Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive298

User:Kworbi reported by User:LLArrow
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been warned several times on their Talk page to no avail. This is just one recent example of their disruptive behaviour, constantly demonstrating their opinion on articles. I ask that you seriously consider an extensive block, at the least. LLArrow (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * When I contribute to the article, I provide explanations and proof of my edits. I always have, and if my edits are wrong, then I try to understand why they have been undone. In these cases, LLArrow has reverted my edits without an explanation, and even sometimes with insults. I am here to help make the page for Hotel better, but I cannot when LLArrow personally reverts any edit I do. For example, when I added the new guest stars from episode three, he undid them with no explanation at all. When another user re-added the information I put, he didn't revert their edit. I don't understand his logic in this report as he has done the same thing I have, except without explaning why he did it. Thanks for understanding my perspective. --- Kworbi
 * Kworbi, time and time again your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Per WP:BRD you should have either stopped or raised a discussion in talk page, gain consensus and resumed editing. Instead you chose on to edit war, inspite of the numerous warnings. Serves you well that this report was generated. —Indian:BIO  [ ChitChat ] 09:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also worthy of notation, is the fact that although being instructed how to on several occasions (just take a look at their frequently blanked Talk page history), the user refuses to sign comments. LLArrow (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * . The user has not reverted in over 24 hours. S warm   ♠  05:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin reported by User:LjL
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and earlier  as per previous report filed

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as per previous report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page, really, including an open RfC, but see diff given in previous report

Comments: After being unblocked from a 48h block for edit warring, the editor immediately resumed deleting the section under dispute again, while now copying it into a separate Crime in Sofia article, which an admin warned was a copyright violation.

LjL (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: noticeboard discussion notification was given, but subsequently removed by the editor. LjL (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Ljl push a not reliable controversial sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. There's an RfC on the article talk page about this very subject. You should wait until consensus (not majority) is reached before making any changes to the article. clpo13(talk) 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So you create a brand new article that relies entirely on these "not reliable controversial sources"? Makes no sense. --Neil N  talk to me 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverted again. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And again. I'm getting a strong WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe here. clpo13(talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I am the one vandalizing in his book. LjL (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Lemondropzzz reported by User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This page is subject to a 1RR restriction. Editor is just coming off a 48 hour block for similar edit warring - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALemondropzzz
 * per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User: SPECIFICO reported by User:Ogreggy
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=687357590&oldid=687336303

Comments:

While there is debate within the academic community about the accuracy of keynesian economics (and for that matter, ALL economic models), there is no tolerance on wikipedia for any other viewpoint. The economics pages read like they were written by a high school clique of Keynesians, and their viewpoint is enforced with "undo" and rollbacks even for a request for discussion (whether that request is on the article page or the talk page -- debate gets squashed immediately).

Discussion or debate is not possible when even requests for discussion are undone, and personal attacks made against anyone who dares to challenge the cliques opinion. Administrators told me last week to request a discussion (which I did now, on two separate occasions) and twice my request for discussion was quickly undone and dismissed. Ogreggy (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ogreggy for 72 hours for resumption of edit warring after recent block.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: 24h)

 * Page:

User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - a reversion of
 * 5)  - a revision of


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , , ,  - apparently a chronic problem.


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


 * Report filed:19:51, 24 October 2015‎ DissidentAggressor

Comments:

As the user's own diffs will show, he attempted to add a minor, barely notable subject to a list of significant examples of the type. As the talk page and history will also show...well, take a look for yourself: Particularly note the poisoning the well throughout. Note that the editor listed a number of accusations on edit-warring which were -all- shown to be unfounded, including a couple by a tag team now involved at Arbcom. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Anmccaff is continuing to unilaterally revert any and all edits I make to that page - even after I filed this report. WP:OWNership is blatant. The Dissident Aggressor 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * . When I first looked at this report, it was apparent to me that both and Anmccaff were edit-warring. However, I also noted that DA had failed to notify Anmccaff of this discussion, which is required. Because it wasn't an open-and-shut case (meaning obvious breach of 3RR by the accused and clean hands by the filer), I notified Anmccaff myself but took no other action. Although in some ways DA should still be blocked for edit-warring, at this point their role has become stale, whereas Anmccaff pointedly reverted yet again, even though this report was still pending. @DissidentAgressor, be aware that if you revert Anmccaff now that they are blocked, you run the risk of being blocked as well. As you correctly state at the article Talk page, there is no consensus for either user's version. Although not relevant to my decision, I have no idea what Anmccaff's reference to ArbCom means.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zzz369 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 687337327 by Philip J Fry (talk) por favor no vandalizes"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 687337327 by Philip J Fry (talk) por favor no vandalizes"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 687338231 by Zzz369 (talk)"
 * 4)  "mi edicion es 100 % correcta, los datos hablan por si solos, primero informate y entonces actua"
 * 5)  "/* Soap operas */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 687334095 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* Currently broadcast */"
 * 8)  "/* Soap operas */"
 * 1)  "/* Currently broadcast */"
 * 2)  "/* Soap operas */"
 * 1)  "/* Soap operas */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* List of programs broadcast by Telemundo */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

While leave you a message in your discussion and I got rid your edits 3 times, the user wants to impose its editions, asking me who do not vandalism. You wrote in Spanish is the only language this user speaks. Whenever I leave messages to this user on their discussion refuses to answer them and instead, prefers to fall in war of editions. Philip J Fry talk 23:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I will write in English from now on. I was saying that what I edited is correct and I do not know why the user Philip J Fry keeps undoing my edits with the false ones. The information I put can be easily checked by opening any program table from Telemundo. Nevertheless, I will also add some references that further prove what I am saying. Please do not permit user like Philip J Fry to vandalize good work.--Zzz369 (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The way the table was layed out before looked better and was clearer, also in your edits you added in other shows without actually citing a source for the additions, and as such would be reverted anyway.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 08:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not agree with the current table, first because it doesn't fit with the rest of the article, so that a table of colors, when the rest of the tables are in grey. Second if I got rid its Edition was a clear reason. First because "El Señor de los Cielos" and "Señora Acero" are not TV series. and they have always been. And when I told him this, not followed and in return for that, added a color chart more clear. Is it really necessary?. The only words that has user whenever it directs to me, it is to "stop vandalizing" and so has always been. Ignores messages that left him in his discussion and prefers to fall in wars of editions.--Philip J Fry talk 21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ans2015kivanc reported by User:Vacio
User is engaged in excessive edit warring and continues to do so after being warned by an admin. He reverted edits in the article Ganja, Azerbaijan 5 times in 24 hours: In total he reverted the same edits 17 times since October 9. Thank you for your attention. --va c io 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * Neil N  talk to me 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User:166.175.191.200 reported by User:Ryk72
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/687111688 (Talk page consensus for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)
 * 3)  (restore substantially the same information; edit summary claims "negotiated clarifications"; no Talk page consensus for inclusion)
 * 4)  (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/687471990

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

NB: 3 intermediate reverts to remove the poorly sourced information are mine, and (I believe) in line with previously established Talk page consensus. I will not further revert. I have also raised an AIV report here.

Editor appears to be IP hopping, may now be at 166.175.57.226. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  08:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Karah kenze reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Leve it alone you moron"
 * 2)  "Don't  worry  I'm  the right one I know about the company thanks to a to bill Scott who I talked to before he died"
 * 3)  "Let's keep the page the way it looked a year ago since the other guy has no proof"
 * 4)  "don't worry I left a message on the other users talk page plus it says on the Wikipedia pages witch years the shows ran"
 * 5)  "I said I took care of the editing war plus you didn't have a reason for deleting my version (the right vision)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None by me, but edit summaries show editor was well aware of rule breaches


 * Comments : I am re-reporting this after User:McGeddon withdrew the original report on the basis that "the talk page agreed with the edits", because there is only one thing on the talk page, while there were several editors reverting Special:Contributions/Karah kenze, whose user contributions show is being quite litigious (i.e. edit warring, removing content) on other articles as well, with no talk page justifications. So I think this does need to be brought to attention.

LjL (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note this threat to an anonymous editor. clpo13(talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See also AN/I thread. BMK (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Disruption and reverts are continuing by User:Iloveyoooou, which I suspect is a sockpuppet (SPI filed). LjL (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * as a sock. S warm   ♠  08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Persecution from Collect and McGeddon
Hello. I'm here to talk you about the incorrect actions of other Wikipedian. There are two users that are percuting me. They delete, change or undo everything I add to Wikipedia pages. They have voted negatively in a AfD debat without reason. User Collect and McGeddon are persecuting me. He voted negatively in the AfD debat of the Internet Horror Movie Database, they are persecuting me in the page and in the page [ where I added some titles. He have segnaled me here and here where the debat was archived. They continue to change all I do. Plus, Collect, for what i see in his talk page has various problems with Wiki like sock and blocks. This is why yesterday I afded some of his pages. Please help me stop this persecution. Please verify.[[User:Pizzole|Pizzole]] (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOOMERANG at this point. As well as all the AfDs and Prods he made against editors who !voted Delete for his "horror database" article.  And for him to accuse me of socking is so perverse as to beggar the imagination.  Now he posts an ill-formed edit war complaint - with the sole reason being, frankly, to harass any who disagree with his position.  Will no one rid ... etc. Collect (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. I need admin attention about you and your behavior. Yes, you were investigated for sockpuppetry. Stop persecuting me. Pizzole (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How on earth is this an edit warring report? Did you notice there's a form to fill? LjL (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm new but in good faith. Can you provide me the correct address to find someone helping me? I'll delete this if is the wrong place. Pizzole (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You want WP:ANI. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you!Pizzole (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * redirected to appropriate forum S warm   ♠  08:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Sakultah reported by User:Tradedia
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR twice:
 * Edit 1 Revert 1
 * Edit 2 Revert 2
 * Edit 3 Revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 4 days before he engaged in 1RR violation. In addition, you can notice a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits over a period of 1 week. Tradedia talk 01:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  08:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RioHondo reported by User:Josedecura
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Placed the edit warring notice in User:RioHondo talk page but the user removed it. Appealed in article's talk page to discuss and reach consensus ignored. This fellow, RioHondo continues with his blatant and un-Wikipedian Edit Warring behaviour.Jose de Cura 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC) -->--Jose de Cura 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  08:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You were not ignored on the article's talk page. Your conduct seemed condescending, uncollaborative and unhelpful. Just saying. S warm   ♠  08:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Petalcorin reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with 'See [http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Archives/RegularElections/2016NLE/Candidates/COCFiled2016NLE/Senator_Filed_2016NLE.pdf COMMISSION ON ELECTION official...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Philippine Senate election, 2016. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* October 2015 */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Philippine Senate election, 2016. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is attempting to add a comment that really should go on the article's talk page; has blanked the article to do so but is now simply adding it to the top. Has not replied to any inquiries. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The user also seems to be involved in the election somehow based on this edit. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Somehow" indeed. DMacks (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – If this behavior continues, the next step is probably an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Greengauge121 reported by User:Ivanvector (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No evidence on the internet or elsewhere that this organisation actually exists."
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 3)  "NO EVIDENCE ON THE INTERNET OR ELSEWHERE FOR THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF THIS TINY GROUP"
 * 4)  "No evidence that this organisation exists. However, it may exist so I am deleting content but leaving the header in tact and will not be requesting deletion of the whole page"
 * 5)  "Content is not verifiable by evidence. Hence deletion of content."
 * 6)  "invalid content"
 * 1)  "No evidence that this organisation exists. However, it may exist so I am deleting content but leaving the header in tact and will not be requesting deletion of the whole page"
 * 2)  "Content is not verifiable by evidence. Hence deletion of content."
 * 3)  "invalid content"


