Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive290

User:Big-Endians reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This user persists in adding the obvious BLP violation that the subject has called for someone's assassination, despite such a claim neither being supported by the (primary) source nor present in any reliable secondary sources.

Diffs of the user adding this claim within the past 12 hours:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Other reverts by this user within the past 12 hours:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Warned for BLP: Warned (not by me) for EW: (and persisted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * "I don't think it's a BLP violation" is not one of the exemptions from 3RR. Even if the user somehow miraculously turns out to be right, and it's not a BLP violation to add your own interpretation of a primary source as a BLP subject calling for someone's assassination, the user's still reverted 12 times in about 12 hours, demonstrated a thorough misunderstanding of sourcing policy ("The context speaks for itself"), and made insinuations about my sexuality and other rude remarks . Can we just end this now? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese is part of the LGBT project at wikipedia, and Reza Aslan is a prominent supporter of gay rights in the Muslim American community. All I was saying is that because someone supports gay rights doesn't give censorship rights on other topics the person might be involved in (also, supporting gay rights is not the same things about being gay). Reza Aslan's comments speak for themselves. And here is the first question after he finished his speech.Big-Endians (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Big-Endians blocked for 48 hours. I should let you know, it really really doesn't matter how much you think you're right, or what you think of Roscelese. Edit warriors will be blocked. Especially for an accusation as serious as what you've been trying to add, this a situation where you should seek consensus first. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Article and talk page under attack by forum members
ARTICLE: List of Internet forums

A forum has put a call to its members to fight with editors in a revert war and on the talk page []

REVERT WAR (reverting the same edit from various editors 9 times):

22:00, 4 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk) source:http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/ added further description of tribalwar: source meta tags  <meta name="description" content="TribalWar.Com)

02:15, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎ These are in the meta tags of the website, there is no formatting rule on wiki against categorizing them this way. sourced fact.)

04:11, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎ (Please stop messing with the official meta tag description of Tribalwar.com. It fits the wikipedia description. An admin will get involved shortly if you keep these pointless revisions up.)

05:19, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎ (Yes I believe the condensed version of most important descriptors is why there are web meta tags in the first place chap! Please stop pointlessly editing/reversing.)

09:14, 7 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎ (noegaf is different from tribalwar. follow tribalwar's meta tags from the website itself. it is a free speech forum not video games. no im not going to a talk page when i can just keep making the edit and arguing here.)

12:29, 8 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎ (Nonsense waste of time edit for something that isn't breaking any article rules. TW is not neogaf don't categorize them the same, use the meta tags of the websites thank you.)

21:45, 8 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎ (Talk first expound on a rule or something this category is breaking because there is none sourced and you are the one breaking wiki rules by pointlessly editing without stating a reason or rule break.)

06:24, 9 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎ (you on mobile phone keep reverting a majority opinion of a forum of 32000 people. literally you and an ip account (two people) vs 32000 people. please stop this heavily opinionated and non fact/rule based argument)

09:33, 9 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎

ERASING TALK PAGE DISCUSSION: Comment "(Removing irrelevant blahblahlah courtesy of this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Internet_forums&diff=prev&oldid=675244934 COMMENT: There have been 18 reverts of the same table cell since 22:00, 4 August 2015‎.  Its appears that members of a forum put out a call to arms to fight (specifically using this term) with editors.  The owner of the forum is involved. My attempts to get a discussion on TALK and encourage consensus have not deterred the edit war.  Twice, the talk page discussion has been erased.  72.181.218.181 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was just going to flag them on AIV given the "discussion" on the forum in question:


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20150809083841/http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-680335.html


 * Given the above, temp protection to autoconfirmed may be required (not just yet, however). Proper move for talk is probably the red collapsible template thing (escapes me at the moment) and mv to archive... although the racist comments in tail of talk page by IPv6 address may need to be dealt with via oversight. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- dsprc   [talk]  09:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

IP range spanning User:171.82.160.154, User:171.82.160.162, User:171.82.160.153, etc. reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:
 * IP range spanning:
 * and possibly more that I have missed
 * and possibly more that I have missed
 * and possibly more that I have missed
 * and possibly more that I have missed

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'd rather not, this user has a history of vandalising the userpages of anyone who leaves a message on his talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, I'd rather not deal with the headache

Comments:


 * General nonsense vandalism (e.g. replacing images with File:Jihad.jpg) by IP-hopping editor. ISP information shows that he is from Wuhan, Hebei, China, using China Telecom. The article was semi-protected between 29 July 2015 and 5 August 2015; prior to the semi-protection this same editor has made the exact same repetitive vandal edits during July 2015. -- benlisquare T•C•E 11:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The page has been protected; that should suffice. To block these IPs is pretty useless. ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:PennyDarling reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: : insertion of website link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  after my first undo and referral to talk page
 * 2)  after my second undo
 * 3)  after my third undo and 3RR-warning on user talk page
 * 4)  after ' undo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

My 3RR warning resulted in a retaliating copy of the warning (including my own signature) on my talk page: User insists on my proving to them with references why their addition is inappropriate, i.o.w. putting the burden on others. User was already explained at Talk:Special relativity by user how best to go about editing here (wp:BRD). - DVdm (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User:DVdm has been asked to engage in discussion towards resolution, however, has continued to delete a qualified and reviewed web link. This escalation appears to be a Point Of View conflict (WP:NPOV) that the user (User:DVdm) holds against the owner of the linked website (quote from User:DVdm on WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity talk page: "Bad Source. To be avoided at all cost, at least for relativity. I have written them a few emails about this. Never got a reply."). User:DVdm has been asked to provide justifications, with links, showing the linked website to be of poor quality, but has only been able to supply hyper-links to personal web pages and forum bulletin boards, which are not of the quality required within a rigorous scientific discipline or wikipedia. The linked website is well established and was created by an expert in the field; furthermore it has been reviewed by the Physics Today (published by the IoP) and selected by the SciLinks program, a service of National Science Teachers Association. PennyDarling (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Two other users have agreed that Hyperphysics is bad:, . The reasons are extensively explained on the article talk page. There clearly is no consensus for the addition. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 14:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Thulqarnayn reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: for Ibn Nusayr:; for Al-Khaṣībī:

For Ibn Nusayr: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (31 July)
 * 2)  (All other reverts 8/9 August)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

For Al-Khaṣībī: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (31 July)
 * 2)  (All other reverts 8/9 August)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

These are two linked articles where the user has edit-warred simultaneously. The last revert on each article is by an IP in Germany,. The IP made the same identical reverts as Thulqarnayn after I had posted the 3RR warning to Thulqarnayn's talk page. Within 5 minutes of those reverts, Thulqarnayn posted this to my talk page. WP:DUCK, but I can't say whether it was a deliberate attempt to get round 3RR or whether (since it is so obvious) the user simply forgot to log in - but it's still a deliberate breach of 3RR. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (uninvolved non admin) I think either a comment by this user that they were the IP, or the results of a SPI investigation would be needed before linking them to the IP. I'm not saying its not them, but this may be the wrong place to come to that conclusion. AlbinoFerret  13:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK doesn't require either an SPI decision or an admission. Either its a WP:DUCK or it's not and admins regularly make that decision on their own. Of course, if it's not so obvious that it is a WP:DUCK then it would require an SPI. But I think it is obvious. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . 24 hours for sockpuppetry; 24 hours for socking. ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cruks reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result:Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674867242 by Wikicology (talk) this list is about the stable 2015 Forbes version and not in real time"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 674901707 by Jamie Tubers (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 674916600 by Jamie Tubers (talk) this version shows the stable version as it says "2015 Nig. billionaires list"! Do not remove this edit"
 * 4)  "/* Lists */"
 * 5)  "/* 2015 Nigerian billionaires list */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth."


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


 * Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit warring on the article List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth for some days now. First he kept removing the "incomplete" template which was placed in the article to enable users to add lists for previous years, but this user kept stating that "the article is complete". Further more, he started changing figures in the article, from the long standing appropriate version, saying that "the list is about 2015 not realtime", like we still are not in 2015. He also ignored that there's no consensus on whether figures for current years should be realtime or not. He also started changing wordings of the subheading in the article to try to support his stance; for example, he deleted the main subheading "lists", and changed the "2015 list" to the main subheading, when the article clearly isn't year-specific. The user has been disruptive on other articles too as it is evident on his talkpage, with several warnings. He left a message on my talkpage, which seem almost like an harrassment; Myself and one other editor replied and tried to make him see reasons, but he never replied or tried to resolve the dispute. Instead, he went ahead to perform several reverts again. He has also violated 3RR. Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with the statement above and I tried to find an agreement on the talk page of the article, but without any response. Instead User:Jamie Tubers and User:Wikicology are denouncing me bringing up examples from my talk page. This is poor and ridiculous. I have been working on several pages named List of (German, Swiss, Austrian and many more)... billionaires by net worth to shape them up in the same style. I got never any complaints from nowhere. The complaints come from 2 Nigerian editors when they tried to put figures into the article which are showing the real time ranking and not the stable 2015 version as like here. It is obvious that both users feel hurt in their national pride and want to leave their country people always stand in a better light. They are not willing to understand my neutral point of view. We cannot change every day the net worth data (because they can change daily) and that is why I put 2015 Nigerian billionaires list as a subtitle. Next year we could add a 2016 Nigerian billionaires list. Easy as that. Thanks for understanding. Cruks (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You only decided to leave a message at the article's talkpage hours after another user had already reported you for disruptive edit at admin incidence page. Moreover, the message you left is more of an authoritative comment anyway, rather than someone who wants to resolve a dispute. At the end, it still doesn't change the fact that you were edit warring, to the extent that you broke the 3 revert rule.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

--- It doesn't appears to me that user:Cruks is here to build an encyclopedia. I never noticed their disruptive behavior until I found this ridiculous warning on 's talk page. I responded to them here explaining to them why the user's edit did not constitute vandalism and User:Cruks quickly left this irrelevant note on my talk page that my revert on the article, List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth is not useful even when I never reverted anything that changed the list. I responded here telling them why the List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth should not only be on the  list of Nigerian billionaire compiled in 2015 but also other years. They responded here that I shouldn't treat them unfairly simply because they want to justified their action. I edited the article to enhance the inclusion of "list of Nigerian billionaire" compiled in other years to reflect the title but they abysmally reverted my edit. When I checked through their talk page history, I discovered that the editor is problematic. Last week, they created Declan Costello (economist), a blatant copyvio that was speedy deleted per G12 by User: Jimfbleak. A day before the page was deleted, I found this warning] by on their talk page regarding an edit warring on Morgan Schneiderlin. I also saw this warning on their talk for not been using the edit summary. There are also several warning on their talk page regarding the addition of poor sources to article such as this one. When I considered all this misconduct, I really don't think that this editor can contribute usefully to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both comments above are clearly unfair. What has to do my talk page with the edits on the Nigerian billionaires? Nothing at all! It seems to be clear that both users poke around in the past of other people because they themselves have no more convincing arguments. My final conclusion is that both users mentioned are not interested in bringing arguments forward to my edits instead, it's all about them another user badmouthing. Thats how it is. Cruks (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Consecutive edits count as one action; 4:21, 4:22 and 4:23 count as one action. There is no 3RR vio demonstrated here. However, the absence of any conversation about this on the talk page is concerning; there's a reason why there's a section for "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". That has not happened here. Article protected for three days to allow this important step to take place. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jasimkhanum10 and User:Zmaghndstakun reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Page protected; users sanctioned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Jasimkhanum10:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jasimkhanum10, Zmaghndstakun

Comments: A few hours after the article was protected to prevent IPs from adding dubious material and revert-war over it registered users started doing the same... Thomas.W talk 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: User Zmaghndstakun has a history of POV editing and stonewalling changes that don't fit his preference. I first encountered him at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan. There's a dispute resolution case open at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard about a continuation of his edit-warring. The other user, Jasimkhanum10 appears to be a brand new account interested in a very specific area. The article in question, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is about a location in Pakistan, and discretionary sanctions may be appropriate, since this is a subject area of great passion and dispute. Although I'm probably not technically WP:INVOLVED, I'm personally abstaining from taking action against either user while I get my admin chops. I encourage other admins to judge the behavior, though. I have fully protected the article for 2 days to cool off the war. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Page protected; users sanctioned. Both users are now subject to a 3-month ban from editing articles relating to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, all broadly construed. As for a block, the page has been protected, and these sanction have been put in place, so a block would be punitive at this point. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon I am utterly surprised for being topic ban from India Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reason number one: I have never edited any india / afghanistan page. Number two: I never voilated any WP rule except 3RR on Tank and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pages for which maximum you shold have blocked me for 24 hours on first Offence. I question Blind following of volunteer comment of a DRN competitior user Cyphoidbomb on ANI. Now how will I able to comment on DRN. Actually by doing so user Cyphoidbomb has denied my right to speak on DRN to which I was party. Can I call this democracy? Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Marsavian reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675412213 by ScrapIronIV (talk) - restoration of perfectly valid new data on Typhoon's performance."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675411168 as It is notable as it contradicts the earlier 'However, in one to one dogfights the Typhoon was found to be superior' statement."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 675408977 by BilCat (talk) The 2014 meet provides new insight into the relative performance of Typhoon and both sides of this insight have been impartially presented for fairness."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 675346945 by BilCat (talk) All Indra-Dhanush exercises are combat exercises, if one is to be removed then all should or none."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to get disputed material into the article, not stopping even though they've been reverted by multiple other editors.
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

92.149.192.237 reported by 109.158.107.195 (Result: )
Page: The Fall (TV series)

User being reported: 92.149.192.237

Please help me resolve this. It's just gone too far now.

