have semi-protected for a week, which will stop the IPs. I am letting Jørgen88 off, because they have now stopped warring and are using the talk page. Jørgen88, if you touch the article again before a consensus forms, you may well be blocked. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I get it, point taken. I just forgot about the third revert rule thingy. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda reported by User:MehrdadFR (Result: Page protected)
User:Averysoda, as can be seen from his contributions, is just going from article to article and pushing his rigid pro-Israeli agenda. There are two problematic examples: There's not any POV issue here, just vandalism by user who WP:DONTLIKE WP:RS. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) United Against Nuclear Iran, three reverts . Not only 3RR is an issue here, he simply deleted scholarly source with explanation: what's the encyclopedic value or relevance of an unknown Iranian "scholar" named 'Sasan Fayazmanesh'?. It's an academic source by American professor, and he don't accept it because of his Iranian origin. Disgusting, and also a racist.
 * 2) Anti-Iranian sentiment, the same story: three reverts . This article was lacking sources and it had dead links issues, which were improved by inserting fresh links and two academic sources (Stanford University Press + Peter Lang). Again he removed everything and he insist that there's "no consensus". Consensus for inserting reliable sources, not their removal? Simply ridiculous.
 * Leaving aside your add-hominem attacks, I didn't break 3RR in any of those two articles. You did in anti-Iranian sentiment. That's unacceptable and deserves a long blockade. You knew the 3RR policy since you suffered a blockade in March for that same reason.
 * 3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4) like in your case, because your edits clearly fell under such definition. An obvious vandalism. --MehrdadFR (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was trying to restore the long-standing version that you want to replace for POV (mostly unsourced) content, without discussing on the talk page.--Averysoda (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User/IP didn't use the talk page.

Comments: New user (probably the same IP 109.60.45.52 who has been edit-warring before, when the article wasn't semi-protected) keeps trying to add mostly unsourced POV content, without bothering to gain consensus on the talk page.--Averysoda (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit warring throughout the day by multiple editors without a single talk page post. Page fully protected. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok Neil, but let's not forget MehrdadFR broke 3RR (that's a fact!), and he was blocked in March for the same reason. He deserves a longer blockade to understand the importance of obeying Wikipedia's rules. This is regardless of the article we are discussing.--Averysoda (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Both of you were continuing the edit war instead of using the talk page. As WP:3RR states, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: 3RR violated)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Japan

- Discussions regarding this same content have already taken place on the Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page as well.

Comments:

Redfoxjump has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:42, 1 July 2015‎‎) - (04:57, 2 July 2015‎‎), which explicitly violates Wikipedia's "Three-Revert-Rule". I've had many encounters with this user, most notably on the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–98) page, over content similar to what is in question here. Redfoxjump has displayed similar patterns of behavior on that page as he/she has on this page, resulting in a |48 hour block that was issued on 04:58, 25 May 2015. One of the reasons I filed that report was because Redfoxjump continued to add content that was not from a neutral point of view - for example claiming that the "Chinese were more important than the Koreans" in the conflict by citing one particular battle. What's particularly frustrating is that, even though it seemed as though we had reached a consensus regarding this issue on the talk page for that article, Redfoxjump seems to be trying to add the same POV information to articles such as Japan, in contrast with what was agreed upon before. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your sentence is partial to Korea.

The siege of Pyongyang was the most important. The Japanese army largely withdrew for the first time. The Korean army was in the minority at the siege of Pyongyang

"Siege of Pyongyang".

The main force was the chinese forces.