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


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


 * Comments:

Twinkle won't let me link to diffs of warnings since the user has blanked their talk page, but they're there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Liz. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Adir Bar Yohanan reported by User:Huldra (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:15, 26 October 2015 changes "About|the major Palestinian city in the West Bank" to "About|the city in the West Bank"
 * 2) 20:44, 26 October 2015 the same
 * 3) 22:37, 26 October 2015  the same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: Article is under 1RR, see Talk:Ramallah. And editor does not self-revert after being asked to do so, but instead continues editing. Huldra (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. Violation of WP:1RR on article which is in the domain of WP:ARBPIA. User was asked to self-revert but would not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra & User:Nableezy & User:Al Ameer son reported by User:Adir Bar Yohanan (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: &

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] : This article is about the major *Palestinian* city in the West Bank
 * 2) [diff]: Ramallah (Arabic: رام الله‎, pronounced Rāmallāh About this sound   (help·info)) is a *Palestinian* city
 * 3) [diff]: others, same

Tried to resolve this at User talk:Huldra

Comments:

These three users have engaged together in reverting changes I have made to the article by reinserting contentious and confusing language.

a) "Palestine" is repeatedly used without clarification to what entity this word refers to. "Palestine" is not a current administrative entity with clear and unambigous meaning and hence leads to confusion in reading and the need to resort to context for clarifications. This context is not provided and hence the confusion persists.

b) "Palestinian" is repeatedly used without clarification to what entity this word refers to. "Palestine" is not a current administrative entity with clear and unambigous meaning and hence leads to confusion in reading and the need to resort to context for clarifications. This context is not provided and hence the confusion persists.

Clarifications need to be inserted in text as follows

a) either a removal of these words where not warranted and cofusedly employed - as I tried to do or b) by clear reference to what they mean which could be accroding to the disambiguation

These users have worked in consortium as to not break the 3RR rule any of them individually but have done so collectively in a concerted action to maintain incorrect language and hence confusion.

Later edit: adter Nableezy's comments on Ybna / Yavne it becomes apparent this is done as political activism against Wimipedia's rules for neutrality - please see below.

Please investigate this and for the avoidance of doubt reccomend guidelines that will prevent politicised language to be used.

Thank you

Adir Bar Yohanan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adir_Bar_Yohanan Adir Bar Yohanan (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) -->
 * Just a note, the same issue with the same user at Yibna. is apparently under the impression that the words Palestine and Palestinians are verboten on Wikipedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ABY: No words are prohibited and no words have preference. Language needs to reflect reality. Yibna is not an actual city but a medieval one; for the modern, contemporary city there is the page for Yavne which seems far more comprehensive with ample references to both Arab and Muslim cultural elements. The Yibna page is an attempt by activists to abuse Wikipedia to pass their fictions for reality against Wiki's standard of neutrality. I strongly advise you to refrain from political activism on Wikipedia and use other forums to voice your opinions.

Please enforce neutrality and demand these users to cease their political activism on Wikipedia.

Thank yo

ABY

Almost all the edits of Adir Bar Yohanan have been reverted, and a cursory look at them shows how inevitable that was. Consider this massive POV push for example. Now he wants to remove the attribute "Palestinian" from one of the largest Palestinian cities, on purely spurious grounds, and thinks that the page should be protected to preserve his version. This sort of WP:NOTHERE behavior should not be tolerated. Zerotalk 10:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked for 1RR violation on Ramallah per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Editor was warned about 3RR rule and asked to self revert the 4th edit here Discussion regarding the content as well as the reverted edits here. 

Comments: HughD is an experienced editor and should know better regarding the 3RR violation. All 4 of the listed reverts were "undo" reversions rather than back and forth edits. He was given a chance to self revert and ignored the request while continuing to edit the article. His interactions on the talk page, initiated after the 2nd revert, are confrontational. The listed previous reversion is simply the last stable version before the recent article edits. The reversions represent four editors, myself (the IP edit),, , and. Springee (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Note that 2 of the diffs are Hugh reverting a blank-and-redirect of the page, which was done out of process and without consensus - there was no merge/AFD or other discussion that established consensus for replacing the page with a redirect. At best, it was a WP:BOLD change that should not have been re-done once it had been reverted. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, there had been merge thread going back to June, with no disagreement. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment HughD is continuing to edit war including re-adding material that was previously twice removed over objections of other editors. Removal of material: [] Reinsertion of material: [] No talk page justification for reinsertion

Removals of material related to Columbia Journaism article (note two of these removals are the ones listed as part of the 4RR complaint): [] [] Re-insertion: [] Discussions that HughD partook in after adding material that had previously been removed more than once. [] HughD has added 70 edits to the article in the last 4 days. Springee (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three days. I don't see four explicit reverts by HughD but he is keeping up a rapid pace of edits, and one could argue POV-pushing. Please follow WP:DR for the disputed items. It is not 100% clear that HughD is banned from editing this article due to the Koch brothers restriction, but he would be wise to check with the banning admin, User:Ricky81682. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a connection but that isn't a comment on the editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jatav123 reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */This is wrong"
 * 2)  "/* History */Where is this stated.don't enter unsourced info"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* History */This is the real informain.many books state this info"
 * 1)  "/* History */This is the real informain.many books state this info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Yadu. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jatav. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Jatav. (TW)"

The history topic is under discussion on the talk page of the article here, but the user did not turn up there. He is only interested in making reverts/blanking the contents from other editors.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user adopts disruptive behaviour constantly. Earlier he did on article Yadu, where he wanted unsourced inclusion of Jatav community among descendants of Yadu. Now he is constantly removing the facts from the page Jatav. Seems to be a simply caste promotional account. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User has been promoting a particular caste at Jatav since 18 October. He has been notified of WP:ARBIPA due to the caste warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ifzam2003 reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: Blocked)
Page: Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah, Jalan Lembah Bujang, Jalan Tandop and Jalan Rekreasi Tupah

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah
 * 2) Jalan Tandop
 * 3) Jalan Rekreasi Tupah
 * 4) Jalan Lembah Bujang

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Ifzam2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

Comments:


 * I changed the header to show that Ifzam2003 rather than Bgwhite is the person being reported. Otherwise the content of the report doesn't make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What doesn't make sense? There are 4 articles involved.  I gave the history of all four articles to show the reverts.  Ifzam2003 writes in ALL UPPER CAPS as is stated on the talk page.  You've warned them for writing in all upper case.Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What didn't make sense was your original header, 'Bgwhite reported by Bgwhite'. You are not requesting a block of yourself, so far as I can tell. If there is no response from Ifzam2003 a block seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahhh.... ok. Ok, your not making sense about me not making sense, makes sense now :)  I'm slow.  They reverted the articles again.  Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:GoodDay reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

And several days ago He's also doing this on related articles.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 687863827 by Legacypac (talk)It doesn't serve readers. There's no rush. Wait until Harper resigns"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 687852328 by Legacypac (talk)PLEASE, wait until he actually resigns."
 * 3)  "1) He hasn't resigned, yet. 2) It's not November 4, yet & 3) We don't exactly know when he'll be resigning, yet."
 * 1)  (Undid revision 687004560 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how it's done here. PS see WP:RUSH)
 * 2)  Undid revision 687001145 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how wed do it. We wait until the transition occurs)
 * 3)  (I checked the calender. It's not November 4, yet.)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User refuses to accept any editor's effort to put the known end date of a defeated Prime Minister's term in, going back for days. Will add more diffs. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already reverted to Legacypac's preffered version. Therefore this report is moot. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The material was speculation and unsourced at the time - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and claims should not be based on what we know weill happen, as a rule. At this point, the issue is entirely moot. Collect (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've already restored Legacypac's version (before the report was made). I'm asking that he withdraw his report. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not speculative, its been in every serious Canadian media outlet you can name. . Given that he has reverted after I filed this report, the only thing I'm asking is that Goodday refrain from editing any article about Stephen Harper until Nov 4. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I deleted before you made your report. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe while I was making the report, it takes time to do these reports. Just agree to stop reverting all the editors that keep adding Nov 4 as a start for Justin's reign and the end of Harper's term and we can all go our happy way. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. We'll allow others to decide if the date should remain or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Per the above discussion and per Talk:Stephen Harper it appears that people have agreed on removal of the end of Stephen Harper's term as prime minister from the infobox. The end of his term is predicted by some to be November 4, and this prediction is already in the article text though not currently in the infobox. So there is no longer an edit war. It is assumed that GoodDay will make no further reverts about the end of Harper's term. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:AKS.9955 and User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Unbuttered Parsnip
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * AKS.9955
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Unbuttered Parsnip
 * 
 * AKS.9955
 * 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempts made by either editor

