Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301

User:Cwobeel reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: Declined Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (new info removed together with existing info)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:21, 26 November 2015
 * 2) 16:05, 26 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cwobeel constantly tries to reduce the page and its content, though at some point agreed to add information which directly relates to "Arab Winter". He got a formal SCW&ISIL warning earlier this year. Today, my new additions with sources specifically referring to Arab Winter were reverted by him twice. Cwobeel refused to self-revert his second edit, claiming that i also violated 1RR (though i reverted only once, with my first edit being addition of new info).GreyShark (dibra) 16:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn - the user eventually decided to self-revert.GreyShark (dibra) 16:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn Neil N  talk to me 01:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Negeryi reported by User:Godsy and User:LjL (merged) (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

not provided because there are several reverts to several different versions; user is severely disruptive by reverting just about anything, but not in one specific content dispute
 * Previous version reverted to:

(the above are reverts of the same content, while the ones below are unwarranted reverts of different content; please note that the edit summaries are misleading, possible copied from other people's)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by LjL (talk) to last revision by Negeryi. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 692576345 by Godsy (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Godsy (talk): Rev. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 692532797 by Katangais (talk)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 692573089 by John (talk): No notability whatsoever . (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 692572136 by Patar knight (talk) Removing linkspam per WP:EL"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 692534123 by Katangais (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 692533635 by Nick-D (talk) it means the air arm"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * Also inappropriately reverted my report at WP:UAA. See also: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd also like to point out that I notified the user in question of this report as required and it was reverted. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 18:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have also reported the user at WP:ANI, as I believe they are a subtle vandal, after checking their history on other articles as well. Their reverts on the article in questions are of bonafide, valid and generally useful edits. The reverts include removal of valid sourced content. They are also edit warring on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disruption is over. CU-blocked as a sock. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Dr.   K.  20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Negeryi has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:Mateothehistorian (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Reporting user:

I'm reporting User:Unbuttered Parsnip's edit war in Lazaro Mangubat Article for non stop edit warring and ignoring my attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page (here) 'Dont make any changes or jump into any statement as not true without showing any basis. I was in Lawis for a visit the structure in front of it was a memorial with its inscription that the Kota was built in year 1790. Basing from this then your 1830 edit will be untrue. on the upper hand I read book written during spanish time I found out that the structure was built in 1630 and not in 1790.... So I didn't follow the year 1790 as the founding date of the Kota which was posted by the municipality of Madridejos but the year 1630 as the founding date as narrated by fray Medina' he just kept on with the edit war, again,again, and again, choosing not to heed. Please take appropriate measures.

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:


 * Comment: I see no 3RR violation on the accused editor's part (are you aware that the reverts must be within 24h, not during the span of several days?); on the other hand, I see a very incomplete edit warring report. I also don't see a notification of this report on the editor's talk page, so I've taken the liberty of sending one myself. LjL (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I made 3RR a few days ago. That editor kept complete WP:CB, kept adding parts of text which were nonsense - such as that subject built a church in 1630 and also that he made at 1870 at the age of 50.  I made several additional to the article, by WP:V and WP:RS which he ignored and reverted.  I was going to move to WP:DE yesterday but I thought he'd gone away.  Note that his editing for the last nearly three years have been about 60 edits of Lazaro Mangubat and half a dozen of Madridejos, Cebu.  That's about it, nothing else.  About the same number of edits as I made the last 2 days.  Maybe I shall take him to WP:ANI –  Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Fri 08:51, wikitime=  00:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation of WP:3RR seems to have occurred. Use the talk page to try to reach agreement. The steps of WP:DR are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Krzyhorse22 reported by User:Human10.0 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Filing user:


 * Diffs of the user's edits:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&diff=689643221&oldid=689642790] [No edit summary given, he basically removed the citation of a news article that stated tribal leaders had carried out stoning extrajudicially in Afghanistan]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&diff=690954382&oldid=690833715] [Again no edit summary given, he removed mention of the words "tribal practice"]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&diff=691468613&oldid=691167131] "That article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan (not about Afghanistan), you're wording implies that tribal leaders are allowed to stone women in Afghanistan" [Note: the news article explicitly mentions stoning in Afghanistan]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&diff=691752906&oldid=691694441] "I've read all of it, that UK news article is about stoning in Iran and Pakistan. A mere mention of something in that report doesn't mean much, I deal with Afghanistan, which tribal leader is stoning women? What's his name? Which tribe he represents?" [He basically says the article's statements about stoning in Afghanistan don't "mean much" and implies that they shouldn't be added to the wiki article's section on Afghanistan]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stoning&diff=692010581&oldid=691934885] "ONLY you are accusing Afghanistan's tribal leaders, which includes Hamid Karzai, of stoning people to death. Either stop reading this unsourced POV or provide sources. That UK news piece is focusing on legal stoning in Iran and Pakistan." [Note: no one accused Hamid Karzai of anything. He claims the news article is unsourced POV]


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Krzyhorse22's talk page:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krzyhorse22&diff=691696763&oldid=691067462#Stoning_in_Afghanistan]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krzyhorse22&diff=691753537&oldid=691753261#Stoning_in_Afghanistan]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krzyhorse22&diff=691928440&oldid=691753537#Stoning_in_Afghanistan]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krzyhorse22&diff=692007710&oldid=691928440]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Krzyhorse22&diff=692192455&oldid=692007710]


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoning&diff=692188652&oldid=667717961]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoning&diff=692343185&oldid=692188652]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoning&diff=692352775&oldid=692343185]

I have mentioned the instances of Krzyhorse22's edit warring on the stoning article and summarised my attempts at resolving the dispute here. Krzyhorse22 has been active on Wikipedia since the post on the article's talk page was made but has not engaged on said talk page.


 * You're both revert warring. Seek dispute resolution. -- slakr \ talk / 05:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Krzyhorse22 kept deleting sourced text despite my repeated requests to solve the dispute first so I kept reverting him. If he deletes the sourced text again, I will not revert him but I will request a Third Opinion (3O). I hope that is okay. —Human10.0 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As per my observation, these two users reporting each other on ANI, SPI and now here at Edit warring board. I think admin attention is needed regarding articles in which they are involved. Maybe one of them can be topic banned to resolve this. -- Human 3015   TALK   21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that I only reported Krzyhorse22 to this edit warring board, I did not report him on SPI or ANI. Saying "these two users reporting each other" implies I reported him on all those boards too, even though I did not. Krzyhorse22, on the other hand, did accuse me yesterday of being a sock here, on a page investigating whether he is using a sock (he has since heavily edited that page and also removed his accusation against me). I am not aware of anyone reporting me or him on ANI. —Human10.0 (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI was this, indirectly related to you. Anyway, you both have to resolve your issues, continuous conflict with same editor makes editing unhappy. Maybe you both can ignore each other for some time. -- Human 3015   TALK   22:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know about the ANI. I am still open to resolving the issue, I do not want any animosity between me and Krzyhorse22. I wish I could ignore him but that's very hard to do when he is accusing me of POV-pushing just for restoring sourced material he deleted without giving any reason.


 * I also have a question: The result below says I can't make reverts on the stoning article. Does that mean I'm not allowed to make any reverts or am I just not allowed to revert the text that is disputed between me & Krzyhorse22? The thing is an IP has recently made a small edit where they messed up the grammar of a sentence on the stoning article. I would like to correct that.—Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a crime or a violation of Wikipedia to report someone at SPI, everyone does it and so did I because I was 100% convinced socks were unnecessarily following me. However, I have not breached any Wikipedia policy so I see no justification for reporting me here. About the article Stoning, which is about punishment. Human10.0 believes tribal leaders in Afghanistan stone people to death as punishment. He cites Emma Batha who states, "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially." Emma Batha does not clarify if she's talking about tribal leaders in Iraq or Afghanistan. All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do this but as a crime. I have not seen any report in which Afghan tribal leaders doing it or even being accused. Human10.0 is simply POV pushing in articles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Krzyhorse22 please do not selectively quote the article. The relevant passage, as I pointed out on your talk page, is: "In some countries, such as Mauritania and Qatar, stoning has never been used although it remains legal. However, in other countries, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, stoning is not legal but tribal leaders, militants and others carry it out extrajudicially. "In Afghanistan, warlords are manipulating religion to terrorise the population for their own political ends. Stoning is one way of doing that," said Shameem, a human rights lawyer who is co-ordinating the Stop Stoning Women campaign." I think it is clear now that the article was talking about Afghanistan. I would also like to point out that I wasn't the person who added the part about tribal leaders, that was someone else. When you deleted their contribution without justification, I merely re-added it because it was reliably sourced. There are many reports of Afghan tribal warlords/leaders carrying out stoning (in violation of current Afghan law), I guess I will have to add some of those reports to the wiki article to convince you that other sources also mention tribal leaders being involved in stoning incidents. One article also reports how local officials are known to blame Taliban insurgents for stonings to cover up for the actions of their tribal leaders. Please stop insulting me with accusations of POV-pushing, it is evident I am not doing that. Anyways, if you want to discuss this matter further, I would appreciate if you do so on the stoning article's talk page. We shouldn't clutter this board. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Warlords are a class of criminals fighting against the government and people of Afghanistan, they are not tribal leaders. A tribal leader is someone who represents a tribe. The article stoning is not about the crime of stoning someone to death, it's the opposite of that. That article you posted is based on a theory. Only one woman says tribal leaders "could have" done it but the so many news reports say Taliban had issued the punishment.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reports blame stoning on both "tribal warlords" and "tribal leaders" which is why I used the phrasing "Afghan tribal warlords/leaders" above.