Page before editing by 92.149.192.237 began:

Updated page as it looked before his latest addition (and how it should remain):

Diffs of the user's reverts (latest to earliest):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)

Colin Morgan is being constantly added to the opening header alongside Anderson, Dornan, Panjabi and Lynch (who are the four leads, with moniker credits (ie. starring, and, and with). He's being moved up in the info-box into an incorrect position, he's being moved in the series 2 section to before cast members who first appeared in episode 1.

user has been warned by several people in the comments section of the edit history page, but responds saying he is right

--109.158.107.195 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi guys. I'm just going to wade into this discussion because I'm becoming rather frustrated with this too. Discussions have been held on the users talk page ([]), and (s)he seems to be completely ignorant to what she's being told. There have also been several more violations since this complaint was put forth.


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


 * According to the users talk page there are also issues with his editing Humans (TV series) in order to move Colin Morgan up to starring credit, despite the actor actually being credited fourteenth. Some of the users rebuttals include:

"I find totally stupid to make in first an actress who is no longer in the series while Colin Morgan is still present in the series.." "I don't stop to edit ! Laura Donnelly is no longer of The Fall so why put her before Colin Morgan ?" "Your organization is really stupid! It's stupid to put one person who are no longer in the serie before the other is still in it" "in The Fall, Colin Morgan is credited in third place so he must be in third place in the cast list that's all"


 * We really need an admin to wade into this discussion and sort the situation out because it's a tad silly now. Thanks! --Unframboise (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * IMHO this is also immediately connected to previous discussions on other Colin Morgan-related pages, see Talk:Humans_(TV_series), User_talk:Smaugh and Talk:Colin_Morgan. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:109.64.38.239 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  16:39, 10 August 2015 (re-added infobox MOS vio, raw URL)
 * 2)  16:43, 10 August 2015 (the same)
 * 3)   16:44, 10 August 2015 (the same, plus restored commented-out uncited claim about siblings, for a BLP vio)
 * 4)  16:46 10 August 2015 (same as #3 above)]
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  18:16, 10 August 2015 (reverted a second editor)
 * 8)   20:02, 10 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I have cited every detail with a ref, and improved her infobox to look more Wikipedia-esque and plain professional. 109.64.38.239 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I just wrote on the article's talk page: "He continues to compound his edit-warring, removing a cite that he had improperly placed in the infobox and then not placing it in the article body, keeping a raw URL rather than the properly cited URL, and continuing to make uncited claims about a living person's siblings in defiance of WP:BLP." In any event, he has bright-line exceeded 3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I just wrote on the article's talk page: "I have cited every detail with a ref, and improved her infobox to look more Wikipedia-esque and plain professional." In any event, you are just annoyed that my information is correct and cited. 109.64.38.239 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Even after another editor reverted his BLP- and MOS-video edits, this anon IP again is edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Al Khazar reported by User:Whakaoriori (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This account was edit warring on Type 99 tank. Whakaoriori (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, this is Khazar. I am currently in the process of reporting an IP address for edit warring while refusing to comply with my points. I attempted to use the talk page, I welcomed the new IP address, and I was patient enough to give several notes to the IP about edit warring. Kind regards, Khazar (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I blocked them both--the IP for 48 hours, and Khazar for a week (repeat offender). Drmies (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:98.162.224.14 reported by User:General Ization (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The race of her maternal grandfather is not needed. If it is needed then why isn't the race of her other grandfather revealed? Or how about the race of her grandmothers? Rousey's racial ancestry is by and large English and Polish. This is most relevant."
 * 2)  "Ronda Rousey's heritage is English and Polish. She is only part Venezuelan. The most prominent part of her heritage should be considered first......followed by her Venezuelan heritage."
 * 3)  "Rousey's main genetic heritage is English and Polish. Therefore her prominent genetic heritage is the proper way to describe her racial heritage."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ronda Rousey. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ronda Rousey. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The IP seems to have some issue with the brief mention of Rousey's great-grandfather's Afro-Venezuelan ethnicity (but none with discussion of her English and Polish ancestry). The subject of the article has freely discussed her ancestry in interviews cited in the article, and even tweeted on the subject. The IP is removing this information along with citations that support it, even after warning concerning WP:3RR. General Ization Talk   02:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Viet-hoian1 reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: 24 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:

Comments:

Four revision is not a revert, but still edit warring. Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Burridheut reported by User:Zoupan (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

There have been countless attempts for constructive discussions. There was an ANI, and a previous EW that ended in semi-page protection. He has major WP:OWN and POV problems. The latest comments include "Please don't touch the article again." and "Get out of here, vandal. You have been warned by several users many times to stop this shameful campaign of yours." Please see the lengthy discussions on the article talk page for more information.--Z oupan 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to note that the user started an ANI thread regarding me and another user's involvement in that article: Disruptive users vandalizing article about Spiro Koleka.--Z oupan 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Low tactic, it worked for you the first time though. You complain about me few minutes after I complain about you. Why so scared? You seem so brave when you disrupt articles. Over and over. Burridheut (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Burrid's disruptive pattern is quite obvious even in his edit summaries. Moreover, excessive wp:own and wp:npa violations are part of his daily activity focused in this specific article. It appears a short term block is warranted, seeing that the user displays a strong wp:spa pattern.Alexikoua (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say that had clearly opened his account only for creation of Spiro Koleka, He/she has clearly run by WP:SPA to recognise Spiro Koleka as his own content without allowing other contributors to edit the article,  have clearly insulted other editors using summary. Thus i see this account  as violation of WP:OWN, WP:NOPV and WP:SPA, This account  should be banned permanently on prolonged edit wars with other editors. --Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 06:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Xtremedood reported by User:Human3015 (Result: protected)
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: Talk:Punjab region

Comments:

Editor is involved in slow edit war. Editor is known for nationalistic editing and have been notified for discretionary sanctions by admins too. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   00:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I did not break the 3RR rule, I participated in the discussion and waited for about 2 days before reverting. Human3015 failed to effectively communicate in the days and flipped flopped and failed to provide a proper rationale for keeping India on top, when clearly Pakistan has greater relevance to the region (more people and more territory). He then changed his position for it to be alphabetical.


 * I have been the victim of an organized campaign by the sockpuppet user user:OccultZone who used multiple fake ID's, such as user:Delibzr to try and get me blocked. There is even an account solely dedicated to being used against me, such as user:Gorgevito, who has all of his edits aimed at me in some way [].


 * OccultZone used his fake account Delibrz here [] to send multiple complaints about me. Since I have been a victim of an organized campaign to censore me in the past, I believe administrators should proceed cautiously in this matter. Xtremedood (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:xtremedood (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- 03:47, 8 August 2015‎

- 06:02, 8 August 2015‎ - Also, what Human3015 says in this is blatantly false, since the data shows that the Punjab region in Pakistan alone is Pakistan has 205,344 km^2, while the entire area of the Punjab region is 355,705 km2.

- 06:16, 8 August 2015‎

The previous three are a total of three revisions within a 24 hour period, whereas I reverted only 2 times within 24 hours. This is a clear violation of the 3RR by user:Human3015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

- up until August 9th.

- Human3015 failed to get back to me in about 2 days, here is a new one after about 2 days.

- My warning to Human3015

Comments:

Human3015, keeps on changing his reasons as to why India should be listed first, when clearly Pakistan has more people and more territory in the Punjab region. He previously stated it should be population, but Pakistan clearly had more people in that area, he than changed it to according to land area, when I explained to him that Pakistan has more land in that area, he then he changed his reason to simply being alphabetic. You may see the talk page discussion we had here:. I waited approximately 2 days for him to respond, however he did no such thing. He is unwilling to properly communicate his ideas, but rather flip flops to maintain his biased idea. He even tried to explain that the reason why the Indus Valley Civilization article should utilize the one sided and biased term of Indian Subcontinent over the more neutral and impartial South Asian Subcontinent term is due to Al Qaeda calling it is such.

Human3015 has a history of edit warring and flip flopping. He is certainly not an effective communicator on Wikipedia. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The diffs shown above not really shows diff of my reverts. This editor reverted two editors for just simple fact that name of which country should be above in infobox. We follow alphabetical order, if you click on those sections of "India" and "Pakistan" in that infobox then you will see names of sub-national territories written in alphabetical order in same infobox. I was just simple fact which countries name should be above, but this editor is on Wikipedia for "some reasons". You can see his contribution. He has been given notifications of discretionary sanctions several times. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   02:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment on Human3015's history of plagiarism: Also, on top of edit warring and flip flopping, Human3015 also has a history of plagiarizing. Human3015 claims to have wrote about a particular battle here, however, this is entirely plagiarized from this source on page 948. Over here  he claims to have read a source and "kept it", however, this is entirely plagiarized from here: . Xtremedood (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:The Buddhism City of Myanmar reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:52, 11 August 2015 ""


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


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


 * Comments:

No edit summaries, no discussion at talk, just endlessly reverting uncited information to a level-4 vital article. Ogress smash! 05:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * User has ignored the 3RR warning, the ANI report, and continues to add uncited materials while ignoring talk and not using edit summaries. Ogress smash! 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 09:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:92.149.192.237 reported by User:Asher-of-Locksley (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Many users have tried to reason with this IP user but to no avail. To them, it's only their way. Other users besides this IP have discussed this information many times and there is consensus since it's verified and is a vital career moment for the actor. This IP user has admitted that they used to be the user "Smaugh"/other aliases who used to do the same thing months ago. This user will never cease this behavior. In addition to edit warring in Colin Morgan, she/he has been causing grief in other articles like The Fall (TV Series), Humans (TV Series), Quirke (TV series), and Legend (2015 film), changing cast list orders so as to promote Colin Morgan, thereby causing a bad reputation for not only fans but Colin Morgan himself. -Asher-of-Locksley (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP has now admitted on the talk page that he will continue his deletion of content, without reason or consensus. Maproom (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 10:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SigungSanders reported by User:Ogress (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added information about Hakka Chinese and Bak-Mei.  This is accurate information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675546501 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* External links */"
 * 4)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 5)  "Cleared up inaccurate information about Shaolin being connected to Bak-Mei.  This is important as Shaolin can be considered a religious institutional link as well as a martial one."
 * 6)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */It is inaccurate to quote a research year and proceed to place Bak-Mei in a questionable catagory.  Other styles of martial art listed on Wikipedia are not subjected to this."
 * 7)  "/* Jeung Lai Chuen branch */Unlike many karate styles, Bak Mei has yet to be formalized by a main branch or organization.  It is misleading to put no disclaimer or mention that there are other forms."
 * 8)  "/* External links */Link to Hakka information for accuracy"
 * 9)  "Listed additional headings."
 * 10)  "/* Bak Mei Pai */"
 * 11)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 12)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 13)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 14)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 15)  "/* Jeung Lai Chuen branch */"
 * 1)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 2)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 3)  "/* Historical Bai Mei */"
 * 4)  "/* Jeung Lai Chuen branch */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Absolutely zero citations, absolutely zero talk. user is clearly intimately familiar with Wikipedia. Ogress smash! 10:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 11:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:173.71.50.211 reported by User:NickW557 (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:25, 20 July 2015‎ 173.71.50.211