Comments:


 * Comment: Hello, I am user AKS.9955. Please see my detailed comment on this subject here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * will continue this discussion at ANI. S warm   ♠  00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:103.15.165.231 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

IP persists in removing a draft's Articles for Creation history and comments despite escalating warnings on their talk page not to do so, and repeated restorations of the AfC material by myself and another AfC reviewer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on IP talk page:

Comments:

The AfC process for this draft would benefit from short term page protection or a block to cool the IP down and wake them up to the collaborative no-ownership nature of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kurzon edit-warring Mafia
User:Kurzon, blocked 3 times already for edit-warring (the last time about the same situation in the same page), has just violated the 3RR rule: he has performed 4 reverts in less than 24 hour (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mafia&action=history), the first today at 06:12 and the last today at 10:21. I am waiting until 24 hours pass before restoring the page, I hope he will be blocked again for breaking the rules, meanwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.14.131 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already dealt with. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrJekilMrHyDe reported by User:NottNott (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Elaborate and broad edit for authentic information. Thanks"


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


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


 * Comments:

After a message on both his and my talk page, user claims ownership of the page and fails to seek consensus. I've used my final revert on the page for now, and it seems unlikely that the user will stop enforcing his own revision any time soon.  Nott Nott  talk &#124;contrib 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that he hasn't edited since being warned. If he logs in and promises to stop edit warring, then I'll happily unblock. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Spike-from-NH reported by User:Shalir Salim (Result: all warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert Shalir Salim again (Summary: "Improved")--As before, tries to expunge references to one of the two alternative sites. See WP:AN/I"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 687655589 by Shalir Salim--As before; you are welcome to escalate; I already have"
 * 3)  "Anon continues revert war already reported to Admins; additional detail on Greggs incident is pointless"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user, along with another is constantly attempting to give preference to an alternative version of the site by reverting anybody who attempts to improve the neutrality of this article. Shalir Salim (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The .co site is a fork. It has a drastically lower alexa ranking than the wikia site. In addition to that, UncycloWikia is still actively edited. You are the one edit warring with multiple editors. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: #0d0; background-color: purple;">DSA510  </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: blue">Pls No Bully</SPAN> 19:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the .co site is the actual Uncyclopedia where the majority of the community is based. All social media links and interlanguage project links to the .co site. The Wikia site is run independently from the main site as a fork or a different branch and is not affiliated with the community at the main site. You and Spike-from-NH have been constantly favoring Wikia in your edits and reverting anybody who either says otherwise or amends the article to maintain neutrality and reference the Wikia site as a prominent branch. The Alexa rating covers the entire Wikia network, not just Uncyclopedia therefore that bit of information is both unreliable and irrelevant. I suggest you stop digging. Shalir Salim (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if the Alexa rank covers all of Wikia, UnccloWikia still is higher ranked on most, if not all search engines. In addition, the fork was created AFTER the wikia site. Just whois uncyc.co and I'll be proven right. (Domain Registration Date:                   Sun Apr 03 01:25:50 GMT 2011) In addition, UncycloWikia still is actively edited. Not all the community went there. Both sites are active. Both are Uncyclopedia. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: #0d0; background-color: purple;">DSA510  </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: blue">Pls No Bully</SPAN> 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The majority of the community, including all social and interwiki references, refer to .co as the main site and therefore should be treated as such. The Wikia site ceased to be the main Uncyclopedia site back when .co was opened and while it is still active, it is not referred to as the main site by any sources except yourself and Spike-from-NH. The Wikia site is still active and still maintained a following after .co was opened but it is no longer the main site and shouldn't be treated as such. The current version of the article takes all of this into account. Shalir Salim (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Social Media is not RS. Are there reliable secondary sources that confirm that .co is indeed, the supposed "main" uncyclopedia? In addition, parody wikis are not RS either. --<SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: #0d0; background-color: purple;">DSA510  </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="font-family: 'Oxygen-Sans'; color: blue">Pls No Bully</SPAN> 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that point to either as the main site? If not, both would need to be mentioned, probably giving preference to the version which is most linked by official social media (as they are a reliable source for facts regarding themselves if there are no RS that state things to the contrary.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Whilst I cannot find a non-social link to say that either .co or .wikia.com is the main site, Uncyclopedia's official social media links (Twitter, Facebook) as well as the projects mirror website and interlanguage portal give preference to the .co site. I cannot find any social media links for the Wikia site whatsoever. Shalir Salim (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

All editors involved in this edit war (including, , ) are hereby warned that further reverts may result in blocks. The talk page Talk:Uncyclopedia has not been edited since 2 October. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course .co's social-media creations link back to .co. The Wikia website has social-media pages too, though Shalir Salim "cannot find" them.  Shalir Salim's account is one week old and his business has primarily been to expunge Wikia from the Uncyclopedia page.  The fork at .co has used many tactics over the years to divert traffic there, including several waves (pre-2-October) of editing the Wikipedia page and subjecting those who reverts them to disciplinary review.  Now PKHilliam creates an account apparently for no other purpose than to weigh in and state the exact opposite of the facts, assisted of course by a couple of IPs.  Anyone warning me not to edit ought to review the Incidents noticeboard, the article's history and talk page, and Shalir Salim's talk page including the numerous warnings he has deleted to stop marking articles for deletion, and ensure that this campaign of personal attack by sudden new users does not succeed in stampeding Wikipedia to point to one website at the expense of another.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Facebook Page for the Wikia site has a much smaller following than that of .co and isn't as high up on the search for Facebook profiles. I am all for Wikia's version being mentioned on the article, I have even made my own mentions myself but you must accept that social and project links favor the .co site and nothing you can say will change that. Shalir Salim (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaganomics88 reported by User:Nonsenseferret (Result:48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No you do not need to describe who uses a term when describing. In addition, WP:NOR."
 * 2)  "Not in source"
 * 3)  "Unsourced"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 688057851 by Garageland66 (talk) Not in source"
 * 5)  "I am sorry you disagree with my well sourced definition but it is the truth. I am no right-winger, I find the atomised individualism of the right depressing. I am instead a centrist and a liberal."
 * 6)  "Restoring well sourced and accurate information and combatting WP:PRIMARY and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT."
 * 1)  "Restoring well sourced and accurate information and combatting WP:PRIMARY and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Hard Left */ new section"
 * 2)   "edits: new section"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There have been many attempts at talk page discussion, see for example: diff


 * Comments:

A further warning was given on the talkpage including attempts to discuss the issues and avoid edit warring, see diff. Also, the user has made uncivil comments, accusing others of being "deluded" per diff.  ℕ  ℱ  23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) User also seems to think it appropriate to alter other user's comments on this noticeboard per diff. Clearly it is not. -- ℕ  ℱ  00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Guru Noel reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Has been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he is aware since he left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. This case seems to have been raised in error in support of Vandalism. Guru Noel (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. The phrase 'illegally deleted' doesn't apply to the Daraa offensive (October 2015) article. Other editors changed the article into a redirect three times and Guru Noel undid that three times. These edits by Guru Noel broke the WP:1RR rule. The editor's further comments above indicate he has no intention of undoing his change. Guru Noel hurts his own case by using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly to refer to a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Guru Noel reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Duplicate report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Has been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he is aware since he joined in and left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. Guru Noel (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There was nothing illegal about it, all articles are subject to change by anyone at any time (also read WP policy on being bold). And you did not provide new sources. You provided only one source, which does not even confirm your allegation that there is an ongoing offensive. 1RR is when you revert any kind of edit more than once. You made 3 reverts. The fact that you do not even want to acknowledge you broke WP policy (1RR) makes me believe you will violate it again. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not violating anything, I am repairing Vandalism, pure and simple. Case closed. I would direct your complaints towards the vandal. I have provided more sources for JUST today's action in the Daraa offensive (October 2015) (which took a while) and would be pleased to discuss things more there. Guru Noel (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Duplicate report. See below. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert reported by User:Calidum (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 688029555 by Roscelese (talk) This is a consistent attempt to insert bland language in place of informative terms like the truthful pawn shop"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 688021945 by Roscelese (talk) The material is sourced."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 688021641 by Roscelese (talk) The source is reliable to people who accept the truth that the Manhattan Declaration is about religious freedom"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 688020519 by Roscelese (talk) You are trying to turn Wikipedia into a POV pushing enterprise that only allows liberal sources"


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

None at Jeanne Shaheen. See however Talk:Bill Shaheen where I raised the same concern.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