 * What you claim is not what the stoning article is about. It is simply about a form of capital punishment which may be legal or criminal, depending upon the jurisdiction. The 'Usage today' portion of the article has numerous examples of stoning being treated as a crime (when carried out to punish people extrajudicially) and also as a legal form of punishment, depending upon the country where it occurs.


 * You are misrepresenting the news article, downplaying what it says and conveniently not mentioning what the "one woman" (i.e. Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women's rights activist and co-founder of Research Institute for Women, Peace and Security) went on to say; please see the stoning article's talk page where I talk about the article. The reason I linked to that article wasn't to claim that 'tribal leaders stoned the woman in the video' (I did not even imply that), it was to show you that some stonings are carried out by tribal leaders but are blamed on the Taliban (who also have a reputation for stoning), a fact acknowledged even by Afghans (like Wazhma Frogh). As you are an Afghan, I can see how you would not want unpleasant facts about your homeland to be published but your objections to sources that mention those unpleasant facts are getting out of hand ( "based on a theory", really?).  Anyways, there's no use in further arguing on this page; the editors here aren't going to listen to our arguments and resolve this issue for us. If you want to talk to/argue with me regarding the stoning article, go to the stoning article talk page (also on that talk page, I would like you to produce just one report that says "only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]" as you claimed above that: "All the other sources say only Taliban soldiers do [stoning]"). I am removing this page from my watchlist now. —Human10.0 (talk) 05:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're saying makes no sense. Taliban, warlords and all the other Afghan criminals belong to tribes. They should be collectively called criminals, the same way we call all current Afghan rebel forces Taliban. There are good tribal leaders and bad ones. I'm not responding in the talk page of that article because it's not a big deal to me. You're doing a great job, keep posting more news reports and other information so readers are aware.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: There is a dispute on whether stoning occurs in Afghanistan. As User:Slakr stated above User:Krzyhorse22 and User:Human10.0 are both edit warring. Consider an WP:RfC or use the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Further reverts by either of you on the stoning article may lead to admin action unless consensus has been previously found on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I made 1 revert per day and it was done just like a normal edit. I didn't know Human10.0 was starting an edit war with me, when I realized that I stopped. It's plain stupid to warn me.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One revert per day is edit warring, if you are always removing the same material. Open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Squiggly666 reported by User:Brustopher (Result:Blocked 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "clarification"
 * 2)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 692592913 by Fyddlestix (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Pls block Brustopher (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked for 31h, with a good perspective to be indeffed next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Firebrace reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Identification */ Reverted unhelpful changes."
 * 2)  "/* Identification */ Reverted vandalism."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 692536107 by Jd52102 (talk) Find a source and try again."