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:41, 11 August 2015
 * 2) 10:48, 10 August 2015
 * 3) 16:52, 6 August 2015
 * 4) 14:32, 28 July 2015
 * 5) 07:45, 28 July 2015
 * 6) 12:06, 26 July 2015
 * 7) 09:37, 25 July 2015‎
 * 8) 16:33, 24 July 2015‎
 * 9) 17:46, 23 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: initial edit warring note (custom) by Jayron32 and second edit warring warning (template) by me

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: attempt by involved user Rock39 to discuss on talk page

Comments:

Obviously this is not close to being a 3RR violation as all the reverts are spread out over multiple days, but it is still a disruptive and drawn-out edit war over the last several weeks that I feel violates WP:EW at this stage. Other editors involved initially were just as blatant, but edit warring warnings all around seems to have gotten the others to try to discuss their disagreements about the names of the creators of this film, whereas this IP just keeps reverting and reverting without any attempt at discussion. A look at Special:Contributions/173.71.50.211 shows only edits to this article, the majority of which are reverts using the undo feature, and no edits to talk/user talk pages. Attempts to inform/warn with regard to EW policies have been ignored. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 16:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 16:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:PrimeNotice reported by User:NickW557 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675638995 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675638640 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 675637803 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 675634450 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 5)  "No section is blanked.  Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Opinion pieces are not fact Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 675633319 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings. Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings. (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675633319 by Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings. Bog5576 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Bog5576 continuously vandalizes through citing opinion pieces, work proven false and misinterpreting readings. (talk)"

warning
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Some discussing going on at User talk:Bog5576, but the revert war continues just as strong. That user has now been given an EW warning as well.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Going on almost 15 reverts today... --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 20:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Why am I the only one with this possible ban? I am doing my best to show the errors and discrepancies. I am engaging an a productive discussion on clearing up the issues with this page.PrimeNotice (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2 reasons.

1. I stopped when I was warned. 2. You've been consistently deleting cited material and lying about what you deleted. You said it was from opinion articles (none were opinion articles). Then you blatently lied about what the articles contained. Wikipedia needs to be about citing sources material, not protecting elected individuals from their past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bog5576 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

David Souza is unfairly editing sentences and phrases from other contributors like a newspaper editor! (result: declined)
Comments: Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I suggest that you deal with David Souza's continual interferences on your various pages that he edits because he is undermining the freedom that Wikipedia offers and not only that but the whole function of Wikipedia as a dependable source of information. It is laughable how David Souza can get away with making editing changes as if he were a newspaper editor with a particular political slant. David Souza, it can be seen on Patrick Matthew page in particular, makes alterations to the wording of sentences of other contributors in a reckless manner so as to alter the sense or relevance of the material contributed. Harmless! Think again, Wikipedia. Your Ward Cunningham has already said it is not his concern. It should be. there should be some code introduced that forbids any tinkering of wording of contributions made by others done by your Administrator/Editors. fair enough if your Administrators/Editors have found some information that is completely false then remove it all but not tinker with the expression of the piece.

Furthermore, it should not be the preserve of Administrator/Editors to issue intimidations on Talk where they have introduced an editing war on a contributor such as I who provided factual information which cannot be disproved as it is a published book. David Souza is a Darwinist and therefore does not want any such entry on Correspondences of Darwin that will upset other Darwinists or maybe draw their attention to this calculated error on the part of Darwin to discredit Patrick Matthew's origination of 'the natural process of selection' in his book in 1831. It stands to reason that this date is 28 years earlier than Darwin's publication in 1859! It should be highlighted on Correspondences of Charles Darwin page so that there is balance.

Otherwise, Dear Wikipedia Administrators/Editors you will find that Wikipedia will be a laughing stock.

Clear it up, Wikipedia, please!

A contributor PS I know you know who I am that's why I've done it this way!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.98.109 (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2015‎ (UTC)


 * &mdash; &mdash; I'm assuming this is over this series of repeated edits that was reverted by him. Your change literally breaks the text. It's not an issue of facts or opinion or accuracy; your change is literally invalid in the same way leaving out letters in a sentence would be invalid, because the text wouldn't point to the right page (Patrick Matthew) and would instead point to a non-existent page (Patrick Matthew (author of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, 1831), what we call a "red link").  We have a policy of assuming good faith here, and I suggest you start following it.  Taking the tutorial should also help with understanding some of the basics of editing and wiki formatting, while checking out out our list of policies and list of guidelines might help with understanding why you may be reverted in the future and how you can avoid it happening. (pinging  in case he's interested) . -- slakr  \ talk / 02:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Slakr, you've covered the issues well. The contributions of both Matthew and William Charles Wells are recognised appropriately in the various articles, as covered by reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 06:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Garchy (Result: Closing this report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675837541 by Flyer22 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675833514 by Flyer22 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Multiple warnings about vandalism AND edit warring have been given. User is not willing to work with other editors. Garchy (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "multiple notices of vandalism" is your statement Garchy?! - that alone is a violation of wiki policy - you cannot prove anywhere I have been a vandal - all my changes have been too ASSIST wiki - you full well know that calling me a vandal is violation of wiki rules - should I know open a admin review for you?!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After you were reverted a second time, why didn't you take your concerns to the talk page to hash it out? If you would have provided a reliable source for the information you were attempting to add, there wouldn't be an issue. It seems you've been notified on your talk page multiple times for disruptive editing. Please remain civil and not threaten to "open an admin for review", we all know that is not necessary. Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm closing this--it's already been talked about onWP:BLPN. If the IP continues they'll be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Js82 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (7/22/2015)
 * 2)  (7/22/2015)
 * 3)  (7/22/2015)
 * 4)  (7/22/2015)
 * 5)  (7/22/2015)
 * 6)  (7/23/2015)
 * 7)  (8/6/2015)
 * 8)  (8/6/2015)
 * 9)  (8/8/2015)
 * 10)  (8/8/2015)
 * 11)  (8/8/2015)

After their last revert, I (and an administrator) both suggested that they self-revert until consensus had been reached. I waited a few days in an attempt to let them cool off and make the self-revert. Today, they still had not done so, so I again reverted to the pre-dispute version which I believe is the correct procedure while waiting consensus. That led to:


 * 1)  (8/12/2015)
 * 2)  (8/12/2015)

While I understand it can be frustrating that consensus can take time, that does not excuse edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Js82

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

Comments

Please note that I had undertaken a painstaking journey on the article talk page, lasting over weeks to discuss my concerns and proposed edits (I wished the article to have an expanded introduction). This discussion involved several editors and admins. The current editor in question, Onel5969, was not party to all this discussion.

Subsequent to all this, I have made some edits to the article. So far (for the past several days), no one from the involved group has objected to my edits (one editor had comments, which I respectfully responded to). Onel5969, however, has been having issues on the "very need" to have an expanded introduction (which one of the admins involved in the discussion had openly and clearly agreed to; others had not voiced any objection, in effect providing their tacit approval as well.) All Mr. One has been doing now is engaging in a edit war, having himself agreed openly on the talk page that he did not bother reading any of the prior lengthy debate. (So he had no idea whatsoever regarding what had been discussed and agreed to before he just decided to jump in.) Further, once his actions are questioned, he does not respond further and resorts to edit warring. Since I'm new here, I do not have much idea and time yet to initiate investigations. If only I had them, it would rather be Mr. One whose actions would be under investigation. Nonetheless, through this forum, I would like to urge you to initiate investigations into the autocratic conduct of Mr. Onel5969. His actions clearly smack of personal ego clashes, and are clearly aimed at subduing the genuine voice of new-ish editors by filing unreasonable and unsubstantiated reports against them, thereby wasting the precious time of all concerned.

Js82 (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have both been edit warring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

-So what exactly does page protection imply ?

-Not sure why I'm being accused of edit-warring, given all the background that I have provided above.

-I would also reiterate the need to investigate the conduct of Mr. Onel5969.

Thank you.

Js82 (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you equate attempting to maintain the pre-dispute status of the article while consensus is being reached as edit warring. Js82 is the only editor, out of several, involved on the talk page who had an issue with the lead. When he proposed making the change, which he knew might be contentious, he made the change without waiting for consensus. I'm simply attempting to have the article remain in a status quo until consensus is built. I guess that's the incorrect way to go about building consensus. I let this notice board know of the issue on the August 8, and there was no discussion.  An admin,, added a nice note to Js82's, wherein they suggested (as I had earlier) that Js82 self-revert until consensus was reached. As I explained above, I waited several days in an effort to allow Js82 to calm down and perhaps agree to wait for consensus, but that was to no avail. How is one to respond to an editor who refuses to work to gain consensus, and who after bringing the issue to the attention of the admins, is initially ignored?  Not being snarky, I'd really like to know so I can do it properly if there is a next time, and avoid being accused of edit-warring.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 22:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Lol..I would urge whoever is evaluating this to please visit the talk page of the article being discussed, to understand yourself how flimsy and frivolous the arguments being made by the above editor are. As I said, there were painstaking lengthy debates initiated by me. Subsequent to these debates only, I edited the article's introduction. No one, absolutely no one from the involved group of debaters has so far expressed any concern. So all the perception of "dispute" being cooked up by the above editor is utterly absurd. All he has been doing is engaging in edit-warring, apparently to settle some personal scores since his conduct has been exposed as being completely unworthy of a Wikipedia editor ("No effort put in to understand the context and the prior debates, just barge in and wage edit-wars, and then make frivolous complaints against new-ish editors to scare them away.") This must be investigated, as it leads to a ridiculous waste of everyone's precious time.

Js82 (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I protected the page because of a report at WP:RFPP and it was only after that I saw this report. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:155.136.80.172 reported by User:Kahastok (Result: Duplicate)
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reverted by three so far. I wasn't sure he saw the warning before the fourth revert (he only had three minutes) and since it was reverted quickly and he was re-warned, I waited until the fifth revert. Kahastok talk 21:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh, this is the same as the below. Suggest close one and deal with the other? Kahastok talk 21:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nyanchoka reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675649237 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675549107 by Philip J Fry (talk) Unsourced edits hence possible vandalism."
 * 3)  "/* Filmography */Added reliable sources to support edit content."
 * 4)  "/* Premios TVyNovelas */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 675092994 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675092994 by Philip J Fry (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Revert without reasons */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Revert without reasons */"
 * 3)   "/* Revert without reasons */"


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


 * Comments:

The user began reverting my edit without any explanation, and then began editing the article to your liking without consultation or without reaching an agreement, to let him messages, never gave me a concrete answer. I think this was already enough with this user, who is not interested in Wikipedia teamwork. And he has only wanted to waging a war of editions. Although I disagree with his edit, does not seem to matter. And in my edit I did was update the Filmography of the actress. Because missing projects in which she participated, as "Ugly Btty" and "Lola, érase una vez". <font face="Myriad Web"> Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 21:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – Only three reverts, while four are needed to break the 3RR rule. Neither of you has posted anything on Talk:Altaír Jarabo. It helps if you can explain the motivation for your changes on the talk page. The two of you seem to disagree about some fine points of detail which are not easy for an outside to understand. I admit that Nyanchoka's comment here is not easy to comprehend. It is possible that Nyanchoka's limited ability in English is getting in the way of a good explanation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TheKerberos01 reported by User:68.37.227.226 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=665491430&oldid=665490750]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=665617591]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=674080625]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=674114812]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=674211188]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=675126444]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=675611389]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheKerberos01&oldid=674245876] (with his [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheKerberos01&diff=675449061&oldid=675349962 rebuttal])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Tekken_characters#Edit_warring], though Kerberos's response to being accused of edit-warring is posted [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Optakeover#Edit_warning elsewhere].