JPL also created a separate article on the issue at Bill Shaheen (and edit warred there too  ) and then a third article at Bob Fennelly, all in an attempt to declare Jeanne Shaheen guilty by association in direct violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. Calidum T&#124;C 06:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * User:Johnpacklambert and User:Roscelese blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait; User:MSGJ, you blocked User:Roscelese too? That seems to be a pretty obvious BLP exception, and was labelled a BLP exception in the edit summaries. The innuendo she was reverting was sourced to the Washington Free Beacon. Please unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are familiar with the article or source and you think I've made a mistake then go ahead and unblock. I haven't got time to look more deeply at this time, but will return later. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't. But per your comment above, I'll ask the next uninvolved admin who comes along to take a second look. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. Did you look at what was being reverted and the edit summaries? There is no way the Washington Free Beacon is a RS and there were BLP violations being reverted. Obvious BLP exception to 3RR. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I got this wrong. Apparently what's obvious to one editor is not as obvious to another. I'm happy to go with the consensus on this, especially people more familiar with the article and "source" in question. In this light, so people feel that the block I placed on User:Johnpacklambert may be too lenient? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Partially struck the above as I see events have progressed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:DeCausa (Result:page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Vormeph's response to the 3RR warning is here, after which they made their 4th revert. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As the accused here, I only reverted such edits under the grounds that they were biased and were not appropriate for the said section. For the moderators' own knowledge, a personal relationship between me and DeCausa exists and there are more personal than political/editorial reasons as to why DeCausa, having not been invited to join the discussion at the talk page, persisted in reporting me. He is reminded that reporting another editor isn't going to resolve a single issue and will only brew more fire. I therefore call on DeCausa to retract this report and bring himself back to dialogue to resolve our differences. Banning me will only prolong that.
 * There's no 3RR violation as the fourth diff isn't a revert, but I have no confidence the edit war won't resume. Work it out, people, and keep your personal differences out of this project. Katietalk 02:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The fourth diff isn't a revert? Vormeph's first three reverts to the infobox changed
 * de jure Islamic republic de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty
 * to
 * Islamic Republic.
 * Vormeph's fourth revert was to change it to
 * de jure Islamic republic de facto Unitary presidential republic
 * i.e. he removed for the fourth time the words "some variant of Theocracy" and "under absolute islamic sovereignty". Can you please explain how the fourth removal of those words doesn't breach 3RR? Surely it's not because it's not an identical revert to the other 3 reverts as policy is clear that is still a revert for 3RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." It clearly is "in part". Also, page protection implies that more than Vormeph is involved in edit warring. Vormeph's 4 reverts were against two other editors: myself with one revert and with two reverts. Vormeph was trying to change text that was longstanding, with no support from any other editor. You page protected the page with Vormeph's fourth revert. Can you reconsider your decision here please.
 * By the way, and for the record, the only "the personal relationship" between me and Voremph exists entirely in Voremph's mind. We had one very brief exchange about a very minor issue several months ago. It appears to be an issue for him, but not for me. I only remembered him when I posted the 3RR warning on his talk page and saw my previous post. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lock, I tried to bring to the talk page to discuss but he/she seemed pretty driven towards pushing his POV. For the record, this is my first interaction with him and we're already discussing on the talk page now. Could you please revert the page to the status before the edit war begun? As it is now it's locked in an intermediary status with no consensus. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately it's unlikely that she will revert Vormeph's last edit on the ground that it's "the wrong version". She could if she or any admin reads the consensus on the talk page as being in favour of the pre-edit-war version, I guess. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

This user keeps adding a second date template in the infobox, which goes against the MOS for films. At first, I WP:AGF and thought it was a genuine mistake posting on his talkpage (there is also another issue of WP:COPYVIO too). There was no reply. Second time the second film date template was added, I went back to his talkpage. No reply again. Third revert, I went back to his talkpage, this time asking if they understand what I have written (or not). Again, no reply. Fourth revert, I went back once again asking if they understand. Once again, no reply. This user is actively editing other articles, so I don't think it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I have no doubt they'll add the spurious film date template back in a day or two without engaging in WP:BRD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * And a few hours after logging this, and notifying the user, he goes back and re-adds the template!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: Reporting editor:

Previous version reverted to:

Other articles that User:Davidwr has reverted and refuse to comply
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Keeps reverting article to fit his personal opinions. Very Non-Neutral. The article clearly states that it's a Diploma Mill article but in the Mexico Section article, the 2007 SEP Source mentions nothing about the institutions being a diploma mill, but only unrecognized in Mexico. This article is for Diploma Mill's and not colleges who have accreditation but not recognized in a certain country. A lot of institutions on this list now have accreditation but User:Davidwr keeps reverting other editors changes back to the way he wants it and not for accuracy. Information in this article is outdated and when editors make changes, User:Davidwr reverts them or refuses to comply with accuracy. All types of sources have been provided by multiple editors but it appears that User:Davidwr only wants it his way. Please do something about this editors as needs some training on how to be neutral and not one-sided.

2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a related discussion at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education. I've notified User:Davidwr of your complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. I think this is the first time since my early days at Wikipedia that I've been seriously accused of misconduct at an administrator's noticeboard.  It's entirely possible that I have a blind spot here and bringing this to my attention - and everyone else's - will open my eyes and make me a better editor.
 * However, I'm not willing to concede this just yet. Please read on...
 * I could be mis-reading things but as best I can tell, the disputes revolve around whether:
 * The accreditation of a particular school in Hawaii which was very recently accredited by a non-US accreditation agency but whose programs are not accredited has meaningful accreditation or if it is, from a potential employer or graduate school's perspective, accreditation in name only (obviously I think the latter is the case here). The matter is complicated by the fact that the accreditation agency's accreditations of schools in its home country are generally considered valid - but that is in part because schools in that country also have to meet other standards as well.  In general, reputable schools in the United States that wish to be accredited with seek regional accreditation and the will seek to have their programs accredited (there are are of course rare exceptions of known-high-quality schools that do not seek accreditation), and
 * As of 10/29, whether the recently added text and its reference demonstrate that the text that refers to the state of affairs in 2007 is outdated and should be removed, or whether the recently added text belong in the article alongside the text that discusses the state of affairs in 2007 (obviously I don't see the new information as superseding the previous information).
 * Additional background can be found in recent conversations on Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education and Talk:Diploma_mill as well as the recently-closed-as-delete Articles for deletion/Atlantic International University. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * These two articles' talk pages seem to be lightly-trafficked, making it difficult to determine what the Wiki-consensus on this matter really is.
 * I would welcome a WP:Third opinion, preferably from editors with expertise in how colleges in the United States and Mexico (respectively) are accredited and what accreditations are taken seriously by employers and reputable graduate schools in those countries.  Even better than one "third opinion" would be a full-blown discussion with many editors, so no one editor (such as myself or 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443) will be able to dominate the discussion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, again numerous sources have been provided to this articles talk page from a bunch of others that contradicted the Mexico section. The 2007 sourced information should NOT be placed under an article called Diploma Mill as the information is a archived source and not from an official website from the SEP. Also, the article on states that the institutions are NOT recognized in Mexico and does not mention anything about Mexico stating that the institutions are Diploma Mill's. If you read the entire talk page of this article you were totally ignoring the information provided and chose to put the article the way you wanted. EdJohnston I asked that you please review all talk pages and review all the other editors information before making a decision. has made several edits to these articles and several of one-sided bias statements, one in particular whereas he implied the Atlantic International University is a diploma mill based on google search, but failed to see that it's now accredited. this source should be removed from the article as there is no mention from the SEP's 2007 article stating that these institutions are Diploma Mill's. The reference is from an archived site and AIU has authority to operate in Mexico and they have a location there. If they were considered a diploma mill in Mexico, they would be kicked out just like the rest of the Diploma Mills in the past. Please see this & this information. As you can see the Mexico section is outdated and inaccurate and does not belong in this article. 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Diploma mill has been semiprotected three months, due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. The same person has edited the article using three different IPs in the month of October. Feel free to create an account and resume editing, so long as you make a good-faith effort to find consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * and anyone else reading this:
 * Is there anything I should have done differently?
 * What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. See User talk:EdJohnston.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: )
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Emergency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Turkey List of wars involving Russia, Cyprus Emergency, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, List of wars involving Cyprus, List of wars involving Turkey

User being reported:

Previous version of List of wars involving Russia reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Russia&diff=688110361&oldid=687799167

Previous version of Cyprus Emergency reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_Emergency&diff=687202685&oldid=685615764

Previous version of Turkish invasion of Cyprus reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=688064331&oldid=632123029

Previous version of List of wars involving Cyprus reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Turkey&diff=687880147&oldid=620946311

Previous version if List of wars involving Turkey to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Turkey&diff=687880147&oldid=620946311

Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Russia:
 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts in Cyprus Emergency
 * 1)

Here is reverting in two parts.


 * 1)


 * 1)

And here is deleting a source.


 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts in Turkish invasion of Cyprus


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Turkey


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Cyprus

Here is reverting in two parts


 * 1)


 * 1)

Here is edit warring


 * 1)


 * 1)

Another reverting in tho parts....


 * 1)


 * 1)

And then in one part....


 * 1)

Here is reverting in many parts


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Here is edit warring again


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Comments:

User Mikrobølgeovn is edit warring the articles List of wars involving Cyprus and List of wars involving Turkey, for more than a year now. He closely cooperates with user GGT in edit warring articles. He is following me, and deleting all my edits in everything. He writes insulting comments in my talk page. He accuses me in the administrators on false charges. He did the same with previous users in the past that had as a result their blocking for good.

Evidence on what is going on can be found here, since I have written about the case to an administrator recently and another administrator add some of the discussions there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06#Cyprus_emergency

If more information is needed just let me know.Ron1978 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see no violations of 3RR, although editing on List of wars involving Russia is getting close. Ad hominem comments like this and this are unacceptable and will result in a block if they continue. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, I was never notified of being reported (as the reporting user is obliged to do). Second, when someone intentionally adds wrong information to make a point, that's vandalism. Ron1978 can have whatever opinion he'd like, but if he went on and changed the result of WWII to "decisive Axis victory", don't expect anyone to uphold the 3RR. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User Mikrobølgeovn is lying as usual. I have never added wrong information and I have never added anything or any result in WWII. You can check this from my history. On the other hand user Mikrobølgeovn is constantly edit warring the articles, constantly pushes POV, constantly accuses users to the administrators on false charges, constantly lying about other users to the administrators, constantly cooperates with another user to push other users in edit warring and then report them, constantly following other users and deleting their edits, and constantly deleting all the victories of the Greek or Greek Cypriot side in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey for more then a year now! The non-reliability on what he is saying both now and in general, can be seen from his history and from the evidence that I have providedRon1978 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I never claimed you made changes to WWII. No matter how you twist things, Russia did not win World War I. I don't know why you suddenly got so interested in pressing this claim, but at the very least take it to the main article before making changes to navigation tools. I am aware I broke the 3RR, but I don't recognize this as a content dispute, and I don't believe it applies in cases of clear vandalism. And that's what it is when someone makes harming and disruptive edits just to make a point - vandalism. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn has just reverted again the article of list of wars involving Russia, with out any concession, in the talk page, and he accuses me for vandalism on the article of list of wars involving Russia,  while just a while ago an administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SantiLak#Edit_warring said to him that what I did was not vandalism. He is lying as usual and accusing other users, as usual, on totally false charges, while he is constantly deleting whatever any other user is adding. How exactly did he came to the conclusion that I vandalize, and I am making harming and disruptive edits, to make a point? Perhaps, is he accusing, as usual, other users for what exactly he is doing, as usual, as well?