 * 1RR/DS notification


 * Comments:

Despite having been made aware of the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL 1RR that affects this article, this editor has continued to revert changes with misleading edit summaries, and has little presence on the talk page. 1RR has clearly been broken. RGloucester — ☎ 06:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RV: "Edits that do not contribute to edit warring are generally considered to be exceptions to the three-revert rule." I assume this also applies to the one-revert rule. Can you explain why the edit summaries are misleading? Firebrace (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You wrote that this edit was "vandalism". Have you read the definition of "vandalism"? This edit was not "vandalism", and does not qualify for the exception to 1RR, even if the edit was wrong. What exactly was "unhelpful" about these changes? This was certainly not excepted from 1RR. The same applies for the last edit. In each case, none of the edit was vandalism. Vandalism has a specific definition. Vandalism is a "deliberate damage to Wikipedia", for which none of these qualify. You should've made one revert, then stopped. Instead, you kept reverting under the false banner of reverting "vandalism". That's inappropriate. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't need to justify the second revert—it speaks for itself. Legacypac's edit was a poor attempt at "clarification": there is already a paragraph about the ringleader, "Bataclan theatre" doesn't need linking a sixth time, and changing "the final bomber" to "the third unidentified bomber" implies there were two other unidentified bombers at that location. It was a nonsense edit by someone who obviously hasn't read the article. In spite of many challenges, we have a good article that does justice to the victims of the attacks, and of which I, LjL, InedibleHulk, Bod, Peter and the 'team' can be proud. Firebrace (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OWNERSHIP of an article isn't appropriate, and no "team" should exist. Cliques of editors monopolising the development of articles is not beneficial to article development, and is in fact detrimental. Regardless of whether it was a "nonsense edit" or not, there is 1RR on the article, and clear vandalism is the only exception. That edit was not vandalism in the Wikipedia sense. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:OWNERSHIP and you have reported this editor for a technical violation of 1RR even though there was absolutely no harm done (in fact all the reverts were useful), and anyway I was wondering, how exactly is reporting someone for breach of sanctions that were put in place to avoid conflicts about Syria and ISIL when in fact none of the reverts involve Syria or ISIL in any way not gratuitously WP:GAMING the system to make a WP:POINT (the point presumably being that you really like these sanctions)? Wikipedia is not about application of rules for its own sake ("sorry, you may not have done anything detrimental, but the rules said you had to be reported!"). Bothersome. LjL (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - please let's stop being ridiculous with literal application of WP:1RR. "We" have kept being told it would be used with common sense without blocks for benign edits, yet that's exactly what seems to be attempted here. Firebrace is one of the two top contributors to November 2015 Paris attacks and his edits have generally been very positive contributions to the article. I count at least 52 talk page edits, so he's present enough there, too. The three (unrelated) reverts he's being reported for look like good reverts, and the one labelled "vandalism" does look like a revert of vandalism, since even though it's subtle, the edit arbitrarily removed part of the content and completely changed the meaning of the sentence, which is unlikely to have been done by mistake. Speaking of this sort of nonsense application of rules, though, I will point out that it's hard to complain when almost nobody who had previously objected has now actually expressed their opinion at my motion about it. Don't speak up, and this is what happens. LjL (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, I agree with LjL (talk. This is a Slippery slope, and WP:1RR ought to be tempered by common sense, and not a headlong rush to Procrustian interpretation and Draconian punishment.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Firebrace is warned for violation of WP:1RR. The next admin may or may not believe in a relaxed interpretation of the rule.  It is better to stay under the limit to avoid problems. Firebrace's incorrect charges of vandalism don't strengthen their case. Your citation of WP:Reverting doesn't help. That is only an essay; see WP:Edit warring for the policy. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Judist reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note
 * This is just a sample report of the widespread edit-warring by this editor across many articles, many of which are covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. Incessant edit-warring over many days adding POV and UNDUE content on Macedonia-related articles following the edits of his/her perceived opponents and starting edit-wars on articles he never edited before.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do not remove Harvard University sources. Thank you. Comment the content, not the editors."
 * 2)  "see http://history.wikia.com/wiki/Spherical_Earth"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 687316809 by Athenean (talk) comparison to a womb clearly means a sphere"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Ancient Macedonian language. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Saints Cyril and Methodius. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Canvassing on User talk:Stolichanin. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sun. (TW★TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Spherical Earth. (TW★TW)"
 * 6)   "Warning: Edit warring on Turkish people. (TW★TW)"
 * 7)   "Warning: Edit warring on Philip II of Macedon. (TW★TW)"
 * 8)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alexander the Great. (TW★TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alexander the Great. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring across a wide swath of articles covered under DS WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBMAC2. stalking edits of others and follows them reverting their edits such as the articles on Greek genocide, Turkish people and Turks in Europe. Canvassing other editors. This editor is causing widespread disruption and will not stop. Dr.  K.  20:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring across articles. Neil N  talk to me 21:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:86.28.73.170 reported by User:KateWishing (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't bother templating them because they already warned me about violating 3RR. ("I wouldn't be surprised to see the three reverts rule kicking in very soon") Note that two other users have also reverted them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