Comments:

The user has repeatedly entered unsourced/poorly sourced information regarding Tekken series characters that even his text admits may not be real. The passage on Jollibee is based on speculation from a questionable source misinterpreting the meaning of a Tweet from Katsuhiro Harada, which users have been repeatedly removing since at least January; and the passage on Luke has no source whatsoever aside from a supposed image Kerberos claims to have, which even he admits might just be fan art.

I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=674082793&oldid=674080625 explained] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=674145739&oldid=674114812 my] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=674246124&oldid=674211188 reversions] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=675350043&oldid=675126444 repeatedly], pointing out why it violates Wikipedia policy, but he continues to re-add the content, insisting he's in the right. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=666354017&oldid=666074444 He's] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=672939658&oldid=672823001 demonstrated] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=673052058&oldid=672940364 similar] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=673076342&oldid=673070674 behavior] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=675450502&oldid=675402794 on] the Tekken 7 page, reverting multiple users who attempt to place the character Jack (Tekken) in the "returning characters" section, despite being a "new model", as is consistent with the other Tekken game pages.

The user's writing style suggests to me that English might not be his first language, and it's possible he might not have understood or is misinterpreting why his changes have been reverted up to this point. If so, I'd appreciate it if another user or admin could better explain to him why rumors and speculation don't belong on Wikipedia. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The edit summary of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Tekken_characters&diff=prev&oldid=674114812 this edit] says "Jollibee and Luke will remain there until an acknowledgment is that the two are not in Tekken 7 case." This looks like a promise to edit war. In the absence of any good source, he intends to keep restoring 'Jollibee and Luke' until he is sure that the characters are not in the series. EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ali mjr reported by User:Kansas Bear (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:

Ali mjr's disruption has been ongoing since 8 August 4 June. This disruption has been the addition/changes including the addition of their own interpretation(ie. unsourced information). Of the 78 edits made by Ali mjr, none have had an edit summary. Back in 4 June 2015, Ali mjr attempted the same massive changes only to be reverted by LouisAragon. Therefore, this disruption can be dated as far back as 4 June. Judging from the lack of edit summary, no attempt at discussion on the Zand talk page, that Ali mjr is not interested in dialogue but simply changing the article to fit his views. The removal of my warning on his talk page, would indicate said user understands the warning and chooses not to engage in discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. Long term edit warring. The user has never left a talk posting or an edit summary, and is constantly adding unsourced material. He has created a new article at Vakil Water Storage, that (naturally) has no sources. His only use of talk is to remove messages left for him. If this continues, the possibility of an indef block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Yamaguchi先生 reported by User:HashimAchakzai (Result: HashimAchakzai indeffed as a sock puppet)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continious edit war by Yamaguchi先生 and deletion of sourced data with tag unsourced. Reported user is also deleting extensivly on diffrent pages huge data with out even involving talk page disscussion or citition needed tag. Please check following  #  #  #   #   #   #   #   All these are just few examples. HashimAchakzai (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, HashimAchakzai, for bringing this to the attention of the Administrators' noticeboard.  is a newly registered account created for the purposes of POV-pushing and disruption.  After registering this account on 11 August 2015 (three days ago) they immediately took to copying and pasting the exact same text across a series of different articles.        I am not familiar with the specifics of the Sockpuppet_investigations/LanguageXpert case, but apparently this is another from the flock.  Regards, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 17:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you feel I am sock of languagexpert;; just because I am editing language section; then file an SPI. Do not disscuss that here. You are removing sourced content on a number of pages which is disruptive and you are also edit warring; I have stoped to reverse your edit and used talk page. Its my right to use this board to highlight this. Explain why you are deleting sourced content? HashimAchakzai (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reported user is not even ready to talk and has deleted my two notices. Kindly follow the link to see HashimAchakzai (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Admin comment - This isn't an edit-warring case so much as it is a POV case involving Pakistan that needs serious administrative scrutiny, since Pakistan is considered a subject of conflict and POV editors are subject to discretionary sanctions. HashimAchakzai is adding maps and language descriptions that were originally submitted by socks of LanguageXpert, which is all detailed in the most recent SPI. It is no coincidence that the regional map nonsense has flared up again. This edit warring report is a red herring. Yamaguchi is not the problem here. Note also this discussion at Commons about a map uploaded by a sock of LanguageXpert. LanguageXpert got help from a meatpuppet the last time around, so it wouldn't surprise me if that's what's happening now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * They're a technical match to blocked sock so I've blocked indef as a  sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cydevil38 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk) per Xia Dynasty"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 675314652 by Ogress (talk) widely used legendary founding date"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675314652 by Ogress (talk) widely used legendary founding date"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675314652 by Ogress (talk) widely used legendary founding date"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been recently blocked for edit warring on Korea templates and is now edit-warring Gojoseon. After my most recent revert, which had the edit summary "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already", his edit summary says "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job". I don't know what this means but clearly that he is not interested in the talk page. Reverts by several editors. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 05:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I second . is a career edit warrior. Although he's a long-time user, he has only made a few hundred mainspace edits, most of which involve edit warring and nationalistic POV-pushing (adding the purely mythical 2333 BC date to Korean history articles, for example). At least five or six different users have complained about him on WP:ANI and here. He's already been blocked twice before (including his former account ), but has not changed his ways. -Zanhe (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have said in the short comments, 1. the legendary founding year these two users are trying to remove are widely used in Korea, the day of which is a national holiday, 2. legendary founding dates are used in other articles as well such as Xia Dynasty, and 3. this founding year has been already discussed over at the talk page. Ogress misinforms the situation by saying "several", whereas it's only two editors, Ogress and Zanhe, attempting to remove the legendary founding date. There are many others who disagree with their view. These are reverts made by Zanhe and Ogress over the last week other people's edits, which is about time when I noticed them making edits to the article in a disagreeable way: Zanhe - Ogress - Ogress - Clearly, "several" as said Ogress is rather the people that disagree with them.

The Korean counterpart of the article also uses the legendary founding in the same fashion date. In the infobox, it is clearly indicated that the founding date is legendary. Founding date and its sources is also discussed extensively in the body of the article. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of this is irrelevant to the fact that you have deliberately broken 3RR and refuse to discuss. It doesn't matter if you are right - you are breaking 3RR. To be clear, I said in my edit summary, "Reverted to revision 675374000 by Zanhe (talk): Reverts by at least two separate editors = take it to talk already".


 * You won't go to the talk page, you even SAY you won't go to the talk page because "Been talked over already". You got banned six months ago for 72h https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?action=view&page=Cydevil38&type=block for a three-month edit war on Korean topics. You know better and you did it anyway. In fact, you just edited the area of discussion again. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 04:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Unless I'm misreading the diffs, I'm not seeing a 3RR violation. You've also been edit-warring on the article, and have made no attempt to discuss it on the talk page either. There's a section above, that you left blank, called "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" and the editing note, which was removed from this report, says "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" - You've both been edit-warring, and neither of you have tried to discuss it on the talk page instead of hitting "undo", so why should Cydevil38 be blocked and not you? Aoidh (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply to Aoidh There are definitely 4 diffs in total of nonconsecutive edits where he is restoring the date 2333 BCE; am I reading the edits wrong?


 * I reverted what was patently nonsense - the state was formed 2000 years ago? - and said, "take it to talk". When his response was "Been talked over already, read the talk page before requesting others to do your job", no, I did not go to talk because he was clearly stating he was not interested in talk.


 * I can't change the past and add a "come discuss this" to the talk page. I would note I stopped editing this section (and the page entirely as it happens) at two reverts because that's when you realise you are wading into an edit war.


 * In contrast, Cydevil38 has continued to edit the page; he literally just edited the section in question, removing an IP's cites. He also doesn't seem to care about 3RR or edit warring. Look at his response above. You can block me if you think it is appropriate, but I did not know what else to do when Cydevil38 literally said he would not discuss the topic other than to bring him here to ANI, where suddenly he decides it is time to discuss the topic: "look, here is my argument". Why did we have to get to the current point at ANI in order for him to decide it was time to have a discussion about consensus? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 04:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * more comment* I see above also that there are diffs from the seventh where I reverted his edits twice. I have to admit I missed that - I didn't remember that. I do a lot of edits. My rule is that if there are two reverts, if that is reverted I go to talk and engage. There was no revert, so I dropped it and went to do three solid further days worth of editing, including dealing with a lot of contentious pages. Check my edit history: . I don't know how many edits I've made since the 7th, but it's certainly not on my first page of edits, which is set to newest 500.


 * I admit I did not see this nor remember it when the spat started up again. I can see that would make AGF seem harder for an outside editor. All I can say is what I already did: I literally didn't remember that. And I apologise to the editors around me for that.


 * I think perhaps this is even further bad-faith evidence for Cydevil38, whose edits are restricted only to a handful of Korean pages. He's only edited 2 pages in all of August: the one in question and the Korean template he got a three-day ban for. He waited until the situation calmed down in terms of reversions and then re-added material. That's clearly gaming the system. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The edit I've made after this report was removing citation that has nothing to do with Gojoseon's founding date. They are a list of books that Zanhe used in his argument that Dangun should be left out of the article. Also, I only make edits to pages where I can make meaning contributions, which are mostly Korean articles. It's rather annoying that both Zanhe and Ogress make mockery of me because I'm no as active. This editor also insults Koreans in general by saying the legendary founding year is used as the basis of a calendar(like birth of Jesus Christ) and the date of the founding is a national holiday. When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place. Cydevil38 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, User:Cydevil38 has engaged in long-term edit warring about the history of Korea. Reading the block message from last February is instructive. I left a note for the previous blocking administrator, User:HJ Mitchell. to see if he has any suggestions. Meanwhile, I'm proposing to Cydevil38 that he avoid a block by agreeing to make no further edits on the history of Korea unless he gets a consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That discussion is eight years old,, and is a tripartite list of ancient traditional histories from Korea and China (primary sources). That's not RS. We're going to have to discuss this issue on the talk page.


 * And no, I am not mocking you: I'm saying it's sort of obvious you gamed the system. There can be some suspicion about single-purpose accounts, but I am not making that argument. Well, except I am bringing it up here in reply to you, so except to clarify my response. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As requested by, I would like to clarify: above, stated, "When I told Ogress to read the talk page, I didn't mean not to engage in talks, but that Ogress read the previous discussion and consensus that has already taken place." That "previous discussion and consensus" is, as you can see from the link, not a consensus, barely a discussion, and definitely not appropriate RS. It doesn't even agree with his claim that there is a unified date of 2333 - one might exist elsewhere, but not in that section, where three traditional dates based on the life of the mythological Chinese culture hero Emperor Yao (noted below as 堯) are proposed in various ancient chronicles and songs from Chinese and Korean historiography.


 * I am pasting the entire section below:


 * '' == Can someone give the source of the foundation years of Gojoseon? ==


 * BC 2622 by whom ?


 * BC 2786 by whom ?


 * BC 2800 by whom ?


 * BC 2337 by whom ?

There are so many theories about the foundation years. Can anyone give the sources of them ? ??? I thought Wikipedia said that Japan was under Gojoseon's rule... What about that information?? I want to know... Did Gojoseon occupy Japan or no??? PLz someone answer me.. I have a project due on Japan.


 * No, it didn't. Check any book you want on Japanese history.  Or Korean history for that matter.  -- Visviva 02:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are three opinions
 * 1. BC2357
 * Book_of_Wei(魏書), Jewang_ungi(제왕운기), Dangunsegi(단군세기), Sesongillok Jiriji(세종실록지리지) as the first year of 堯.
 * 2. BC2333
 * (Donguk tonggam)동국통감, Haedong ijeok(해동이적), Dongguk Yeokdae Chongmok(동국역대총목) as the 25th year of 堯
 * 3. BC2308 
 * Gogi(古記) cited by Samguk Yusa as the 50th year of 堯


 * Chinese records of 四庫全書 says B.C. 2333. Korean just use this records of 四庫全書 --Drpepper000 09:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So, the year B.C.2333 was not on Samguk Yusa. Then, the text on the article is wrong. Jtm71 09:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where in 四庫全書 does it say 2333 BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry bee (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC) ''
 * You'll note that not only isn't there consensus of any kind, there's not even a response to the query, "Where in 四庫全書 does it say 2333 BC?" by (I added the appropriate wikilink to the source being queried since it's in Chinese.)