Chinese 30000 Korean 10000,

Other main battles

Siege of Ulsan, Chinese 44,000, Korean 11,500,

Battle of Sacheon, 34,000 Chinese, 2,200 Koreans,

Siege of Suncheon, 21,900 Chinese Army, 5,928 Korean Army, 19,400 chinese Navy, 7,328 Korean Navy,

The main force was the chinese forces.

source """Samurai Invasion: Japan's Korean War, Turnbull, Stephen. 2002, p.134, "(Korean) war minister Yi Hang-bok pointed out that assistance from China was the only way Korea could survive."""" Redfoxjump (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Redfoxjump, please refer to the Talk:Japan where I have addressed your concerns. There are just as many important battles in which the Koreans acted alone or were numerically superior. You claim that I'm partial to Korea, yet the only one asserting that one party was "more important" than the other is you. Regardless, edit warring is unacceptable. BlackRanger88 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . (See below) I counted only three actual reverts in a 24-hour period. That being said,, you cannot use "your edit is partial to [a particular point of view]" as an excuse to edit war. The only valid exceptions to the three-revert rule are listed here.  Both of you are indeed on the verge of edit warring, so please exercise caution. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this count as a revert? The action performed here reverted part of the edit I made here  where I deleted the full name of the conflict since I felt that it was appropriately alluded to by the phrase "Hideyoshi would invade Korea twice in 1592 and 1596". Redfoxjump undid my edit by re-adding the full name of the conflict.


 * The 3RR rule says that "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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In this case, I believe this qualifies as "different material" that was undone "in part". Once again, please correct me if I'm mistaken. BlackRanger88 (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this edit is a revert by . It looks like I was looking at the timestamps incorrectly, as I counted that as outside the 24 hour period from his last edit, when it's actually just within it.  Thank you for pointing that out.  However, blocking him would not serve a useful purpose at this point. Blocks are not punitive and the disruption seems to have stopped.
 * Please be aware that you did indeed violate WP:3RR on this article, and any further behavior that appears to be edit warring or any other disruptive editing is likely to result in an immediate block. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Darkwind: Thanks for your feedback. Hopefully we'll be able to work out a compromise through discussion. BlackRanger88 (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

SPACKlick reported by QuackGuru (Result: Editor sanctioned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Electronic cigarette:
 * 1) Revision as of 12:04, 9 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
 * 2) Revision as of 09:53, 30 June 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
 * 3) Revision as of 11:36, 1 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
 * 4) Revision as of 10:34, 2 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.
 * 5) Revision as of 00:49, 3 July 2015 Deletion of image from the Society and culture section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page

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

Comments:


 * has been notified of the community imposed sanctions here by Bishonen. This is a slow edit war going back to last month. Although technically not a 3RR violation the image is being deleted from the society and culture section 5 times by the same editor without consensus. A total of 3 different editors have restored the image. There was a previous 3RR violation on same article back in April. See Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive882. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is definitely disruptive editing. Per the general sanctions authorized by the community, is hereby prohibited from adding or removing images from articles relating to electronic cigarettes, broadly construed, until July 31, 2015 23:59 UTC. I will log the sanction and notify the editor in question momentarily. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Newhavenfire97 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "continued quest to maintain factual information till 25 year old internet troll zackmann08 undoes this edit to his inaccurate info"
 * 2)  "undid revision by zackmann08 who continuously posts outdated, false, unverified information."
 * 3)  "undid changed by zackmann to reflect most current information. zackmann repeatedly vandalized page with outdated info"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 667119360 by Zackmann08 (talk) zackmann08 keeps posting outdated false information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

previously warned the user. I requested that the user discuss on the article's talk page here. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T&middot;E&middot;C) 04:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The primary justification for the block was the bright-line violation of the three-revert rule; however, there are other issues with this editor's conduct that may require some guidance and mentoring after the block expires—C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zekenyan reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Articles protected)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:10, 3 July 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 01:12, 3 July 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 01:20, 3 July 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 01:21, 3 July 2015

On Walashma dynasty:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:14, 3 July 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 01:18, 3 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on Users Talk page

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

Comments:

After some time away, Zekenyan has come back to edit war for the third time on two separate articles. AcidSnow (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This user is not providing any sources for his edit which constitutes to Original research. For this reason I should have clemency. Zekenyan (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, please check the article and the extensive talk page discussion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry it doesnt work like that. You cant simply refer to a discussion from another article. Regarding the dynasty page im the last one to respond to him and he has ignored it here . This user has removed my well sourced additions and replaced them with original research Zekenyan (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That discussion ended months ago. I left due to you making a personal attack against me which was accusing me of "trolling". I have never broken 3RR, but I can't say the same about you (in response to something you just deleted in your reply). Nor were you my statements "original research". Yours, on the other hand, were proven to be fringe months ago. BTW, stop bringing this discussions to this noticeboard. Your post to explain why you broke 3RR and not try to continue to bring up something that had already ended. AcidSnow (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you are use to breaking 3rr and getting away with it Zekenyan (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you can continue to revert vandalism. I recommend you check out WP:EDITWAR. You can report me for that if you don't believe me but you won't get far. AcidSnow (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Two articles protected. Zekenyan, who filed this report, broke 3RR at Abu Bakr ibn Muhammad and AcidSnow was close behind. I suggest the two of you either take this to WP:DRN or open a formal WP:RfC. The talk discussion is reasonable but each side is quick to declare victory for their own position. The data is ultra-confusing and you should get some outsider opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:104.156.240.134 (Result: Filer blocked)
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: mine as well as two other warnings for this same incident.

Comments:

The user is also topic banned from this subject according to the arbitration committee's ruling in the above Clarification Request link. The request concerned this incident specifically over which he is now edit-warring. 104.156.240.134 (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The scrutiny-avoiding IPs in question are reverting questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted highly-negative material into the article (claims that the article subject was a victim of sexual abuse) while removing the subject's own responses to these claims (rejecting them.) Note the series of different anonymous IPs with zero editorial history making similar reverts - this is clearly some sort of off-wiki-coordinated attack. I have requested page protection and reported a responsible IP on the appropriate noticeboards. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I note that the page has been semi-protected due to BLP violations by anonymous IPs by FreeRangeFrog. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that blocking the IP would be productive at this point given the protection, perhaps they will decide to engage in some discussion. Their removal of the subject's responses to the controversial material was very inappropriate. § FreeRangeFrog croak 07:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced this meets the "obvious" standard of WP:BANEX, but that's why we have WP:IAR. IP's edits are terrible, and I find it hard to believe someone would be pushing this at Grace Dunham without having encountered the history of similar attempts at Lena Dunham. Rhoark (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I never noticed that the IP was reporting you instead of the other way around (thus my comment). I guess that boomerang-ed quickly, heh. For the record I have no problems whatsoever with your actions here, ban or no ban. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Filer IP blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:KnightWarrior25 reported by User:TripWire (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: —<font face="Eras Demi ITC" size="3px"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire  talk 17:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Comments:

It is necessary to note that User:TripWire was stick to one point an is involve in an edit war. Even I've mentioned him on the talk page but instead he keep on editing the article Kargil War I've just reverted him twice because his edit was unconstructive WP:FAKE he neither replied in the Talk:Kargil War nor did he paid attention to the dispute which is already solved and instead he keep on editing the article and was stick to one point which is already solved long ago by administrators and patrollers KnightWarrior25 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC) -->
 * I have commented on the page to quite an extent, even gave my comments on the RfC. The discussion is still open, there's an RfC which is still open. No consesus has been reached. You were warned twice to wait for the RfC to conclude and then edit, but you paid no heed. You participated at the talk page twice and thought other editors have accepted what you say? Sorry, sir, it does not happen like this on Wiki. You were even given ample comments to explain you to stop reverting and editing a topic/info which is still under discussion and have been there sine weeks, but to no avail, I had no other choice ut to report you for your undue reverts.—<font face="Eras Demi ITC" size="3px"><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip <font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire  talk 18:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * 5th revert now within ~ 24 hrs... obviously way beyond 3RR. The two net edits he is making are 1) change of out come to "Indian Victory" on which RFC is under way and the out come is supposed to stay as it was before the editwar / dispute per WP:BRD and 2) removal of information about peak 5353 which was compromised to have atleast a mention in the article per Talk:Kargil War. Infact the user is citing me to have agreed to removal of this information while I never did. Infact the settled version was a compromise where this information was to be mentioned as per this which KW just removed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can some one see to this, he's made about 7 reverts just within a day to about 4 editors and to more if we count his previous reverts. This is just disrupting the on going RFC (which has already taken toll by now blocked socks) and is quite irking as it instills WP:BATTLE mentality instead of working towards a compromise among those already participating heated discussion (although not reverting like this guy). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuation of editwar after expiring block: user has continued to revert the same edit right away after coming out of his block . He's definitely not here to help the project. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 12:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * indefinitely by . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marvzi reported by User:Attar-Aram syria (Result: blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Rojava is under 1 revert rule per 24 hours.