When I notified the IP of this report, they replied: "Needs to be described as an "Editing by an idiot (Kate Wishing)" report." KateWishing (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User KateWishing has a large number of complaints on her Talk page about changing or re-writing perfectly acceptable articles, although in this case, the original article was not mine; I have simply added few references over the last year or the odd grammar tidy. She has further stated that she has medical training, presumably an expert, in this subject, but refuses to provide evidence of such, or links to publications/papers, so I smell yet another false Wiki-PhD claim brewing. With that number of complaints from many users, across a number of subjects, it is clear where the common denominator is here. Looking at her edit-war history, of which she is a frequent keyboard-warrior, she has a clear modus operandi, in that she will edit without pre-talk or consultation with authors, and then enter into a 'battle' once she realizes that she has stepped too far, or unnecessarily removed perfectly valid links. She has annoyed a large number of people by reading their comments. In this case, she altered a great number of previously good reference links, that I was myself using for my own recovery from this illness, and steered the majority towards one source, which would imply a vested interest. Additionally, the original links to the two doctors credited with furthering the original research about RCVS, after whom the illness is sub-title named, were removed except one. In all KateWishings continual aggravation to a number of users should be called into question, and her intransigence to accept refs from e.g. Oxford University Press and The Lancet, on medical matters, clearly shows a huge problem with an editor who is challenging accepted and respected reference sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.73.170 (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. Use the talk page to get consensus; be aware of the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Drawing conclusions from primary sources in the medical domain is risky. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * in what way is someone who uses an iPad at home and an office PC at different times of the day, a "IP hopping edit warrior"? Do you people not even understand the basics of the TCP protocol in that the office and home broadband providers obviously use different IP ranges? Crikey! To make insulting claims otherwise simply shows the maturity and knowledge of those who are, somehow, supposed to be in charge. It's no wonder Wikipedai is in the state it is, and its reputation continues to fall as nothing more than an experiment that clearly doesn't work in reality. 86.21.250.21 (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston please note that user KateWishing has now undone an article three times Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome and removed fully evidenced and referenced sources. I believe that this is in contradiction of Wiki Rules. Considering the number of complaints against her from a number of users across a variety of articles, I am surprised that rules are not being  applied evenly. I expect to see her removal reverted back until she can disprove the existence of those links, which are fully accessible by the refs given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.250.21 (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you need to continue this, please do so on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Trinacrialucente reported by User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22:47, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692724068 by 83.60.253.184 More anon IP valdalizing; no consensus on removing this section in its entirety. on-going discussion on removing parts"
 * 2)  02:15, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692621192 by LjL "
 * 3)  02:09, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692620407 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten"
 * 4)  01:58, 27 November 2015 "Undid revision 692618406 by When Other Legends Are Forgotten "
 * 5)  05:55, 26 November 2015  "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

See also this WP:ANI report, with additional problematic behavior, like personal attacks:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:91.154.99.127 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

(at Love. Angel. Music. Baby.)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 692720259 by SnapSnap (talk)  Your clearly didnt read any, cause they ALL have sources. And you dont need to discuss to edit. The genres remains the same as they were before."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 692691517 by SnapSnap (talk) Reverting without reason."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 692691517 by SnapSnap (talk) Reverting without reason."