 * These sources listed are the Book of Wei (dated to 554), Jewang Ungi (a poem dated to 1287), Hwandan Gogi ("a modern forgery dated to 1979"), Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (closed in 1865), Dongguk Tonggam (c. 1488), Haedong Ijeok (no English article, dated to 1666), a book unattested on Ko or En wikipedia (東國歷代總目, dated to about 1705) and the Samgungnyusa (believed to be compiled in the 1280s). All adhere to traditional historiography and are considered primary sources.


 * I hope that helps? I'm not sure what you were looking for.Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 22:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The origin of the 2333 BC date is explained in detail in Constructing "Korean" Origins, a book written by Professor Hyung Il Pai and published by Harvard Asia Center. It was likely arrived by counting back 1048 years (the divine ruler Dangun's age when he abdicated) from 1286 BC, Gija's estimated year of arrival in Korea after the collapse of the China's Shang dynasty. And in a related discussion last year, I showed Cydevil tons of academic sources confirming the mythical nature of Dangun/Tangun and hence the date associated with him (see link). -Zanhe (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Cydevil38 is warned. The next time he makes a revert about the history of Korea that doesn't have clear consensus on the talk page, he is risking a long block from Wikipedia. Since mid-2014 you have reverted 24 times at Template:History of Korea. The fact that others are constantly undoing your changes should be a clue that these edits don't have consensus. Use the talk page to persuade people. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Long-term edit warring is one of the problems this board is expected to address, and if nothing else works, a long block may be required. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Cydevil38 Please ban me I cannot bide by your terms, and I'd like to be banned for six months or more if you please, under the same given reason, my 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. I'm sick of half-measures and users like Zanhe threatening me with AN moves like this. So please ban me for whatever amount of time you deem fit for making 24 reverts at template:History of Korea. 121.161.79.71 (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So is in Zambia, then? I doubt that very much. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  07:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 121.161.79.71 geolocates to South Korea, not Zambia. And Cydevil used IPs from the 121.161.79.x network in earlier edit wars (he later said he forgot to log in), see . -Zanhe (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So adding a NPOV tag on a disputed article is edit warring? Is that what you think? 121.161.79.71 (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have warned you for now continuing to edit while logged out. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 21:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dfnkgne reported by User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Tianjin explosions. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also suspected sockpuppet, Sockpuppet_investigations/Vantastic2014 495656778774 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This user might not be a malicious user. We must WP:Assume good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrefalsen (talk • contribs) 10:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. We should try to convince him not to vandalize articles anymore, before infringing on his privacy with a checkuser. 10:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilenson (talk • contribs)
 * We must not WP:QUICKSOCK. We must WP:AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genious12345 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – by User:Materialscientist per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Vantastic2014. Three of the editors who commented above are also blocked as socks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:155.136.80.172 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675962304 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675961867 by Kahastok (talk)This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 675958581 by Mosmof (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 675905494 by Mosmof (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 675946590 by Kahastok (talk) Leave this along, this very much belongs"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 675958581 by Mosmof (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 675961867 by Kahastok (talk) This very cleary does belong here, idiot, you are obviouly not Scottish"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 675962304 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 675977957 by SantiLak (talk) Scotland is a Soverign entity, if not in this part of page needs to be in a nother!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe:  new section"
 * 2)  "Warning: Edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Edit warring at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe"

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

Response
 * Comments:

Per talk page comments, user is only interested in pushing a nationalist POV  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert number 6 Kahastok talk 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Revert number 7 and no sign of stopping. Kahastok talk 22:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This guy now is at twelve reverts, is no one able to block him? Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 05:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

User:109.121.37.112 reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Semi)
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: Warning on talk page

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

Comments:

I recently added certain tags to the article in question and made a lengthy explanation prior to that on talk page as to why I did so. The reason was exactly to avoid what is happening now. However certain user named Tuvixer came in and simply reverted my tags without any summary or discussion on talk page as to which I warned him not to remove the tags without discussion or explanation. After I warned him I will report him the "anonymous" IP in question comes into play and starts blatantly reverting and removing tags without proper discussion. You can also see his disruptive behavior on talk page where the user replied talking more about me (even implying I was a fascist) and just plain blatant disruption of would-be proper discussion. Considering the language used by the anon IP and the rather strange immediate appearance and same blatant reverts/disruptions I am quite convinced the anon IP is the same person as Tuvixer.

Also I am well aware that I did more than 3 reverts myself, however I believe there should be an exemption in this case as I have gave proper explanation on talk page why I've added tags and I was trying to have a proper discussion on talk page. Also as far as I know (I may be mistaken) one does not remove tags unless they are properly discussed. Shokatz (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. User:Shokatz is warned that his explanation doesn't justify exceeding 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SilentResident reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rev Good Faith edits by 45.33.133.211 (talk)"
 * 2)  "This article is about Greek pop figures, not about the pop census in a country. So it is 10,816,286 minus 6.24% = 10,141,350, right? For census details, we have the Greek census 2011 page."
 * 3)  "Rev. The census does not take in account the ethnicity of the citizens of Greece.  If you dispute this, please bring the matter to the Talk page, not here."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676085690 by 45.33.137.203 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Reverted good faith edits by 45.33.137.203 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Reverted unsourced population edits by User:KazekageTR."
 * 1)  "Reverted unsourced population edits by User:KazekageTR."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I noticed this because the page was on my watchlist, but I wasn't involved in this dispute. Neither side made any attempt to discuss this. SilentResident was aware of 3RR as per:. They're also aware of discretionary sanctions in this area:. The reverts of the IP range (45.33.xxx.xxx) should also be scrutinized:, ,. Beyond the obvious similarities in IPs, this talk page edit shows the IP is the same person, aware of 3RR, and more interested in seeking more editors to aid their side of the edit war than actually discuss things:. ~ RobTalk 22:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Rob, If you check the edits and why they have been reverted, you will notice that 1) no edits are disputed, they are simple reverts due to information not fitting the page, and 2) unsourced new content that conflicts with sourced but already present content is removed and 3) new content unrelated to the page's subject is removed in effort to maintain the page's integrity. It is simple as that. I just tried defending the sourced matterial against unsourced information that replaced them. Lets take for example in the case of User:KazekageTR: KazekageTR raised the population figures of Greeks living in Turkey from 4,000 Greeks to... 200.000 (!) and without citing any good sources to back his edits. Such dramatic population changes in one day, are impossible to happen in real life, and they have to be well-sourced! And I shall note that, before I revert KazekageTR's edit, I made sure the changes do not contradict the relevant page: Greeks in Turkey. I checked this page carefully and it says that currently just about 4.000 Greeks residing in Turkey, not 200.000 as this user claimed in his edits.
 * Now, as for the user 45.33.133.211 who keeps changing his IP in order to avoid intentionally the 3 revert rules, his edits are done in an way that the page deviates from its purpose: The page is about a specific ethnic group of people, not about the foreign citizens who legally or illegally migrated to Greece, nor is about citizenship. It is about an ethnic group, about people who have Greek ethnicity, regardless of their citizenship (US citizens, EU citizens or Canadian citizens of Greek nationality and or ancestry, etc), so including in this page information that does not really fit in it, can only serve in deviating the page from its purpose. After all, for citizenship of people, it is better that the information goes into a section and not on the leading infobox... The leading infobox is about the ethnic people themselves the page was made for, not about foreign non-Greek citizens, or people of foreign ethnicity who got X citizenship. Right? Secondly, the people of foreign ethnicity who have citizen status in Greece but are not Greeks, should either be added to a section in this page (but not on leading infobox), and to these following 2 pages as well: Greece and Greek census 2011. Isn't that better to do, or did I missed something? With simple words, I am just trying to keep irrelevant (and unsourced in some cases) info out of a page that has nothing really to do about it, and maintain just the relevant and sourced info in it. My apologies if I surpassed the 3-edit war, and I asked this anonymous user who keeps constantly changing his IP, to use the Talk page instead. So we can discuss the matter and see what material can help improve the page. I had no bad intentions or whatever, and again my apologies and is very unfortunate to see that the nature of the edits was not taken into account (although the 3RR rule is very clear). --SilentResident (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This report is not an accurate one. First, revert 5 of by SilentResident is a justified one because this edit by KazekageTR is controversial and has been reverted multiple times in the past by other editors as well, please see example and another from 2014 which had been originally inserted by you guessed it. Revert 3 is a revert done by mistake and has been cleared and discussed with me on my talkpage. This is disruptive editing by a dynamic IP which keeps edit-warring altering cited information by reliable sources and substituting numbers which are of doubtful origin. This report should have reported the disruptive IP not this good faith-editor. Balkans is a difficult area to patrol, especially if one acts based on incomplete information. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear user Δρ.Κ., thank you for your support, but nevertheless, it is saddening that I got reported to the Administrator's noticeboard. This is the second time I see my name in the Noticeboard in only 6 months (the first time was with the user Rolandi+) and this is a very discouraging fact. and I now consider ceasing my presence in Wikipedia, because of that, and for the fact that while I am aware of 3RR rule in Wikipedia, I am not aware of what we registered users can do when unregistered anonymous users who constantly change their IPs to avoid the 3RR rule, are doing changes without respecting the integrity of the pages, avoid the talk pages, and do not care about reaching a consensus with other users and the community, or citing good and reliable sources in their edits. I don't know how to react to such similar cases in the future. I am very active person, I watch many pages every day to make sure things are ok, but I can't keep contributing to Wikipedia like this. I am a honest person, but when it comes to my name getting reported, even falsely, this is very discouraging. Anyways, thank you and I appreciate alot your support.  --SilentResident (talk) 01:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected three days. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to all of you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed, this is not a dispute among registered editors. The IP was edit-warring against established figures and consensus. Please see also my additional comment below. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not be discouraged. There are editors like myself who value your scholarly and long contributions in the area of the Balkans and I hope you choose to stay. I understand your frustration at being mentioned in a report which is based on incomplete facts but don't worry because the system is fair and the admins here are experienced and will see through the faults of this report. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Δρ.Κ., thank you for your words. And dear EdJohnston, you did well to raise the protection level of the article, given how in the last 2 weeks it has seen way too many potentially disruptive changes and edits and that does not really improve the article. Have a good day. --SilentResident (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Additional comment Revert 2 is actually not a revert because it was done with my agreement after SilentResident came to my talkpage. Please see the time stamp of revert 2 at :53 past the hour and the apology of SilentResident for mistakenly reverting me at :35 past the hour and then he informed me of fixing the figures at :57 past the hour, four minutes after the so-called revert number 2, for which I thanked him. SR was in communication with me and had my full consensus and my thanks. That's not edit-warring. This is  improving the article. Meanwhile the unreported IP had reduced the number of the Greek population in Albania from 200,000 to 27,000 which is essentially vandalism. This is a badly-botched and unfair report. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Moonwizard2001 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Critical reviews */Added reviews"
 * 2)  "/* Critical reviews */Added reviews"
 * 3)  "Added reviews"
 * 4)  "A more fair mix of reviews"
 * 5)  "/* Reception */A more fair mix of reviews"


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


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


 * Comments:

Blanking, disruptive editing. Edit-warring against multiple editors. Unresponsive despite multiple warnings. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now we have Sockpuppet investigations/Moonwizard2001. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 06:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jesu1999 and User:WWE Batman131 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Both blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  The history of the page already shows plenty of faults by both editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jesu1999 WWE Batman131

Comments: Both editors displayed classic behavior of edit warring. It all started with Jesu1999, as he performed disruptive edits and reverted updates from WWE Batman131. The biggest issue is the supposed order of the bouts, but WWE Batman131 has it right as we follow the official website of the organization, while Jesu1999 claims his edits to be based on a mobile version of the same website. Despite being instructed, Jesu1999 continued to edit war and it prompted an escalated situation of numerous edits featuring just reverts and also personal attacks on summary. WWE Batman131 seemed to have good faith at first, but got himself into a situation he knew was avoidable. Therefore, it seems to me that the first editor reported has broken rules regarding edit warring (perhaps even the 3RR), disruptive behavior and personal attack, while the second editor engaged in the edit war as well as personal attacks. I suggest a harsh penalty for the first editor due to his possible maintenance in the future. The second editor is up to you guys in this case. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Edit warring accompanied by blatant personal attacks on the part of both parties is unacceptable, and that's all there is to it. S warm   ♠  07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Twillisjr reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Epigraphy, archaeology and references in religious texts */ See: Book of Genesis"
 * 2)  "/* Epigraphy, archaeology and references in religious texts */ Original Research"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Breaking 1r restriction at Mount Hermon */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

There's a big 1R edit notice when you edit. Editor ignored this and reverted twice, then a 3rd time after I warned them about breaking 1R. No notice is necessary but I did warn them and they ignored the warning. Doug Weller (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   14:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ndsm reported by User:MYS77 (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pompey is a nickname for Portsmouth, but nicknames aren't used in Wikipedia articles."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675932235 by MYS77 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675932235 by MYS77 (talk)"

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

The user only edited a footballer once in his whole contribution to this WP, and all in a sudden says to me that "we should not use nicknames in Wikipedia". Then, after showing examples of how team nicknames work here, I was reverted with no further explanation. MYS  77  ✉ 03:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * -- slakr \ talk / 16:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Vantastic2014 reported by User:Citobun (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Single purpose account created to blank a well-cited section of the above article.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

May be a sockpuppet of User:Wackykid. Citobun (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also there's an IP trying to remove the same content: Geogene (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User is engaged in an amateur "censorship" campaign to remove referenced content about the Chinese government's actual censorship campaign, as reported by reliable sources. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  07:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possible sockpuppet: User:Dfnkgne. Citobun (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Reported sockpuppet(s) here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Vantastic2014, please add comments...