Mikrobølgeovn is a problem both for NPOV in Wikipedia and other users adding NPOV versions. You can check the evidence that I have provided. They are overwhelming and he is a problem, for a very long time now, as evidence showsRon1978 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)  Ron1978 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)


 * Having to put up with this is honestly very tiring. I've been here for years. I've had disagreements with many users along the way, but you're the first one to describe me as a "problem". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Among all your other misconducts, you are constantly deleting all the NPOV edits that everyone else is adding, as evidence shows. Wikipedia is not an one man's show.Ron1978 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User Mikrobølgeovn is constantly deleting what everyone else is adding in the article. This is going on for a very long time, as you can see from the history of the article. I have added, just the most recent ones.Ron1978 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe a block is necessary, maybe an admin lock of the page, if a block is necessary, both users should be blocked for edit warring. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be left for someone from WikiProject Military history to figure out. Frankly, I doubt anyone familiar with the subject (and I mean absolutely no offense by this) would accuse me for edit warring, or doubt we're talking clear vandalism here. This whole affair is very frustrating. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User Mikrobølgeovn is constantly edit warring a number of articles, constantly accusing other users to the administrators on totally false charges, constantly deleting what every other user is adding, yet he accuses other users for what exactly he is doing. This issue with him is going on now for a very very long time now. You can check the evidence that I have provided here on what is going on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06#Cyprus_emergencyRon1978 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Which articles am I "constantly edit warring"? What "totally false charges" have I accused other users of, and to which administrators? Who's edits have I been "constantly deleting"? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RevRoderickCDavis reported by User:Super48paul (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

 
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

   
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

several messages on editor's talk page: no reaction
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Just check the Gospel entry, view history and you will see the 'war' unfold. Editor even adds some more (unsourced) material in the process. Do what is necessary - the editor seems to be deaf. Does not react on talk page. Super48paul (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The next day. Another user intervened and reverted; but RevRoderickCDavis overruled this again, edit warring from his/her side just continues. Meanwhile I checked the original creation of the entry; it was clearly meant to emphasize the controversy about this gospel: from Biblical times or just a more recent creation? An idea might be to involve the creator Neonlitz (from 2011) in the dispute.Super48paul (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:108.26.174.18 reported by User:Darkknight2149 (Result: blocked)
Pages: and

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Joker in other media:


 * 
 * 
 * 

Sith:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Comments:

This user was just blocked for editing warring on the Joker in other media last week and, only several days after becoming unblocked, the user returned to edit warring on Joker in other media (even after two discussions were started on the Talk Page, which the user refuses to respond to). The User continues to ignore every single attempt at a discussion. Although the user hasn't broken the 3RR on this article since he has been unblocked (at least, not YET), the user's actions still constitute edit warring and their reverts are exactly the same as the ones from when the user did break the 3RR (which the user was previously blocked for).

Not only that, but the user also returned to an edit war that I was previously unaware of at the Sith article, which the user has never been reported for and has been involved in for months. Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zqxwcevrbtny reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

and about a dozen more
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)


 * Diff of notice about WP:BLP issues
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diff indicating awareness of BLP and Editwarring


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

Comments:


 * If Zqxwcevrbtny refuses to stop adding BLP violations to the article, I have to endorse sanctions. I don't know if he's just not listening or if he's got an agenda. There's also the possibility of a competence issue, considering that after I brought BLPCRIME to his attention twice in edit summaries I also left a detailed note on his talk page and pasted the relevant BLPCRIME text with important parts bolded, he continues to make problem edits. It doesn't seem that he read or understood any of the policy, because after TRPOD reverted an edit by Zqxwcevrbtny that contained the problematic content, Z restored it with an edit summary that suggests he thinks the issue is sourcing, not potential defamation.


 * Note also that I opened a discussion at BLP/N two days before this editor even showed up, to get input from BLP-familiar editors about the suitability of this content. I also filed a Help Desk request in case someone haunting that board was BLP familiar because in the days prior to this user showing up, I had been dealing with an IP editor who also didn't care about/didn't comprehend/wasn't listening to my BLPCRIME concern. This may or may not have been Zqxwcevrbtny, but I'd probably also encourage page protection to stymie any continued disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * After repeated warnings and explanations by RPOD on the user's talk page, and then a final and thorough warning by Cyphoidbomb, the user opened an ANI filing: . This cycle of unceasing and unheeding disruption has got to stop. Possibly even an indef for NOTHERE. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Pitcroft reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Blocked 24 hours. Violated 3RR and continued edit warring after warning. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:MrKing84 reported by User:Cebr1979 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

If someone is already at 3 reverts on a single page in a 24-hour period and has point-blank, flat-out stated they will be reverting a fourth time... Can it be brought here or do we have to wait for the 4th revert to happen first?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to think that it can be brought here. The "3 reverts" is a bright line - breaching it means edit warring - but it is not a limitation - edit warring doesn't have to include a "3 reverts" violation. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Amended - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not really. You said you "would be inclined to think that it can be brought here" but, then you said "edit warring does have to include a "3 reverts" violation" so... since there hasn't been a 3-revert violation but, there has been a declaration of making a violation... can it be brought here: yes or no?Cebr1979 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies. That was a typo. I meant "doesn't". I have amended the statement above. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thank you. Cebr1979 (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) Declaration of making a fourth revert. He's just going to wait until the 24 hours is up and then go back which should be considered just as disruptive as if he were to make the fourth revert now.


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


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


 * 1) (not on the article's talk page, took it to ANI instead)


 * Comments:

Having a problem at the Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) page. User:MrKing84 really likes that character and is known for coming to the page whenever he logs on to wikipedia and, if he doesn't like something, regardless of being told where the conversation happened that what he doesn't like is the correct way, he just reverts and reverts until we end up here or somewhere else (something that has been brought to his attention by other editors at his talk page.

It's silly, really, but... it's not going to end. That page has had to deal with him before.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would just like for Cebr1979 to stop harassing me (and other posters) for one thing. He has a history of making condescending remarks towards other editors. Now he is trying to cite a previous edit war he was involved in with another editor from a few months ago, as a reason to keep a last name in a caption of a picture. Yet there is no policy that says the last name of a person or character must be in the picture's caption (yes that is how ridiculous this is, a last name in a picture caption of TV character). That is what this is all about. But it is like I told him on another page he reported me to, his own words are not a policy. His own opinion is not a Wikipedia policy. He doesn't seem to understand that. When some editor tries to point these things out to him, he appears to take them personally and lashes out at the other editor by doing things like this. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not harrassing you, there's been no previous edit war, and I've already explained everything to you here but, you're just continuing to ignore what is said to you in order to continue making yourself right and justify your non-stop reverts to that page (which, as I've pointed out, has been going on for a long, long time - not just with this... and you've blatantly stated you don't plan on stopping). The current consensus is: captions go with the common name. The character's common name includes both the first and last name.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are indeed harassing me. This little thing has now turned into long discussions on multiple pages. A lot of back and forth. Now you're trying to report me and get me blocked. That is harassment. Not to mention the little condescending remarks that you like to make (and I'm not the only one who has mentioned this to you). I haven't ignored what you said. I pointed out that you are were talking about "which last name was the right one" with the other editor in the links you provided. The issue here is the relevance of the last name in the caption. Not every picture caption on Wikipedia has a persons/characters last name, so there is no set policy on this. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I notice that there is no Talk page discussion on this issue. I'd consider it worthwhile if both editors could outline their reasons for their preferred version on the article Talk page, with a view to requesting a third opinion if no agreement can be found. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I clearly stated, there is no talk page discussion because it went to ANI instead. If you read that conversation (which I linked to), everything you just suggested has already been done.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the WP:ANI discussion, I see a lot of comment on contributor, but not as much discussion of the content. While I realise there is a certain degree of bad blood, my suggestion is that you, please, in a new section on the article Talk page, place a statement each, detailing the reasons for the preferred content - The caption of this photo should be "X" because.... I would also suggest that neither of you edit this part of the article until you have done so. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 08:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not starting a discussion that's already been had. If he wants, he can go hard.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:MrKing84 and User:Cebr1979 are both warned. The next one of you who adds, removes or changes Kyle's last name in either direction, Jenkins or Abbott, without first getting a talk page consensus, may be blocked. These warnings are in lieu of full protection of the article, which would be unfair to the others who aren't parties to this edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston: Ed, it would be really nice if you would look into things before commenting. Jenkins or Abbott? What? What his last name was or is has NOTHING to do with anything and neither of us ever even edited the name "Jenkins" into that caption! Oh, my goodness.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:95.44.149.144 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 688366110 by ZH8000 (talk) See talk page. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a  propaganda tool"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 688247035 by ZH8000 (talk) Numerous sources in 'gun ownership Switzerland' refute this. Sources say, ammunition for ALL weapons bought privately & military weapons converted to semi"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 688061609 by ZH8000 (talk)  Opening paragraph https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland. They keep their military weapon, convert to semi, buy own ammo."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Number of guns per capita by country. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Number of guns per capita by country. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Actions are worrying, although they have not yet violated 3RR and they have now made an addition to the talk page. User:ZH8000 is edit warring as much as the IP. Awaiting comments from others. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Correctinform reported by User:Vin09 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Bhopal. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Bhopal. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* October 2015 */"
 * 4)   "/* Talk page */"
 * 5)   "/* Talk page */"
 * 6)   "/* Largest city */"


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


 * Comments:

Not discussing and kept on adding false stats of city area. Vin09 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is enough to convince me that we need to stop this user editing until they can convince us they are here to improve the encyclopedia. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Markangle11 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: article deleted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 688383341 by Kashmiri (talk)Are you psycho?Dont revert without a reason"
 * 2)  "Nominator is confused about deletion criteria. G4 does not apply anyway."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing afd templates on Faqr-e-Iqbal. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not about edit warring per se: Editor keeps removing AfD template placed in Faqr-e-Iqbal - article he/she recreated after AfD discussion resulted in delete. Editor already has two final warnings about template removal but he/she clearly has decided not to comply. Persistent disruption elsewhere, too. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  15:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking into this now ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the two versions of the article and the AfD. Although they are not identical, they are substantially similar and I have deleted via G4. I am not sure there is enough disruption to justify blocking this editor yet, but it is certainly worth monitoring their edits in future and reporting any recurrence. I am watchlisting their talk page now. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The wider issue of sock/meat puppetry in this topic area should probably be brought to WP:AN for broader review to determine the correct action to be taken. Regards &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ken173324 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Hong Kong flag */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Hong Kong: RFC has concluded"


 * Comments:

I pointed him to the MOS guideline and the recent RfC consensus, but the user refuses to discuss and continues to revert and myself. Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long term edit warring. Ken173324 keeps replacing the China flag with the Hong Kong flag even after being warned by an admin. The use of the Hong Kong flag in this list is contrary to the advice of WP:MOSFLAG, which talks about usage of flags of subnational entities and is against a specific RfC on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman reported by User:2605:E000:6009:9700:3448:B254:BF69:A47E (Result: No violation)
'''Page: Accreditation Service for International Colleges User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accreditation_Service_for_International_Colleges&diff=674965500&oldid=674964944

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accreditation_Service_for_International_Colleges this]

Comments:

Hello This editor has reverted/changed this article over 30 different times. He also has been bullying other editors acting as if he is the owner of wikipedia. In a particular instance where he told user Markos200 that he has 24 hours and he will change the article back to his satisfaction. See this article talk page of bullying towards another editor. Another edit war between him and user (talk), see the previous edit war before User:DrFleischman deleted it from his talk page. See this.