(at ABBA)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on ABBA. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Introducing factual errors on ABBA. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on ABBA. (TW)"
 * 4)
 * 5)


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


 * Comments:

IP editor is genre warring at two articles today, Love. Angel. Music. Baby. and ABBA. Has now surpassed 3RR, and combining the reverts at both articles, IP definitely shows a battleground mentality and edit warring behavior. Has a history of genre/edit warring that goes back to August 2015 (see talk page history of warnings here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; was apparently already blocked as a sock and the block expired a few weeks back. -- slakr \ talk / 02:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:TheTruthTeller4 reported by User:Mr. Granger (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

—Granger (talk · contribs) 06:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have blocked as the editor is changing text without proper attribution as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:DaeafcMnnC reported by User:Materialscientist (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

DaeafcMnnC is basically blocking attempts to expand the article that he has nominated for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * i was only reverting false info as you can see in the page history and in the talk page i deleted false information which contradict the existing one--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it was false information attempts!!--DaeafcMnnC (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jonathan Tweet reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Warning by NeilN)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm not involved in this edit war, and don't take sides in the conflict, but the edit warring has to stop. I'm particularly worried that after NeilN warned the user,, they acknowledged they had "had my 3" and then waited some hours before reverting again. That's not the right attitude, 3RR does not give permission to edit war at will as long as one spread it out a bit, so continuing the edit war after both receiving and acknowledging NeilN's warning is not a good sign. Jeppiz (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made substantial improvements to the lead, to the historical views section, and to the Gospels section. If this time I went too far, it's because making progress is a struggle. For regular edits, I have a history of being reverted and then taking it up in the talk page. I thought a POV tag was different from a regular edit because it says not to take the tag down while the dispute is in progress. Two editors took the tag down anyway. I wouldn't have been pushed the 3RR limit except that taking down a dispute tag seems like a bad faith move. Before putting up the tag, I tried to deal with this issue for weeks on the talk page and got nowhere. I am using the POV tag to draw more attention to the dispute. Any progress I have made in making the Jesus page conform better to RSs has been a struggle against editors who want to promote the canonical Gospel view. The Jesus page deviates dramatically from how neutral RSs cover the topic. I'd love to get more eyes on it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jonathan Tweet is warned that repeatedly adding or removing the POV tag counts as edit warring for purposes of this noticeboard. In his edit summary he has stated "I'll stop fighting over the POV tag", which allows this report to be closed with no block. It is elementary that someone losing an article dispute (and afraid of breaking 3RR) would wish to put up a POV tag, which results in continuing the edit war in another form. The POV tag should remain if and only if consensus supports keeping it in place. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:NebY (Result:Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 692830786 by Moxy (talk) Dead links will be replaced. Do not just reinstate dead links as it's not helpful. I'm taking this to the talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 692861118 by LouisAragon (talk) It's not mass-blanketing. It's called cleaning up the article of dead references/links. A dead reference is worse than no reference."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 692964971 by LouisAragon (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 692969500 by NebY (talk) See the talk page. The article is undergoing improvement; dead links are bound to be removed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Blocked 24 h.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ejlabnet reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "anti-azerbaiajnian propaganda to falsify and hide historical facts"
 * 2)  "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
 * 3)  "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
 * 4)  "disruptive editor, intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"


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


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

See Comment above. Alex2006 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:75.80.175.107 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Suspect */"
 * 2)  "/* Suspect */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 692852585 by Lahaun (talk) Unsourced that he was part of that school."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 692851973 by Winkelvi (talk) Uh...yes?"
 * 5)  "Messed up the article."
 * 6)  "/* Aftermath */"
 * 1)  "Messed up the article."
 * 2)  "/* Aftermath */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Suspect section */ resp"
 * 2)   "/* Suspect section */ +"


 * Comments:

IP editor behaving aggressively, ignoring warnings, edit summaries, and talk page discussion. Continues to edit war and push his content inclusion. Request a preventative block for continued disruption. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Also now edit warring at other articles in relation to the Colorado Springs shooting. . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: 2015 Colorado Springs shooting has been semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "pseudo-history and false etymology by disruptive editor Ejlabnet (only registered to vandalize this page)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 692990284 by Ejlabnet (talk) you try to falsify facts by your bogus and unsourced text"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 692991250 by Ejlabnet (talk) pan-turksit pov pusher, adds his comments to article"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 692991840 by Ejlabnet (talk) disruptive editor, adds his pov and usnourced/personal comments"


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


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

This ip and user below are edit-warring since one hour. Some Admin should stop them, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Result: Article fully protected by User:Nyttend. This article has become a sock festival. An admin who has some time might consider looking at other articles being dealt with by the same IPs, to see if semiprotection of other articles is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mai-Sachme reported by User:151.20.0.103 (Result: Semiprotected two articles)
User:Mai-Sachme broke the three reverts rule (1st 2nd 3rd 4th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP editor is correct in linking directly to the article rather than via a redirect but both sides are edit warring here. Page protection seems a better option I would suggest, making sure to protect the WP:WRONG version. WCM email 11:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by saying "protect the wrong version"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, User:Mai-Sachme has reverted one more time, that is 5 times in less than 24 hours.