Diff: 1-

2-

Not to mention the removing of a whole sourced section 4 minutes after I asked him to use the talk pages through a message on his talk page.

Not to mention that most probably he is a sockpuppet of a user recently indefinitely blocked User:Multi-gesture, who edit with the exact same style and was reported for racism []. This user "Marvzi" only started to be active again after Multi-Gesture was blocked. And what a surprise He removed the same material Multi-Gesture tried to remove, which are related to a website named Kurdwatch :

1- In here, you will see an IP removing Kurdwatch material AND in here, you will see Multi-gesture admitting that he was the one who removed Kurdwatch

2- After Multi-gesture was blocked, Surprise, Kurdwatch material was deleted by Marvzi Please notice the edit summaries of Marzvi and Multi-Gesture, suspiciously similar.

3- Marvzi again is using the same ethnic spirit of Multi-Gesture by insisting on using the Arab designation for ISIS slave markets, even though its not mention in the source. This "Arab" word inserted in association with ISIS is the style of Multi-gesture for which a case was filled against him in the ANI [] and for which two admins decided to permanently block Multi-gesture--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:Marvzi (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Comment : The first so called revert was not a revert but a fix for what the source actually says which I provided in the summary. The second revert which is an real one, was a restoration of a whole sourced section deleted without a discussion which is actual vandalism. Please notice that I did asked him to engage in the talke page but he didnt cooperate --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * pending results at Sockpuppet investigations/Multi-gesture. The first edit was absolutely a revert, but see WP:3RRNO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, Sorry then, I will accept whatever rightful measure that shall be taken against me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Update : this user was confirmed as a sockpuppet hence I was reverting edits by a blocked user (which I knew for sure). So I acted under this WP:3RRNO.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * per 3RRNO. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:108.3.162.35 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Local newspaper"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 669723782 by John from Idegon (It's a local newspaper it's credible) (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 669736021 by John from Idegon (It is real, it is credible, people there care, We don't care about you, get over it) (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 669814612 by John from Idegon (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Perry Hall High School. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* recent edits  7/3/2015 */ new section"


 * Comments:

in addition, their talk page was created with a edit war warning template that was not linked to, but was about the article in question. John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also edit-warring this same content at 2060s, where it is even less appropriate (sorry for not putting a link in my warning to the article where I first noticed the behavior). Editor is blindly reverting to his last edit, destroying others' unrelated intervening changes as well (even worse than simple inclusion/exclusion of his certain item of interest). DMacks (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just want to point this out. IP tried removing the report twice. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IP just tried to remove my comment. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP is edit warring on the admins edit war noticeboard? There's a strategy that needs some rethinking. Willondon (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Kzim777 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Darjeeling falls under autonomous body GTA  and GTA has official language called Nepali. Mr. Thomas(alias name for some bias person) let me tell you that you are not creator of Wikipedia and you are just one of admin. I am not adding false details."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 669915209 by Thomas.W (talk)"
 * 3)  "Stop the discrimination and dictatorship.Darjeeling district has maximum population that speak Nepali language.I may take necessary steps on this if any wrong details provided."
 * 4)  "Nepali is official language of India and one of language printed in India currency. Darjeeling district has maximum population of Nepali speaking people(Gorkhas,Lepchas,Bhutia etc.) and therefore the official language of Darjeeling District is Nepali."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor repeatedly making POV edits removing Bengali as official langiage and changing it to Nepali, which is contrary to what the official government source in the article says. According to the source Bengali is the only official language in the state of West Bengal, with English being an "additional official language", that is secondary language, in all of the state, and Nepali being a secondary language in three hill districts, including Darjeeling. As the version of the article I revert to says, and as I have tried to make Kzim777 understand. To no avail. Thomas.W talk 13:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * by Thomas.W talk 13:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Handpolk reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: 48h)
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: N/A

Comments:

Continually removing comment by

Fairly clear violation of WP:TPO in addition to WP:3RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I reading it right that the warning came after the editor's last edit? 104.200.154.10 (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my warning for edit warring on Articles for deletion/Steve Badger (poker player) (2nd nomination) was placed at 5:29AM. At 6:22AM there was another revert from Handpolk. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 2005 is making baseless accusations across numerous venues that I'm a sock of a specific user, without offering a shred of evidence. He needs to take it to SPI and these accusations need to be removed.
 * The SPA who reported this is hounding me with this report, he knows me from an area where I am topic banned and has nothing to do with this whatsoever. Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  07:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)  Handpolk   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  07:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect this talk page comment might be disturbing as well. In any case, we have here an editor who was topic-banned from Gamergate at AE and who is demonstrating that he's not WP:NOTHERE by editing elsewhere, and who has immediately wound up in conflict, drama, and dubious editing. The problem might be malice or might be competence, but it's hard to imagine that they will be an asset to the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have had to remove several of those baseless warnings, an admin needs to step in before this gets out of hand.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbmorgan4 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:Blocked 48h)
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: (but this is also sock puppetry, so warning is moot)

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

Comments:

Based on edit summaries, it's obvious that this is the same user as: User:No Source - No Valid Source, User:SandSpietta90, User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706, User:Hierarchist + a few IPs and a couple accounts I likely missed. I'll file an SPI but in the mean time this is the 3RR report part. I'll most likely also ask for semi-protection (again) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Dandaawi reported by AcidSnow (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 10:38, 5 July 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 13:57, 5 July 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 14:06, 5 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page Warning

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

Comments:

Although these are 3 revert this is a long standing issue. They have also been avoiding 3RR by only reverting 3 times then coming back later to do it again. Anyways, for the course of several weeks, a single purpose account (Dandaawi) has consistently been defying consensus. In addition, he has also made constant personal attacks against me. These include: accusing me of engaging in "too many vandalism here", that I am adding my own "personal preference", that I am "misleading" and using "propaganda", that my actions are "very very biased and far from the reality" and are "clan based", that I am a "Pro-Somalia", etc. But I must say that the oddest one is this one: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somaliland&diff=next&oldid=668297411 "All i see is you against the world. i see no consnsus"]. Especially considering the fact that the whole world considered it nothing other than Somalia. Nonetheless, everyone here can see his actions here so there's no need to deny it. But he still continues to do so. More importantly, the users that I stated that gave their inputs did so: CambridgeBayWeather (see here: ), Howicus (see here: ), and Rsrikanth05 (see here: ). So why deny consensus since it seems quite odd to continue to do so at this point?