It appears when someone makes an edit to an article and User:DrFleischman does not like the edit, he will check your IP or User Editing history to try to find issues on articles you have either created or edited and tag your article and cite that it is not Neutral and needs citations and or he would request that it be deleted. He has moved to get numerous articles deleted. One recently whereas he cited that an institution called Atlantic International University does not have any Notability in Wikipedia, see this article's deletion page. The AFD clearly states
 * Schools are frequently nominated for deletion. The current notability guideline for schools and other education institutions is Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG). This section is not a notability guideline, WP:GNG and WP:ORG are.
 * Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia. 'Redirect' as an alternative to deletion  is anchored in policy.
 * Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.
 * Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are usually deleted.

There were sources provide that proved the institution exist.

Please review all User:DrFleischman's editing history as it seems that he has a lot of Bias opinions and a little over the top as to enforcing Wikipedia's procedures. He seems to be acting as a representative or some what an owner of Wikipedia. This article was created 7 years ago and as you can see, User:DrFleischman has chopped the article down to his personal liking. He will revert any meaningful edit with sources that someone makes on this article. This editor needs to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that provides extensive information as to organizations, so chopping the article down to predominately nothing seems to be a self-serving.


 * This is not the place to continue your content dispute with DrFleischman. Their reverts are few and far between. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:86.14.94.31 reported by User:DrKay (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:

Comments:

They clearly don't intend to stop. Doug Weller (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:B8BF:C0:9CE:5C94:E144:62DD reported by User:Standardengineer (Result: Blocked 3 months)

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "According to Indian news the Tribune India: "The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China.""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User is edit warring on pages Nuclear triad and INS Vishal. He was reported a few days back which led to semi-protection of INS Vishal and was also warned for using multiple IP's. He also uses the IP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/162.74.52.147. He is acting against consensus by using multiple IP's. He is coming back after every few days and does the same thing again. standardengineer (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC) There was a big fight here User talk:162.74.52.147.

New info appears to be a sock of  was reported as a sock of  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shulinjiang/Archive. All the edit warring matches on topics. standardengineer (talk)
 * This really should be a SPI report. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Psychonaut reported by User:WikiBulova (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch is full name of the Pakistani singer/actress and she also uses QB as her name in English media only. She is a popular singer and is only known as Qurat-ul-Ain Balouch in Urdu and Pakistan. I changed the redirection from QB and restored full name page. Now User:Psychonaut is reverting my edits. Please advice. WikiBulova (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * User:WikiBulova, I have already advised you what the problem is both on your talk page and on mine, and also in my edit summaries.  If you don't understand the process for requesting a move over a redirect, just ask about what isn't clear and I would be happy to help. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't edit warring. There are set procedures for moving a page because the page history is needed for attribution. See WP:CUTPASTE. clpo13(talk) 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article in question., in future please listen to what other editors tell you and ask if you not understand. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaganomics88 reported by User:Govindaharihari (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=688348805&oldid=688308146]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688497758]
 * 2) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688514478]
 * 3) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=prev&oldid=688595867]
 * 4) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hard_left&diff=688719777&oldid=688659302]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hard_left#.22Labour_.5Bin_the_early_1980s.5D_was....22]

Comments:Editor was straight off a block for the same thing on the same page and continues in the same method

Govindaharihari (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, 'same thing', are you referring to trying to stop the removal of well sourced and relevant article content? Reaganomics88 (talk) 19:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Reagonomics seems to be following a similar editing pattern at Thatcherism, four recent reverts of the same change there. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be getting the message. Blocked 72 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mitchell443 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 688751672 by Moxy (talk) Fair use rationale   Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the Arms of Canada. This image illustrates the use of traditional French and B"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 688812132 by Mitchell443 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 688751672 by Moxy (talk) Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the Arms of Canada. This image designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 688751672 by Moxy (talk) Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the Arms of Canada. This image designed by the Canadian Heraldic Authority"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring disruption since 25 October 2014. Adding a flawed copy of the Canadian coat of arms against consensus. Will not discuss. See also disruption from 2014 on 's talk. Dr. K. 05:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now he's edit warring on this edit warring notice. Besides being meta, it'll probably get him blocked for vandalism following a final warning. clpo13(talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Recommend the editor-in-question be given a lengthy block, until he/she promises to stop. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:McGeddon (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */ don't remove until issue is resolved"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 688494293 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) Don't remove until issue has been resolved"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 688495675 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)wrong again"
 * 4)  "/* top */ also contradicts the article"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 688630855 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)stop editwarring please"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring top-of-page "article contradicts itself and neutrality is disputed" maintenance tags over whether the word "pseudoscience" should go here or there in the lede sentence. Looks like they managed not-quite-3RR over the wording of that sentence last week, with five reverts in two days. Editor seems well aware of 3RR from previous blocks and is already discussing their concerns on the talk page. McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I self reverted 3 minutes after my last edit, . As noted, I am discussing on talk. I don't agree with removing article tags while the issue is being discussed, but I apologise for not being more careful. The edit summary last time the tag was removed (just after another editor had helpfully fixed the tag ), "Deja vu all over again", was not constructive. I promise to steer well-clear of 3RR in future. I will only edit the same article on alternate days. In fact I won't edit the astrology article at all, at least until people start agreeing with me. zzz (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am discussing on talk" is correct: Signedzzz has edited Talk:Astrology eight times in the last hour, since their last adjustment at 09:44 to the above comment. Switching from edit warring to overwhelming talk is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Johnuniq, I was editing my comment, which was a reply to another user who had replied to me. I don't know what you mean by "overwhelming". zzz (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I note the total length of additional material added in that hour isn't what I would call overwhelming talk either. I have commented myself on the talk page indicating that I see some reason to question the current structure of the lede, and I am not generally (I hope anyway) seen as an advocate of pseudoscientific theories, although, obviously, I would welcome correction on that point if I am found to be wrong in that assumption. John Carter (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should also mention that my original five separate edits spread throughout the lead and the body of the article were reverted en masse 6 days later (as can be seen in the edits listed above), along with edits by another user to the spelling of the word "medieval", with the edit summary "rv to last good version - article is EngVarB, i.e. not American; rv doubtful edits to lead" (apparently mistakenly asserting that "medieval", as opposed to the chiefly archaic "mediaeval", is an Americanism) and then again all reverted, along the spelling corrections: "Concur with previous revision, unconstructive lead changes". It only later transpired that it was the edit to the first sentence that was the main hurdle. I found this all very confusing at the time. zzz (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, my reversion you mentioned involved both the lead and spelling. There is a note about the spelling as well as talk page discussions about it. The lead changes are also heavily discussed in the talk page archives. The talk page "spamming" has made following any discussion virtually infeasable. Also offering to edit every other day is a blatent runaround of 3RR. (Also user delete my edit warring warning, see talk page history).-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  14:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I was trying to convey with my previous message - my edits to the lead, and my other edits to the article, and the spelling edits by another user, were all combined into your single revert. (I believe my other edits apart from the first sentence have all been subsequently accepted). Your warning arrived 4 days ago, and related to these confusing combined reverts, and not the article tags. Also, I indicated, above, that I will not be editing the astrology article any more, unless there is a sudden, miraculous turn-around in the rather entrenched POV of users there. zzz (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * With the self revert, I am marking this as no violation, although both and  are getting close to 3RR. I will monitor the article and block at the first sign of trying to game the rules. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, looks like I missed "Previous version reverted to" because Twinkle didn't ask for it. With only minor variations in the number of problem templates used, the reverts were to Signedzzz's previous version on October 30, so this is four reverts of the same content in 24 hours. --McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Augustavangusta and User:TiNYiSO reported by User:Gasheadsteve (Result: blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&oldid=682903682] (last version of page before edit warring began)

Diffs of user Augustavangusta's reverts: Plus two IP edits which follow the same pattern and may or may not belong to the same user:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684477214&oldid=683355082] 6 October 2015
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684646573&oldid=684606060] 7 October 2015
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684903572&oldid=684761854] 9 October 2015
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=685357601&oldid=684936105] 12 October 2015
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=686045951&oldid=685419278] 16 October 2015
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=686698832&oldid=686059557] 20 October 2015
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687274157&oldid=686716518] 24 October 2015
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687795352&oldid=687707006] 27 October 2015
 * 9) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688223259&oldid=687867306] 30 October 2015
 * 10) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688583606&oldid=688483958] 1 November 2015
 * 11) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688777367&oldid=688754034] 3 November 2015
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687659096&oldid=687308638] 27 October 2015
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688461719&oldid=688267712] 1 November 2015

Diffs of user TiNYiSO's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=683355082&oldid=682903682] 29 September 2015
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684606060&oldid=684477214] 7 October 2015
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684761854&oldid=684646573] 8 October 2015
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=684936105&oldid=684903572] 9 October 2015
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=685419278&oldid=685357601] 12 October 2015
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=686059557&oldid=686045951] 16 October 2015
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=686716518&oldid=686698832] 20 October 2015
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687308638&oldid=687274157] 24 October 2015
 * 9) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687707006&oldid=687659096] 27 October 2015
 * 10) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=687867306&oldid=687795352] 28 October 2015
 * 11) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688267712&oldid=688223259] 30 October 2015
 * 12) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688483958&oldid=688461719] 1 November 2015
 * 13) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688610007&oldid=688583606] 2 November 2015
 * 14) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&diff=688754034&oldid=688699832] 2 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Augustavangusta&diff=688839132&oldid=688687645] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TiNYiSO&diff=688839278&oldid=688687564]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since I am not involved in this dispute myself, I posted requests on the two users' talk pages for them to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Diffs: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Augustavangusta&diff=688687645&oldid=650481173] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TiNYiSO&diff=688687564&oldid=675986840]. Both users have reverted the page since I posted these messages and have not engaged in discussion.