For a better understanding of the case, I'd like to point out this notice and that discussion on an admin's talk page.
 * For a better understanding of the case, you should have specified that I've already answerer all of your points, but since you didn't I'll have to do it again here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

We are dealing here with a user, who appears under various IPs (5 or 6, I've lost the count...) and doesn't do anything (!) else than changing the order of German/Italian names, exchanging German town names with Italian ones and so on (despite the fact that both of them are official). That is clearly disruptive editing.
 * My IP always starts with 151.20.0-1-2-3. It's called "dynamic IP". And, again, the first IP you met, 5.101.99.101, was_NOT_me. HE made such changes, not me. There's one only edit I've ever done regarding South Tyrol with the other IP I used, 46.252.205.187, and you know. Anyway, changing a German name which has to be kept in German to Italian is disruptive, but changing a German name which has to be kept in Italian to Italian is constructive. If it wasn't so, then everybody would be free to change every single Bolzano name to Bozen in all the articles where it's written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)


 * On principle, WP:NOTBROKEN should be a user's guideline. The user behind the IPs isn't interested at all in the articles' subjects, not one single edit was a clear improvement of an article. How on earth is that an improvement? Sorry, but that kind of behaviour falls perfectly into the pattern of an nationalistic edit warrior...
 * Aren't you talking again about the first IP, which wasn't me, are you? You're talking about that single Meran(o) problem, aren't you? How on Earth is your revert an improvement? Face it: the name is Merano, period. If you disagree, you should go to Talk:Merano and create a new discussion, proposing to change the name from Merano to Meran. Otherwise, you're wrong. And a nationalist... Pardon, if you were "nationalist" you would change all German names to Italian, since your nation is Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)


 * Here the IP even falsified a book title, just in order to exchange a German town name with an Italian town name.
 * Oh my God... Again? This is the 3rd time I repeat! a) It_was_NOT_me. b) I know your edit is correct, I'll repeat, your_edit_is_correct, that's why I didn't revert it, never ever. c) I'm not going to revert correct edits, just wrong ones such as your changing from Merano to Meran. d) Let's hope you won't make me repeat it one more time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)


 * Here his edit (wrong name corrected, sic!) introduced a clear anachronism. I explained that on Talk:Silvius Magnago, obviusly whithout a response of the other involved user.
 * An anachronism? So, if you're right, considering that Italy was born in 1861 and Italian was made the official language in that year, every time an Italian town name appears in an article we must use the name it had in that particular moment (in Latin, in ancient Italian, in the local dialect, in the foreign conquerors' language, etc...). Please... And you're not even honest: you refused also the sentence "...Merano, which was then...named Meran...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the only thing I see here is massive trolling by a user, who even threatened me with "uno stolching perenne, a tempo indeterminato, da parte mia su di te.", that means "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense". I'd be thankful for a semi-protection of the concerned pages. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what it means, I've told you twice already. It doesn't mean that I'll undo you edits every time you do them. It means that I'll take an eye on you to avoid that you change again to German Italian names which according to consensus have to be Italian in this encyclopedia. I won't do anything different than an administrator who keeps an eye on a known troll. In this case, you're the troll. My edits are correct, maybe not fundamental but correct. And you're the only one behaving nationalistically here, since there's a consensus about Merano which you keep ignoring, pursuing your crusade against the Italic invaders... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