If your wondering about the revert I made against 26o1, they are nothing but a user that is not only harassing other users but is also impersonating another user (26oo). AcidSnow (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why did you not file a report to WP:ANI about that user at the time you made that revert, then? I'm trying to decide what remedies (blocks and/or page protection) will best help the situation here. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For 26o1? I originally informed the admin that informed me about another user impersonating me. I also informed the admins at Usernames for administrator attention, see here: . But they only blocked my impersonator and not both. AcidSnow (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You did did three 4 revers in the same page, you also refused to accept any kind of solution or bring documents supporting your self created map in the talk page .. You are taking advantage of your wiki system knowledge to block me. I will fill a file against you too. Adminstrators should take a look at the at the page history. You can clearly see Ucid acid did 4 reverts. this is like The pot calling the kettle black  Dandaawi (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User self-reverted the fourth, so that isn't taken into consideration. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did, however, as I already explained 26o1 is nothing but a user causing disruption and impersonating another user. That one doesn't even count since it falls out of WP:EDITWAR. I have also removed my last revert to make it even clearer. As such, I have only made 2 reverts in realty. Nor am I the only user to have rejected your "solutions". In fact, a solution has already been found but you nonetheless don't seem to care (as already shown above). Nor have I failed to provide sources like you still oddly accuse me of. As for using my knowledge to an "advantage" I have no desire to do so. Especially considering the fact that I am the one constant warning you of your violations. But you nonetheless seem not to care. So by all means file a report against me but you won't get far. AcidSnow (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's more to this C.Fred when it comes to my first revert as well. AcidSnow (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are twisting the reason those user names reverted those edits which has nothing to do with concensus. in fact you are avoiding to send them notifications although you mentioned their names multiple times over the last several days. , how come your one month old self created map can be more prefereble than 8 years old maps without bringing any valid reason. Lets prove who is the liar. I am calling all the users you mentioned to ask when and where did we reached consensus over this Talk:Somaliland ladies and gentlemen please come forward  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk)    Rsrikanth05 (talk)  Howicus (Did I mess up?). Dandaawi (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, I did notify them! See here: . It seems that they opted not to return since a consensus was already established. So why would I want to annoy them with constant notifications? t's best you give up with the baseless accusations as they only speak negatively of you. AcidSnow (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was notified last time. I chose not to comment because I had no clue what was going on. If at all I have made an edit on the page, it was probably with Huggle or Stiki to undo/revert a change that was obviously incorrect. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, so I wasn't really wrong. I nonethless apologize. However, Howicus most likely did. AcidSnow (talk)

Who authorized you to delete  my comments  i posted  user Buckshot06 (talk)  talk page just moments ago. Please adminstrators take a look at this. User Acid removed a comment i posted   Some other user's talk page,  Does he has the right to do so? [] Dandaawi (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete. I moved it to Fred's talk page. I don't enjoy Buckshot06s following me and another user around. AcidSnow (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

you moved and hided from his talp talk page. The evidence is there, adminstrators can confirm if you just moved a copy of iit or Made it disapear from his talk page Dandaawi (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't make it hidden from anyone. Regardless of what I do Buckshot06 will be well aware that you sent him a message. The only group that can make it hidden are other admins which is something I am not. I moved it to Freds page and made it distinctly clear on his page as well. AcidSnow (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 You did it  what is this, [] Dandaawi (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved it here: . What this user did here was hidden and deleted: . Do you get it now? I mean, you can literally still see your edit: ...... AcidSnow (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You think i am stupid. I could not litterally see it on his page until i reverted your edit after me. Here is the page history [] Dandaawi (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't and I never said it either. So could you kindly stop putting words in my mouth as well as making other attacks against me? You can see it without doing anything. In fact, I literally showed you the diff link for it. As I already explained, no matter what I do Buckshot06 will always see you message. Making things hidden and deleted are completely outside of my powers, I am not an admin. AcidSnow (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:87.68.150.229 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

These edits are not in order.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Call-Out Order */"
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Bachelorette (season 11). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP in question has been removing the tags from an unused colorbox. I initially hid it because it is being unused and serves for nothing until the winner is revealed. After the short back and forth between me and them, they've returned with disruptive editing Callmemirela  ( Talk )  &#9809;  15:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)