Comments:

I am not involved in this dispute myself and have no opinion on which user (if either) is correct. This diff: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sim_racing&type=revision&diff=688777367&oldid=682903682] shows 27 edits over 5 weeks have produced no differences to the article. &mdash; Gasheadsteve Talk to me 10:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Amazing. If only those comments could be placed in the talk page rather than in edit summaries, it would be a good conversation. Both blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Marc87 reported by User:Uncleben85 (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

-Uncleben85 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a violation of 3RR as they are on 3 reverts just as User:Uncleben85 is. However their persistent edit warring, without any discussion, without even an edit summary, convinces me that a block is needed here. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Knutjb reported by User:Schily (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cdrtools&diff=prev&oldid=688843297
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libburnia&diff=prev&oldid=688839161

and many similar edits that are all intended to introduce false or biased claims on the Cdrtools or similar articles.

The user did even revert an attempt for discussion on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibburnia&type=revision&diff=688845349&oldid=688845216 without giving a delta comment.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Knutjb&diff=688843920&oldid=688842101

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cdrtools&curid=3636514&diff=688845230&oldid=688790097

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libburnia&diff=prev&oldid=688845216

Comments:

The user ignores the fact that his claims are proven false by the bug tracking systems of various Linux distros and he even reverts attempts for a discussion on talk pages.


 * Blocked 24 hours. If it persists after the block expires, please report again. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

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: [diff]

Comments:

I have added additional sources and copy-edited both articles but this has been met with repeated wholesale reverts by the editor against the WP:1RR restriction on the articles in question here. I have made the user aware of this which he/she ignored and continued to revert mine and Makeandtoss' edits. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Totally unacceptable - persistent reverting without discussion, even after warning. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cr7777777 reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 13:27, 2 November 2015‎
 * 02:34, 2 November 2015‎
 * 22:45, 1 November 2015‎
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Have tried to suggest engage on talk but editor has refused to do so.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Cr7777777 has failed to engage on the wording in the lead and instead has aggressively reverted text repeatedly from both myself and other editors. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Contaldo80 says that I failed to engage on the wording. I have stated my case multiple times to the few editors who insist on rephrasing the cardinal's words.
 * Response:

This is a clear cut case.

The few editors insist on rewording Cardinal Sarah's statement and inject their bias, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

The few editors refuse to use the cardinal's direct quote, which the editors admittedly do not understand. Contaldo80 wrote "Isn't this rather meaningless? We don't really know what Sarah means as his terminilogy is odd and unhelpful." After admitting to not understanding, he insists on rephrasing the cardinal's words!

Understanding Catholic Catechism (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM) would help to understand the cardinal's meaning. Rather than using my phrasing, or the other editors misleading phrasing, it is only fair to use the cardinal's direct quote.

Cr7777777 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. It should also be noted that Ezium23 and Mean as custard had used the direct quote as well before Contaldo80 modified it with his own wording. Cr7777777 (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; Contaldo80 appears to be acting obtusely in continuing to revert this version. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In what sense have I been acting "obtusely". I have made the point that simply repeating a phrase made by Robert Sarah helps no-one. What does he mean by "western homosexual ideology"? What do you understand by it? Perhaps you can explain because frankly I'm struggling. Instead I've suggested that we try and make the phrasing more meaningful to readers. Sarah seems to be unhappy at the development of LGBT rights and which he sees - rightly or wrongly - as single-minded and aggressive. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly the editor has been edit-warring, but there was no attempt to explain to the editor that doing so is unacceptable before filing this report, as far as I can see. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to advise this editor with this regard. I did so when reverting the changes, and again on their personal talk page. I also flagged the issue directly on the article talk page suggesting we try and find a constructive way forward, to which the editor failed to respond. The editor has now reverted the material once again. I fear we may be getting no-where despite the warning.Contaldo80 (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nearest I can see to you warning the editor is an edit summary that said "I've asked politely that you engage on the talk page. If you edit war then I will refer you to administrators." A new editor, who may never have heard of the expression "edit war", that not know what that means. I have posted a message to Cr7777777's talk page explaining briefly what "edit-warring" is, explaining that doing so may lead to being blocked, and giving a link to Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring in case the editor wants further information. Since I did that, he or she has not edited the article again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sakultah reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:
 * Edit 1 Revert 1 13:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit 2 Revert 2 07:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. In addition, you can notice a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits. After a 72 hours block for edit warring, this user found nothing better than to come back and edit war some more on the same module with unsourced edits breaking 1RR. Tradedia talk 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand reported by User:WikIan (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:FleetCommand

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

Comments: FleetCommand has been completely out of line lately and has no regard for WP:CYCLE and has begun edit warring. S/he has become completely hostile. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"> WikIan -(talk) 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. Fleet Command online!


 * WikIan has added three revisions.
 * The first is not a revert. I came, I saw a contradiction. I corrected it. Is it a crime?
 * The second edit of mine (9:23) is even more plausible than the first. I had made several improvements to the article, including fixing duplicate citation naming, improving a bare URL, etc. ( and ) WikIan reverted them all in a blanket revert (10:35) just because he had disagreement in tiny area, saying "Reverted FleetCommand's edits, let's NOT violate WP:CYCLE". What WP:CYCLE? This is a blatant act of WP:DICK! Sure, I counter-reverted him.


 * IMHO, this person is here to pick a fight, not to build an encyclopedia.


 * I am ready to extend a resolution: Let's voluntarily remove all personal comments and personal attacks (both) from our talk page messages posted today (including this rather hilarious comment) and discuss the issue only, while assuming good faith, never again accusing each other of anything.


 * Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two reverts within 24 hours so not a violation of 3RR in any sense. However I do see some hypocrisy in complaining that WikIan did a "blanket revert" which reverted some good edits, and then you did the same thing at 09:23. Perhaps you should both stop with the wholesale reverting and discuss things more? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy? I must protest! Sure, what I did on 9:23 (my second bullet point) was also a blanket counter-revert but back then I didn't know why WikIan did his 10:35 revert. (Now, we know. But we didn't know back then.) At the time, it seemed implausible all over. I could not do a partial counter-revert even if I wanted to. Sure, it is easy to come to WP:ANEW and judge what an editor did in the past but wouldn't you do what I did if you were me? You are facing a revert that is 100% (at least in your POV) wrong. I still don't know how the partial counter-revert must have gone; I only know the disputed area that I should avoid. Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say he violated WP:3RR but just WP:CYCLE and he is edit warring. His blatant disregard for the guidelines here is astonishing to say the least. You say you want to "remove personal comments", yet you bring back old discussions AND claim I did a blanket revert in the name of not building an encyclopedia, yet you yourself have become the most counter-productive person in this discussion.


 * As I have stated, this discussion is about Microsoft Surface and how your information is wrong. You need to cite a source on how Surface (first generation can run Windows 10. Also, why is the information about tablet release dates irrelevant? You have stated that the article is about the series, yet you have constantly changed the wording (Microsoft Surface is fine without "series" to clarify that) and the facts (Only one Surface tablet was released in 2012. That makes the info incorrect and underrepersenting. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #03A9F4, -4px -4px 15px #4CAF50;"> WikIan -(talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:FleetCommand and User:WikIan are both warned. The next person who reverts this article before getting a clear consensus on the talk page may be blocked without notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Realskeptic reported by User:DD2K (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Only three of those are edit reverts. Realskeptic (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. Anyone can see through the diffs and article history that you've made 4 reverts there, and a 5th yesterday around noon. Just because you word the revert as if it's not adding the same material isn't going to fool anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are too caught up in detail. I did notice I made four edit reverts on the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC Conference within the last 24 hours, so if you really want to you can block me for that. I don't understand the hostility by other editors or why they seem so determined to keep certain information off Wikipedia, however. I am told not to edit-war, yet simply reverting my edits with attacks seems the preferred method to engaging in discussion. Realskeptic (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to admin, this is being discussed at ANI. <b style="color:#000080;">APK</b> whisper in my ear  04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Cr7777777

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 09:14, 3 November 2015‎
 * 08:48, 2 November 2015
 * 08:56, 26 October 2015‎


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Have engaged the editor on talk but editor insists on edit-warring.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Contaldo80 repeatedly admits that he doesn't understand Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but insists on summarizing the remarks in the lead, reverting contributions from both myself and other editors.

Again, Contaldo80's rewording that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation, yet he repeatedly inserts it.