 * . Editor has not made any edits in ~36 hours. –Darkwind (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Clarknight reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "/* Further reading */"
 * 3)  "/* Further reading */"
 * 4)  "/* Further reading */"
 * 5)  "/* Further reading */"


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


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


 * 1) diff


 * Comments:

From Clarknight; the links I post are to FREE books on GoogleBooks. They have been on Wiki for years. The 2 men that are complaining here are 2 people that sell these books for a very high price. They keep removing my links to the FREE Public Domain books by William. H. Bates. Ophthalmologist. The public has a right to the free content. I have contacted Wiki management about this abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarknight (talk • contribs) 16:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: diff


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 676176919 by AnomieBOT (talk): Discussion ongoing on talk page. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676180127 by Human3015 (talk)This is the second revert you have done on this issue. Discretionary sanctions apply to you too. Please read the Burden article it may help"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676181367 by Human3015 (talk)You have reverted me twice please do not revert again. I have already started the discussion on the TP"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* You should know discretionary sanctions */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3rr  */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */  reply"
 * 2)   "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */  reply"
 * 3)   "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */ REASON?"
 * 4)   "/* Would read better if we remove ambiguous terms */  violated 3rr"


 * Comments:

User is involved in edit war without giving any valid reasons to remove content of the article which actually belongs to article. Article is under discretionary sanctions.  Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Editor have self-reverted himself and it seems that he/she will not involve in edit war anymore. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

In my defense
Human 3015 added the material in question about 2 days ago. The material in question is the "number of injured" in the battles/firing. The article has never had that number because it causes contention and can come from questionable sources. The infobox of the article is proof enough that this has never been added to the article. Human was then reverted by another editor, who clearly said on human's TP that inserting this material will result in wars and should therefore be removed. However Human again added that information. When I came to the article I found the suspicious material and though that some anon IP had added it, so I created a Talk Page section and removed the material. Human reverted me too and came to the TP asking for "reasons" of removing his edits. I explained to him that his TP will show that he has been given reasons so he cannot just say that my edits something new to him. Therefore Human has reverted two editors in the past 4 days and added his own material into it almost SIX times. My last edit was a self revert so the article now shows humans material. I'm sure he will be reverted again but this kind of "abuse" of system to put ones own text into an article is pretty infuriating.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - It was I who first removed that irrelevant injuries text as I also agree to and in fact explained the reasons and tried to discuss it four days ago but after an edit-war seemed to be starting, I did not make any revert. Now  has started it again instead of a positive discussion at the article's talk. He has a history of edit-warring and logs in the block-log. Now, both of the reported user and the reporter have made 3 reverts each, and  has self-reverted. I would suggest a return to the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn by reporting user; reported user self-reverted. –Darkwind (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Firefox lani reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:, ~"Firefox lani logged out"

Previous version reverted to: ,,

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Justin I
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Battle of Callinicum
 * 1)  ~ adding unsourced information to referenced information
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  ~ states, "My sources are based in History of the Wars: Books 1-2 (Persian War) by Procopius", no link, no quote, no page numbers.
 * Justinian I
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  ~ removes link to a source

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Firefox lani,his IP

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Firefox lani and his IP{46.19.231.255) have been edit warring over at least three articles since 25 June:Battle of Callinicum, Justin I, Justinian I(a cursory examination of Firefox lani and the IPs editing history may reveal more). Since Firefox lani refuses to engage on the talk page and scarcely uses edit summaries, I can only speculate that the issues concerning Justin I and Justinian I are ethnicity based.

The Battle of Callinicum, however, is where Firefox lani has introduced his opinion into the article unsupported by any sources. Also, Firefox has removed references/referenced information over the articles in question,It's not vandalism, it's correction from false sources,,removes Thraco-Roman I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia, as opposed to writing their personal opinion into articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Although there does not appear to be a 3RR violation this reverting over three different pages is disruptive. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Doc James and User:CorporateM (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Original
 * Added in-line annotations
 * Removed
 * Restored
 * Removed
 * Restored
 * Removed

Comments: The article says "As of 2005... has not been well studied". I added an "update" template, because 2005 was ten years ago and there are several sources from 2013/2014 that support this text. Doc persistently reverted calling the tag "sillyiness", "unneeded" and saying "Hum so they pay you to edit war?" without waiting for discussion. Being unable to annotate the article makes discussion more difficult. This is part of an ongoing trend of Doc working to prevent me from making any improvements to the page or discouraging me from discussing them with other editors under canvassing accusations, in response to my COI disclosure. I do sympathise with Doc's negative experiences with paid editors, but this is disruptive. CorporateM (Talk) 18:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What we have here is User:CorporateM trying to tag / remove a systematic review which likely disagrees with the position of those paying him.
 * We do not have a newer systematic reviews as of 2014 per this 2014 article
 * If one looks at the pyramid of evidence one sees systematic reviews at the top. Yes we have newer literature reviews but that is a lower quality of evidence.
 * I have brought up the issue here on the talk page
 * I warned User:CorporateM before their posting here It appears they decided to be preemtive and start the 3RR. No one however has crossed the line yet.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not tag a high-quality source without there being a newer source available for the specific claim. See WP:MEDDATE. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a 2013 source that says "Clinical studies with Invisalign therapy have begun to quantify treatment efficacy, but to date no randomized controlled trials have been undertaken." Alternatively, if you wanted to focus on the 2005 study using the other source, a proper sentence would be "As of 2014, the last good study was in 2005" as oppose to "As of 2005" CorporateM (Talk) 20:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about "a study". This is a systematic review. We could go with "As of 2014, the last systematic review was in 2005" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "As of 2014, the last systematic review was in 2005" <-- Yes, bulls-eye.
 * Also the sentence that follows it: "Between 2005 and 2014 no further systematic reviews had been published" is very redundant with that one. Hence why I marked it with an undue tag, then explained on Talk that what I really meant was redundant, but we don't have any tags for repetition. CorporateM (Talk) 20:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes agree the two sentence could be combined together. Nothing wrong with using the most recent systematic review though. We use the most recent high quality sources avaliable. In a not actively researched area such as this a 10 year old study is not necessarily out of date. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Repeated/ reposted from CorporateM's Talk page: I won't get involved in this except to say at issue was not the difference between a literary revue and a systematic review. Further, Corporate M did try to explain the tag as a way dealing with his concerns on talk, did take the discussion to the talk page, and was not the first to revert the tag, as far as I can tell, and so begin an edit war. Its worth I think to clarify this situation. I do think the best plan is to take this back to the talk page, stop reverting, and discuss the issues.
 * The paid editor jab is a red herring and does not help this discussion along.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Per "was not the first to revert the tag"? Ah he was the one that added it, why would he remove it?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Evasive. You misrepresented this situation and this editor. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Yes I may be unclear with what User:CorporateM was trying to achieve with the tags in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * could you not have provided them the 2014 link with your first edit. It might have saved some time. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM was well aware of the 2014 review as it was and is already in the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't see it in the article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article as it appeared on Aug 10th ref number 1 states no newer systematic reviews have been done. I had added both the 2005 systematic review and the 2014 literature review back in Jan of 2015 in these edits  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM in my understanding of the page history could have averted any edit war (the review in question was already in place)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, more recent sources were incorporated into the article, but none were next to the text I tagged. I was fully aware that more up-to-date sources were available, which is part of the reason I tagged it, knowing that it was possible to update "As of 2005" with "As of 2014". I was not concerned about the date of the review itself, but of the "As of", which is why I placed the tag after those words and not at the end of the sentence or even near the source. CorporateM (Talk) 22:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These were the conclusions of the most up to date systematic review which CorprateM is trying to remove from the lead. The second 2014 source just confirms it is the most recent systematic review. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM, you tagged a sourced without providing evidence there is a newer source. If no newer source is available don't tag. If there is a newer source available you also should not tag. Instead of tagging you should ask for a newer source for the same claim on the talk page. If there is no newer source found then we should keep the old source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:MonsterEnergy1997 reported by User:Crow (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:  (Prior to revert #4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On his user talk page, actually.

Comments:


 * User insists on adding a reference to a supposedly forthcoming addon to this game. His contribs show vague reasoning ("I can't tell you how I know"), assertions that he works for the publisher, and invitations to synthesis based on a photo one of the voice actors posted. He's been at this on and off since 1 August, reverted every time, and my invitation to discuss was ignored.  Crow <sup style="color:black;"> Caw  22:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We finally got him to come to the talk page, but he chose to edit other people's comments rather than actually discuss.. Crow <sup style="color:black;"> Caw  23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Prokaryotes reported by User:Cuzkatzimhut (Result: )

 * Page:  : Scalar field theory; Fermi's golden rule ; Adjugate matrix ;et al.
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Please take a look at this user's frenetic rampage of today, Aug 13. After rebuffing sensible argument, and manipulating MY talk statements with HIS drivel, he has launched a campaign of block deletions and quasi-random, thoughtless additions of refimprove requests by the truckload. I believe this is "vandalism-within-the rules" and might be up to you to collectively fix. The pages depredated by him look like construction sites. I am a professional theorist and he appears hardly educated on the subjects, with some undisclosed ax to grind. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to reason with Cuzkatzimhut, however he seems to be not able to except any kind of critic. Almost all his edits lack proper referencing and grammar. Additonally his edits are most of the time to technical. Also the editor might want to explain the edits from me, he thinks are at issue. prokaryotes (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuzkatzimhut if you are a professional theorist(?) on the related subjects you might want to disclose this on your user page. Please read WP:COI. prokaryotes (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheap dig: I get paid to teach the stuff: I can teach it more effectively in WP. You may try subtler innuendo when you proffer WP stuff to read, in sardonic flourishes. What makes you suspect I have not read it in 9 years of editing? Now, about that bizarrely inapposite Tegmark et al. reference...Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@prokaryotes. The issue is your massive removal of valid content. You have misunderstood somehow, and believe that every sentence not having a citation with page number can be deleted at will. It cannot. It can be contested, starting on the talk page. This is very different. Most of the material you have removed is so general that general references suffice. For example, in an article not about elementary quantum mechanics you do not require a citation with page number for the statement that a scalar is a boson. It is perfectly enough that the reference section has five or more solid references that all will telly you that scalars are bosons. The same thing goes for the mass-tagging of articles Cuzkatzimhut have edited in the past. It is also not okay to add incorrect statements with the excuse that you provided a "citation". If you find that inline citations are lacking, by any means, add some. Your current activity is bordering on vandalism.