Cardinal Sarah is opposed to redefining marriage, but is not opposed to anyone's rights. In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Point 2358 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

Instead of misrepresenting the subject to readers, the cardinal's own words should be used to describe his position, without the peanut gallery's misrepresentation. If Contaldo80 insists on adding a dumbed down nutshell summary of the cardinal's remarks, it should be that Cardinal Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and chastity. Cr7777777 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment No diffs provided, no previous version provided, no user warning provided, and no evidence of a 3RR violation. Looks like a speedy close.Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Shibamanot reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: 3 editors blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

 
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you revert all the edits, that's the problem, you are here for? people are here to build encyclopedia. go help build constructive information and edit only that is not constructive and helpful"
 * 2)  "people are doing to build encyclopedia here while you acting a fake lawyer with your fake evidence."
 * 3)  "Are you serious mad? I dont mind sock. Go help to construct helpful information here."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 688995177 by 2.48.183.152 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also involved is, who claims Shibamanot is a sockpuppet. No attempts at discussion. clpo13(talk) 09:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Shibamanot is a sockpuppet of User:Simpleabd. See page history and the talk page to understand. User:Simpleabd has been creating a lot of socks and all of them were blocked per DUCK.-2.48.183.152 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added some more recent edits on his/her part in the above.Super48paul (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that 2.48.187.101 is a deceiver, as you see i have some contributions. he only reverts only in topic about Muhammad. It seems, he wants to produce bad faith in that article obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibamanot (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 2.48.183.152, 2.48.187.101, and Shibamanot all . Stifle (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle, can you please re-review the IP blocks? I have indef blocked Shibamanot as a sock. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've only just seen this – I'm happy to leave everything as-is as (1) the blocks expire soon and (2) it was still edit-warring. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (Result: Declined, retaliatory listing)
Restoration of PROD template against policy:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Further edit warring on talk pages of articles:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (restoration of PROD after removal):, , , , ,

Previous version reverted to (further edit warring on talk pages):, , ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Restorations of PROD after objection & removal:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Further edit warring on article talk pages:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above section, also

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above section. Also and

Comments:

While having reported me for alleged edit warring above, it is not proper to restore PROD templates contrary to established policy. I would revert the restorations myself if not for such action being called edit warring. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment having seen multiple ANI threads on this IP, viewed their behavior, seen them baiting regular contributors, I believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's behavior would be protected by the exemption for countering vandalism, if there had actually been a 3RR violation. There has been no such violation. Protecting the project is not a valid reason to block. A strong and heavy WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to this IP.  Scr ★ pIron IV 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in the explanation, I have no blocked account. Therefore I am not evading a block. I am also not vandalizing as I am editing pages in accordance with policy, including WP:PROD policy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. Editing for the primary purpose of repeatedly removing large numbers of PRODs without explanation isn't vandalism — it's trolling. I would suggest that WP:IAR protects the editors who have reversed your trolling. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a "large" number of PRODs that I object to. If I wanted to "troll" I could have removed the template from every page listed in "Category:Proposed deletion as of ____ ". But it is clear that I have not done that, I have only removed the template per the instructions to object to PROD of those specific articles. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, adding some article talk pages to this report. Named user is reverting edits I make to the talk pages of articles. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * . Retaliatory listing. Stop it. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: already warned by another editor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts to address this and related issues at ANI and the WP:PROD talkpage over several days, in which the IP has refused to participate.

Comments: This is a case involving PROD removal and replacement. Ordinarily this is not a 3RR issue, since PRODs generally cannot be replaced. However, several users, myself included, have cited significant evidence that the IP is the sock of a blocked or banned user, which by policy allows replacing the PROD. The IP (actually one editor using multiple IPs serially) refuses to address the claim in any forum. The refusal to discuss the good-faith, policy-compliant argument to justify PROD replacement therefore justifies an edit-warring/3RR block. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I apologize, I lost count of the number of times I removed the PROD template. Since the PROD policy is not to replace them in the first place, I did not think I would have to keep track of the number of times I would have to re-remove the template. If this warrants a 3RR block then go ahead.2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm no fan of this user's edit warring, it is conventional that new users are blocked only if they continue to edit war after being warned. Please note that any further removal of proposed deletion notices would qualify as edit warring across multiple articles, even if the 3RR is not exceeded on any one article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't a new user; this is an experienced user editing via multiple IPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's evidence for that, then this user should indeed be blocked now. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that I have a blocked account or am evading a block. As for the multiple IPs, I have no control over how my ISP assigns me an IP. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, this user hasn't stopped edit warring. After being warned, he removed proposed deletion notices from a large number of new articles       . I suggest blocking him. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Removing a PROD template is not vandalism nor edit warring. It is the process outlined by the WP:PROD policy to contest/object/etc. to a proposed deletion. While technically a "revert", IMO the initial removal should not be counted as a revert for 3RR or edit warring purposes. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally, removing a proposed deletion notice isn't edit warring. You, however, have managed to turn it into edit warring by vexatiously removing large numbers of PRODs without providing any substantive explanations of why you believe any of the articles shouldn't be deleted. Since you insist on the letter of the proposed deletion policy in contravention to its intent, you shouldn't be surprised when the letter of the edit warring policy is enforced against you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Per policy an explanation is not required. Also many of the PRODs I object to are not valid deletion reasons, so no reason requires no opposing reason. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the "intent" of WP:PROD is for uncontroversial, uncontested deletion (whatever language they choose to use). So it was never intended that any deletion that could be contested or controversial would simply go through the PROD process. It was always intended that any contesting of a PROD would require the matter to be settled at AfD. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * . User:2602 etc. is correct in stating he/she is allowed to contest PRODs by removing the tag. Absent actual evidence (rather than assertions) that User:2602 etc. is a sock, there is no authority for restoring the tags. Everyone needs to go read WP:TEA or WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:James343e reported by User:MaxBrowne (Result: Protected 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor has repeatedly attempted to insert his opinion that chess is a sport into the article's first sentence. This is not a universally held opinion, nor is it a matter of objective fact as he asserts. He is attempting to over-ride a longstanding consensus and edit-warring in the process. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd reported by User:BalCoder (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&oldid=688928404]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=688934100&oldid=688928404] Nov.3
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=688916506&oldid=688857077] Nov.3
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=688846150&oldid=688831888] Nov.3
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=688785443&oldid=688673047] Nov.2
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=688583740&oldid=688148670] Nov.1
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=686314297&oldid=686150177] Oct.18
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=681535646&oldid=681449697] Sep.17
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=681217510&oldid=681113542] Sep.15
 * 9) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=681067874&oldid=680958115] Sep.15

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proportional_representation#Edits_and_Reversions_by_BalCoder_and_Ontario_Teacher_BFA_BEd]

Comments:

This is a "re-revert" war. I have been reverting User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's edits and trying to discuss for more than two months and User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is re-revertng my reverts. User:Abecedare protected the page for several weeks, on Sep.17, in an effort to stop warring, and there is a currently open WP:DRN dispute, to which User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd agreed, but he is now increasing his re-revert frequency. I warned him he was risking 3RR, here and here. I just want a break from this guy, but in my opinion he should be permanently blocked from all electoral system pages because of his blatently politically partisan editing evident from a glance at his short editing history. He has twice been warned about warring, one was for another article (which he immediately deleted). BalCoder (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you User talk:Stifle,
 * User:BalCoder has previously engaged in an edit war with User:Reallavergne on the same Proportional Representation article. See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 under "Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation". This user has once again engaged in horrific personal insults, mass reversions, and has refused to provide a single source (while rudely dismissing the 40 sources that I have provided) to substantiate his/her reversions on the exact same article. Additionally, this user has violated the WP:3RR rule himself/herself.


 * 1) [//https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=prev&oldid=688928404] Nov.3
 * 2) [//https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&oldid=688857077] Nov.3
 * 3) [//https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proportional_representation&diff=prev&oldid=688831888] Nov.3
 * This user has appears to have also engaged in Sockpuppetry by logging out and using the following two IP addresses: 131.104.138.146, and 131.104.138.174. It is my view that this user should be blocked permanently or at least warned about intentionally abusive language. Furthermore, I find the assumption that I am male to be extremely sexist. Wikipedia should be a space where female editors are given the same level of respect and dignity as male editors. I am now working with collaboratively and respectfully with User:Reallavergne and User:Øln to build consensus on the proportional representation article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF reported by User:Widefox (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 689258963 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 3rd revert. Further reverts will be added to the edit warring report"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 689249086 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 689246372 by Eteethan (talk) "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a  tag from an article, do not replace it" per WP:DEPROD"
 * 4)  "WP:CONTESTED"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Joe Simmons (actor). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Added  template. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

technically correct to not allow prod back on, but clear WP:POINT. Disruption only editor WP:NOTHERE. hopping IP Widefox ; talk 00:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Already rangeblocked the IP per ANI. This can be closed.
 * Thanks User:Berean Hunter, hard to understand why the gaming disruption lasted so long on WP:POINT alone. I've proposed wording to cover this loophole in PROD. Widefox ; talk 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Nezi1111 reported by User:Meclee (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Realtively new user who has Edit War warnings from other articles. User does not seem to have the social skills to engage in productive discussion.

Meclee (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not this user's first time edit warring...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

i gave my reason. source support my edits. you want to redefine racism with a view that isn't in line with source and your only argument is "oh...but its WP" and, when i refuse you start insulting. that sums up our "edit war". Nezi1111 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of backing off the editor is now warring on other articles. Blocked 48 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Neutrality reported by User:Eeyoresdream (Result: no violation)
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:

Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. Diffs #3 and #4 are not reverts at all (unless I'm mis-reading something) - these were changes/additions to which nobody has objected yet. (Of course, if anyone objects, I'd be happy to discuss at talk, but nobody has raised these on the talk page).


 * As for diffs #1 and #2, the material at issue (a Kurtz quote) was back in the article (I've "self-reverted"). I removed the Kurtz quote because my understanding was that this material was only in there to balance out an earlier reference (which I also removed). Another user thinks the quote still belongs there even if an earlier reference is taken out.  So I've put it back in, pending discussion.


 * So in sum, I count a single revert, based on my understanding of another user's edit, which I have self-reverted, and is under active discussion at talk. Not an edit war by any stretch of the imagination.


 * In any case, I won't be editing this article for at least a day (Though I will be engaging on the talk page). Neutralitytalk 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Does not seem to be an edit war there, and it does not seem that Neutrality has breached 3RR. He has actively edited the article adding a substantial amount of well sourced content in a dozen or so edits. See the article's history. No idea why the OP is reporting this. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note the OP editing behavior - Deleting content without any discussions in talk. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing as no violation &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)