You have also been threatening me (and also Cuzkatzimhut, in his case you appealed to "incompetence") with admin action when I told you on a talk page (as politely as possible) that you should not edit other peoples comments, and that your recent edits were no good. It does not look like you are interested in a dialogue. YohanN7 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice to other editors: Yohan has a history of insulting others (see also various other issues on his talk page history), he defends the position of editor Cuzkatzimhut concerning my recent edits. Today in response to some claims, i posted in those regards on his talk page and about WP:Forum. He the responded in his edit "remove crackpot edit". Since the points he mentioned above and his edits are off topic here, i leave it at that for now. Again i ask both editors to provide any diffs in regards to edit warring. prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, my points are on topic, your's are not. And, yes, everyone editing posts by others are crack-pots, especially when they threaten with admin-action after being told no-no. YohanN7 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: This in not in the usual form of reports at WP:AN3. The submitter ought to revise it so it names one or more articles where 3RR has been violated, or a long-term edit war is occurring. Otherwise this report may be declined with no study of the merits. Please refrain from personal attacks, especially on admin noticeboards. Calling people idiots or crackpots isn't charming and may cause you to be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is worth, since around 17:00 yesterday, prokaryotes has done nothing but damaging articles Cuzkatzimhut has contributed to. These edits are to be found if you click on "History" in prokaryotes user profile:
 * These are 80-90 edits targeted solely at Cuzkatzimhut. YohanN7 (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked the noticeboard to identify the evident pattern of systematic unconstructive editing. WP should be able to police itself, pursuant to whatever format strictures, and not leave things to the successful formatting of the appeals of complainants. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like you have a misunderstanding about how things are done here. If you have a report to make about edit warring then it is up to you as the report creator to provide this evidence. It is not up to the administrators to do this for you. The process goes thus: you raise the report, provide the evidence, request the action and the admins peruse the evidence and act on it if they agree with you. If you have evidence of other misconduct, gather the evidence and present it to WP:ANI. Blackmane (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackmane, the user or users are now posting their version or interpretation, and conduct about rules, what first was a unrelated support question of mine at Project Physics. Maybe you can try to to explain to him that adding reference tags is a common and important Wikipedia action. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The submitter of this report has declined to identify any specific article where warring has occurred. But my own review shows that revert wars have happened on the following two pages:
 * Related discussions have occurred at
 * WT:WikiProject Physics
 * at ANI
 * NORN.
 * So far the NORN discussion seems to have made the most progress and gained the most input from regular editors. Can User:Cuzkatzimhut explain why the present AN3 report should be kept open, given the profusion of venues? If it was up to me to close this without further input I'd probably warn Cuzkatzimhut, Prokaryotes and YohanN7 that further reverts could lead to a block. Editors are expected to find a proper venue and then wait patiently for consensus without continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cuzkatzimhut keeps on reverting, now content which is not considered RS. I didn't mentioned this earlier, but both users show a continued pattern of battleground behavior.prokaryotes (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You start a full-scale edit war targeting Cuzkatzimhut and go on around the clock for 72h, are rude beyond belief on talk pages, threatening on my talk page, give orders, reporting (falsely) to ANI, reporting (falsely) to the OR department, and then you are so incredibly naive that you don't expect a battle?
 * Cuzkatzimhut keeps on reverting, now content which is not considered RS. I didn't mentioned this earlier, but both users show a continued pattern of battleground behavior.prokaryotes (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You start a full-scale edit war targeting Cuzkatzimhut and go on around the clock for 72h, are rude beyond belief on talk pages, threatening on my talk page, give orders, reporting (falsely) to ANI, reporting (falsely) to the OR department, and then you are so incredibly naive that you don't expect a battle?


 * EdJohnston, I am glad you started investigating. You have not yet fully understood the situation. The suspect has launched the most blatant edit war you could imagine, targeted solely at one person and his edits.


 * I saw his first post at Cuzkatzimhut (talk) before this really fired up, and I thought it sounded very very strange already then . I urge you to begin there, and follow the thread. The pattern will become clear. All is fully evident from the suspects edit history.


 * But I find it distasteful that you in one single breath warn me, Cuzkatzimhut and the suspect for further reverting. Reversions on our part have been few, minimal and well motivated by damage-minimization. The suspect has been waging war, demolishing good work. It has gone well past edit-warring. It is now pure harassment, like taking us to ANI. YohanN7 (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:EdJohnston, I replied on my talk page, User_talk:Cuzkatzimhut, to be tactful. I never "requested" anything at all--I alerted you to something that might well be alarming. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved User:Xanthippe: Cuzkatzimhut does fine work in editing articles in mathematics/physics and I hope he will continue. However, if he were to mitigate his sarcastic, supercilious and haughty manner towards other editors this might irritate them less and result in less conflict. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC).


 * Actually Xxanthippe, you were (minimally and unknowingly) involved. You spontaneously reverted (at least) one of Prokaryotes misguided template-placement-edits relieving me of it. You probably would have reverted the rest (only 3) if you had had them on your watch list too. YohanN7 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your appreciative words. I hope you have noticed I have not been habitually employing sarcasm. However, in the face of this unprecedented ad-hominem attack, replete with WP:CIR innuendos, Talk:Adjugate_matrix, and then, inconsistently (!) WP:COI, and then a bizarre attempt of his to pull rank on me, I lost a bit of patience with the armband bully. Note that YohanN7 was subjected to the same unwarranted treatment, but he does not vent sarcastically, unlike me. As I invited the board to consider, the rampage has little to do with people, or manners, or conflict, but is underlain by an undisclosed problem. People have different ways of trying to stop a runaway train. As I have invited the members of the successor discussion to this one, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, to consider, I am not sure what they would have done, in my shoes, during the Aug 13 rampage. You may have verified my restraint on that day, in the record profered here. I am refortifying my patience. The board must also try to defend WP. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If everybody would calm down and be nice there would not be any need for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

User:Tess18 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * User served AN3 notice. Quis separabit?  15:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Comments: This user insists on engaging in edit warring and making unhelpful and outlandish edits, including the removal of diacritics, to the Tomislav Sunić article. I have welcomed this apparent newbie, offered advice and tried to explain but to no avail. He or she continues to make edits without offering any explanation, any edit summaries, or attempts to contact me on my talk page, etc. Quis separabit?  15:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You yourself have reverted on this article 5 times in the past 24 hours (one two three four five). Can you give me any policy-based reason why you shouldn't be blocked for edit warring as well? –Darkwind (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes.
 * 1) According to the article edit history I see only two (2) 180° reversions of User:Tess18's edits. The remainder, to the best of my recollection, was/is my own additions, tweaks, updates, etc. The second instance you cite above ([) consists solely of removing an initial and a period from a sentence. Seriously? The third (see ) was the sole removal of an unsourced six word sentence claiming (albeit without sourcing at that point) that the subject (Sunić) is a US citizen (this has since been adequately sourced).
 * 2) This apparent newbie whom I welcomed, and who, as far as I know since I last checked, has only edited the Sunić article, has refused to contact me, interact or engage in any positive way, making it impossible to have any kind of resolution. Thus, in accordance with IAR I did what had to be done.


 * Respectfully submitted. Quis separabit?  19:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The three-revert rule defines a revert as the following:
 * You do not have to erase 100% of a person's edit for it to be a revert. Furthermore, even if we leave out the one I numbered "2", you still reverted 4 times in 3.5 hours.  At this point, it would not serve the encyclopedia to block either of you, but I encourage you to remember that IAR is not an excuse for edit warring.  None of this user's changes were so awful that it couldn't have waited for some discussion to occur; which did seem to happen eventually (see his talk page). –Darkwind (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not have to erase 100% of a person's edit for it to be a revert. Furthermore, even if we leave out the one I numbered "2", you still reverted 4 times in 3.5 hours.  At this point, it would not serve the encyclopedia to block either of you, but I encourage you to remember that IAR is not an excuse for edit warring.  None of this user's changes were so awful that it couldn't have waited for some discussion to occur; which did seem to happen eventually (see his talk page). –Darkwind (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Conman1998 reported by User:Johnuniq (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:13, 10 July 2015 (that is how the article was, before new material was added)

Diffs of the user's reverts (addition of similar material): Similar material added by IPs:
 * 1) 07:08, 9 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 2) 21:28, 9 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 3) 23:34, 9 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 4) 01:04, 14 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 5) 04:47, 15 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 6) 03:44, 16 August 2015 Conman1998
 * 1) 10:23, 11 August 2015 66.87.120.102
 * 2) 05:11, 12 August 2015 66.87.121.42
 * 3) 10:25, 13 August 2015 66.87.121.78
 * 4) 22:35, 13 August 2015 66.87.120.76

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 01:34, 14 August 2015 (polite request with link to talk; to clarify the diff, I also inserted a section heading and unsigned for a previous comment)
 * 06:21, 15 August 2015 (uw-3rr)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:32, 14 August 2015

Comments:

It's low level but persistent edit warring with no attempt to engage on a talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * –Darkwind (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Darkwind: Thanks for the temporary relief, but page protection is unlikely to resolve the underlying issue. Any chance of a final warning on the user's talk indicating that they must not repeat the edit without at least engaging on the article talk, and they preferably should wait for consensus. What should I do if this restarts in a week? I know admins here can't take the time to examine content, but this is a very obvious case of completely unsuitable text that one person wants to add. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Conman1998 has never posted on a talkpage, including their own, nor ever used an edit summary. In that situation, I agree simply protecting the page is of limited helpfulness. I have warned the user. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

User:Tenebrae reported by User:79.179.166.109 (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Previous version reverted to:  11:19, 16 August 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  19:39, 16 August 2015
 * 2)  19:53, 16 August 2015
 * 3)  20:04, 16 August 2015
 * 4)  20:05, 16 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First, those diffs are all his own edits, so he's documenting his own 3RR vio. Secondly, as discussed on talk page, detailed information about the subject's father is irrelevant. We give his occupation and his nationality. Anything more than that for a non-notable parent of an article topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now this Tenebrae is just being disruptive. The difs I give above are not my own edits, but are those of Tenebrae, as any click on them will tell. He appears to have simply copy-pasted my comment above with one change, much in the manner of a child spitefully repeating something told to him. 79.179.166.109 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What he is saying is factually untrue. Those difs show the edits of 79.179.166.109. Additionally, he has twice copy-paste mimicked something I said first, so he's clearly being purposefully disruptive. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours while the competing claims of edit warring are sorted out. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Biblestudyprof 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 sent warning
 * 2)  - user might not have received warning yet
 * 3)  - user knew darn well about 3rr by this point
 * 1)  - user might not have received warning yet
 * 2)  - user knew darn well about 3rr by this point

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Would've filed sooner, playing D&D while on meds for shingles. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Donner60 reported by User:Biblestudyprof (Result: Decline)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore_of_Babylon

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: [link]

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

Comments:

User has continually vandalized edits under the guise of preventing vandalism.

All content posted in accordance with rules of Wikipedia. Wikipedia may review edits to verify content.

Biblestudyprof (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you take the time available in your inevitable block to read up on what the 'rules of Wikipedia' actually are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Pull the plank from your own eye before pointing out the mote in your brother's. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Donner60 self-reverted and reporter was heavily edit warring themselves which resulted in reporter being blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I thank those who have commented while I was writing a long paragraph of explanation. It seems I do not need to add this material. If, however, further comment for me is desirable or required, please let me know and I will add it to this thread. Donner60 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Avner Kushner reported by User:Huldra (Result: Blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:00, 16 August 2015 restoring contentious material
 * 2) 21:54, 16 August 2015 restoring same contentious material

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: warned

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

Comments:

Article is under 1RR, clearly marked on the article talk-page. After being asked to self-revert, the editor edits the talk-page but does not self-revert, Huldra (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000 (involved administrator)
Avner Kushner is one of the more useless of the latest batch of edit warriors in the Israel-Palestine section.

A typical example of this editor's work is here: "Due to the abundance of free foods coming into Gaza Strip from Israel, Palestinians are listed as the 8th most obese in the world among men and 3rd most obese among women." The source says nothing at all about "abundance of free foods coming into Gaza Strip from Israel" and lumps Gaza with the more populous West Bank. This is just political activism in the guise of editing. Also negligent: the data is from years before the blockade of Gaza started so it isn't even relevant.

Here you can see blatant violation of WP:CANVASS in order to gather supporters in a talk page discussion:. Zerotalk 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Zero, please be civil. If you were not an admin, I would report you. I understand your emotion. And I did not editwar with anyone on Gaza Strip article. I simply said either keep all disputed parts to maintain the balance and context, or remove all. The example you gave is again out of context. You are basically leaving out a large part of text and sources, taking it out of context to make me look bad. And no I was not violating WP:CANVASS, I called three editors who are involved with Israel/Palestine and who disagreed with me before, just to get more editors involved--Avner Kushner (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Several editors editwarred on Gaza Strip, and I even restored all the tags  after one editor by mistake removed them while restoring the texts .--Avner Kushner (talk) 01:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, pardon me, I forgot to mention that in your next edit you add a link to an online forum where some guy called Chuck Norton copyvioed the same material as an excuse for sounding off about "'Palestinians' (Southern Assyrian’s)". If you don't know why sources like that are unacceptable on Wikipedia you should take a long break while you read up on the policy. I stand by my statement about canvassing. Zerotalk 01:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Zero, don't alter your comments, as you did here, after multiple responses have already been posted; bad form to retroactively edit your comments in that way.--Avner Kushner (talk) 01:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Avner Kushner has serious WP:CLUE problems. He simply does not grasp that he has broken WP:1RR. See here, where he randomly casts apersions by calling another user "presumably a Pakistani Muslim", (not that there is anything wrong with being one). Virtually every other edit of his breaks policy in one way or the other. I suggested on the talk page, to slow down, self-revert and read policy, but he does not seem to have heeded the advice. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Kingsindian, I suggest that you stop stalking my edits, stop personal attacks and sarcasm, as you did before also (and also in edit summary here), and focus on contents.--Avner Kushner (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Philg88 ♦talk 05:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Rosy14632 reported by User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removal of a paragraph that is violating the BLP rules of Wikipedia and made to serve a political agenda by distorting the image of a public figure"
 * 2)  "removal of a paragraph that violates the the BLP rules of Wikipedia"
 * 3)   "removal of a paragraph written by a user violating the BLP rules of Wikipedia"
 * 4)   "removal of a paragraph added to distort the image of a public figure violating the BLP rules of wikipedia)"
 * 5)    "removal of a paragraph by a sockpuppet intended to defame the image of a public figure violating the BLP rules of Wikipedia)"


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


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




 * Comments:

Already suspected sockpuppet, Sockpuppet_investigations/Philanthropist_1001 and Sockpuppet_investigations/Philanthropist_1001/Archive, Paragraph in question edited by Wikipedia admin/sysop to become neutral here 495656778774 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * as a WP:DUCK sock of User:Philanthropist 1001. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 reported by User:Rosy14632 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Revision as of 07:36, 4 July 2015]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Revision as of 14:59, 7 August 2015]
 * 2) [Revision as of 17:03, 10 August 2015]
 * 3) [Revision as of 10:51, 17 August 2015]
 * 4) [Revision as of 11:29, 17 August 2015]

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

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

Comments:


 * - reverting sockpuppets of blocked/banned users falls under WP:3RRNO. But unless the material in question is vandalous, libelous or violates copyright (and therefore needs removing immediately) it's better to wait for admin intervention than to just keep reverting. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghughesarch reported by User:JzG (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Multiple at User talk:Ghughesarch user is well aware)

Comments:

Per the article's Talk page, this user seems to be climbing the Reichstag. I can't block as I'm WP:INVOLVED. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TBM10 and 151.* (most recently User:151.227.130.23) reported by User:Dpmuk (Result: )
Page:, , , , , - probably others

User being reported: and

Reported this at AN/I since it had history there and it's not a standard 3RR or even EW report, but bringing here as no joy there and it's continuing. Anyway these two have been edit warring across a lot of train station articles (a single page may not be a concern but taken across all those pages there's clearly an issue) and it has continued even after the latest AN/I report (Seven Kings railway station and Chelmsford railway station). The IP editor was warned about edit warring at User_talk:151.227.129.136 (I think it's a duck case of being the same editor) and User:TBM10 showed familiarity with edit warring in the original AN/I report. At AN/I I even said if I still had the mop they'd both be serving a block so they should be well aware of the consequences. Dpmuk (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Adamzeem reported by User:Samtar (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Bloogo. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bloogo. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Bloogo. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * page deleted, no action seems necessary. S warm   ♠  00:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:79.179.166.109 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  11:19, 16 August 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  19:39, 16 August 2015
 * 2)  19:53, 16 August 2015
 * 3)  20:04, 16 August 2015
 * 4)  20:05, 16 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This SPA appears to be a sock-puppet of the blocked IP 109.64.38.239, judging from his edits' similarity to this one of 109's. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

First, those diffs are all his own edits, so he's documenting his own 3RR vio. Secondly, as discussed on talk page, detailed information about the subject's father is relevant. As well as we give his occupation and his nationality. 79.179.166.109 (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, now this anon-IP SPA is just being disruptive. The difs I give above are not my own edits, but are those of 79.179.166.109, as any click on them will tell. He appears to have simply copy-pasted my comment above with one change, much in the manner of a child spitefully repeating something told to him. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What he is saying is factually untrue. Those difs show the edits of Tenebrae. Additionally, he has twice copy-paste mimicked something I said first, so he's clearly being purposefully disruptive. 79.179.166.109 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The above comment by 79.179.166.109 is a nonsense post, another in a string of copy-paste mimics of things I said. It's childish and disruptive. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Suggest a boomerang for Tenebrae who knows better than to edit war over something like this as he's been down this road before with other editors at other articles. For Tenebrae to say something to the effect of "No, YOU go to the talk page" in an edit summary is not what WP:BRD is about -- especially when he hadn't yet gone to the article talk page to discuss for at least two more reversions.  Further, making a sock accusation to bolster this 3RR report and seemingly justify his own edit warring behavior is inappropriate.  No SPI has been filed.  What I see is disruptive, pointy editing on the part of Tenebrae and edit warring on the part of the IP.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  20:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WV a.k.a. Winkelvi is not a disinterested commentator, as he has attacked me on at least two instances that involved lengthy proceedings. His comment above is pure spitefulness. The SPA anon-IP 79.179.166.109 in his own report has not even provided actual difs of my edits &mdash; those are literally his own reverts. The least WV could do is go to the diffs 79.179.166.109 posted to see for himself before making claims against me. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My comments are based on seeing you repeat the same kind of over-the-top behavior as you have previously, and not just when you and I clashed a year-or-so ago. Your block log here shows you've been blocked for extreme edit warring previously.  I've seen you engage in it since you returned after the last edit warring block you received, this is just the first time you've been called on it since.  You told the IP to go to the talk page per BRD, but you made no effort to do so yourself, nor did you make any effort to discuss anything with the IP at their own talk page.  Edit warring was your response -- and I know you know better than to do that.  Hence, my suggestion for a boomerang.  Insisting the IP is a sock isn't helping your case, either.  You keep calling the IP a sock, but you have yet to open an SPI.  You also keep referring (in bad faith) to the IP as an SPA.  I think you need to cool it and possibly leave the article alone for a while.  Maybe an admin needs to lock the page so that discussion on the talk page is the only alternative for you.  Whatever happens, I think you need to step away for a bit and breathe rather than get yourself into a deeper hole.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The only two times I ever was blocked were inappropriately by an admin who has since been desysopped. You were asked not to interact with me, and I have taken pains not to interact with you. Your behavior toward me in the past has been vicious, and your antipathy is evident here. None of the diffs that the anon IP gives are my edits. I did not edit war &mdash; and for you to take the side of someone claiming that I did yet who does not and cannot provide diffs showing I did is remarkable.


 * Additionally, look at the timestamps of comments on the Gigi Hadid talk page &mdash; I commented there before he did, so you saying I made no effort to discuss things on the talk page is simply untrue. As for the SPI investigation, one step at a time &mdash; I'm still waiting for an admin to get to the backlogged report I've already filed about the suspected sock.


 * You have stepped in purely out of spite you have toward me, and then stated flat-out inaccuracies. You were not required to inject yourself here &mdash; there are plenty of other Wikipedia editors &mash; and you were asked to stay away from me, as I have from you. Stop hounding and harassing me. Your issues with me have nothing to do with the fact of this SPA anon-IP's edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Surely, you don't believe he was desysopped because he blocked you? If you do, you should look at the evidence and commentary surrounding that incident.  None of it had anything to do with you, the blocks you received were seen as valid, and to use that former admin's current status as a non-admin for an excuse is shameful b.s.  And your grave-dancing in regard to his status is just as b.s.-ish.  No one is hounding or harassing you.  But, you are right about one thing: my (long-ago) issues with you have nothing to do with this current 3RR report.  You alone are responsible for being brought here as well as the circumstances surrounding same.  You had choices to make when you reverted, and it seems like you kept making the wrong ones.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It was unquestionably one of the reasons he wad desysopped. His behavior toward me and others was highly inappropriate. Secondly, your being here at all after being told not to interact with me is the very definition of hounding and harassing. You were asked to stay away from me. I have absolutely stayed away from you. And as if further proof of your harassment were necessary, the anon IP could not even collect evidence of my committing 3RR &mdash; instead, incredibly, he posted diffs to his own 3RR vios. So you came here to accuse me of wrongdoing without even seeing &mdash; or seeing and not caring about &mdash; the complete lack of evidence. There is no excuse for the anon IP's actions &mdash; including his childish mimicry of me, which you seem fine with &mdash; and your cynically taking this opportunity to attack me instead of looking at the anon IP's actions is reprehensible. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't one of the reasons. You commented in regard to his "hearing", but that doesn't mean your blocks by him were part of the final Arb decision.  As far as staying away from you, that was for then, not for eternity.  Last comment on this: whatever the IP has done doesn't wash your edit warring clean.  You've tried this line of reasoning before, right before you were blocked for 60 hours for edit warring last year.  I would think that by now you would know such a "defense" (WP:NOTTHEM) doesn't help you at all.  Two wrongs still don't make a right.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're just attacking me again, over something that has nothing to do with documented fact &mdash; check out the diffs, if you don't believe me &mdash; of this anon IPs four reverts. The admin behaved abominably &mdash; they don't get desysopped willy-nilly. As for your other comments, you've been blocked for your own bad behavior, the kind of behavior you are showing here. You were asked to stay away from me. I have stayed away from you. Therefore, your being here and making baseless accusations against me is simply the same kind of harassment you've visited upon me before. I ask you again to stay away from me. If we need to get into this again with another ANI against you, fine. I'd rather not spend the time, but you are harassing me and I'm tired of it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Enough. Winkelvi, I suggest that you leave right now. Your opinion or comments were never required and right now you've just caused unnecessary drama. It's funny how a user, who has had 3RR issues in the past, has the nerve to tell somebody else they should had known better. This is an admin board, and last I checked you're aren't one. Now, please leave. This is getting out of hand and clearly Tenebrae doesn't want anything to do with you. You should know better. Tenebrae, don't respond to another comment if you want it to stop. Callmemirela  🍁  {Talk}   &#9809;  07:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, Mirela's scathing coal raking was certainly good for a real life LOL. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment WV Objectively, [Tenebrae] just admitted in Gigi Hadid's talk page that the birth location of Gigi Hadid's mother is relevant (Netherlands), and then told us that her father birth location isn't (Israel). It's pretty obvious to any Wikipedia editor that his opinion is biased POV. 79.179.166.109 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of context. As I have already told that anon IP, we can say "Dutch-American" for the mother for parallel structure. The point of the parents' mentions in the early-life section is not the exact location of birth &mdash; the article never gave a city of birth for the independently notable mother, Yolanda Foster &mdash; butthe nationality. We give the father's nationality and occupation and we give the mother's nationality and occupation.


 * In any event, none of this has anything to do with the SPA anon-IP's edit-warring or ignoring of WP:BRD. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours while the competing claims of edit warring are sorted out. --MelanieN (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . Page was protected, this report is now stale. S warm   ♠  00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)