This IP's recent IPs: It does seem to me the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version, against the status quo without any argument carrying weight. I take the view that the IP should do something more constructive, and would support semi-protection for the two most affected articles to give the IP editor the opportunity to argue their case if they wish to pursue these changes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've already answered in your talk page, zzuuzz, why are you ignoring that?
 * the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version false: it's not "my favourite national version", it's English Wiki consensus version, or else Bozen and Meran wouldn't be redirects, I've never changed and will never change, for example, Waidbruck to Ponte Gardena.
 * against the status quo without any argument carrying weight false: the status quo is to use the Italian names for Bolzano and Merano, it's Mai-Sachme who's going against status quo and consensus, if you disagree you're free to propose to change them in the related talk pages, if you succeed in that I won't change Bozen/Meran to Bolzano/Merano any more.
 * the IP should do something more constructive it's your opinion, and I agree: in fact I'm also doing other constructive edits which have nothing to do with South Tyrol, as I've always done, but now I'm also controlling his edits, not to vandalise anything but to prevent him from keeping changing geographical names from consensus version to "deutsch" version.
 * I'm neither a vandal nor a nationalist, if you consider objectively what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, I am not blocking you for being a nationalist edit warrior, or a vandal. I am not even going to protect the pages. But I would like to strongly discourage you from thinking about "stolching perenne". I find this fiddling from the status quo - the existing text - rather pointless. I am referring to strong policy-based arguments to justify fiddling: Let's take the example of Morano/Meran, "According to the 2011 census, 50.47% of the resident population spoke German". According to the guidelines, this actually suggests the article is titled incorrectly. Perhaps you'd like to argue in favour of renaming it. Also, 5.101.99.101 and by definition 46.252.205.187, is the only reason we've met. I will not believe this is not you. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. That "stolchingh perenne" was a hyperbole, I'm not going to waste my life after him, I'll just control every now and then that he won't make uncorrect edits such as the 2 we're talking about. If you want to change the name of the town you can ask for it in the talk page, but as I can see somebody already tried and failed, also because the most common name used in English is Merano; obviously I'm not interested in changing the name of a town that until 1961 had a strong Italian majority. And the only reason we've met is Mai-Sachme: if he didn't report 46.252.205.187 I would have never known you even existed. I don't care if you think I'm 5.101.99.101 too, but I'm not, and I know. 1 last thing: if the three reverts rule isn't applied to Mai-Sachme or to this case for some reasons, we should close this report... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.2.95 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired now of the other user's behaviour. Let's take the article Silvius Magnago as an example. The IPs failed to make any useful contribution there. The user behind the IPs has just one goal: nationalistic fuss about German/Italian town names. What follows, is a complete list of the IPs' edits. Sorry, but what the heck? In the meantime I tried to expand the article and added a bibliography. You are welcome to compare [my humble contribution to the article's benefit with the extremely stubborn attitude of the IPs. I'm quite used to revert nationalistic bollocks in the area of South Tyrol (no matter if coming from the German or Italian side), but this doggedness as shown by the IPs is new to me. Given the threats and insults I received, I really think that we are dealing with an obsessive behaviour here. And since the IPs seem to continue their annoying activities in the article [[Silvius Magnago]], I would like to ask again for a semi-protection of the page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1st edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
 * 2nd edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
 * 3rd edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name (and that is an anachronism, as I explained on the talk page)
 * 4th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
 * 5th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
 * 6th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
 * 7th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication (as I explained on the talk page)
 * 8th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication
 * Well. Let's end this. You have broken the so called three reverts rule. You have reverted 5 time in less than 24 hours. This was the original reason of this topic. You know that I'm just going to prevent you to change Italian names to German and nothing more. Don't try shifting attention to something else honestly risible. And about Merano as I said dozens of times the consensus is to use the most used name in English. Which is Merano. This is the status quo that you're trying to change without even proposing anything in Talk:Merano. You are wrong. Both in your opinion and in the way you've chosen to impose it. We are right. It's not strongly necessary to change every Meran to Merano. But it's not uncorrect. On the contrary changing Merano to Meran is against en.wikipedia consensus. There's no reason your will to call it Meran is more correct than our will to call it Merano. There's no way you're being right in what you do. Just face it.


 * Result: Semiprotected Silvius Magnago and History of South Tyrol two months each. If IP editors have concerns about which names to use in the article they can try to get consensus on the talk page. When editors engage in nationalist edit warring in the South Tyrol it may fall under WP:ARBEE. Note that according to WP:Article titles the criterion is which name is most commonly used in English. The ethnic makeup of the town's population does not decide the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:90.44.195.188 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 20:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 09:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

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. There was a discussion of the issue on the module's talk page (as i linked above) and the reported user knew that if he reverted, he would break 1RR, since he wrote in this discussion: "Please revert them, I cannot without breaking 1RR". However, 12 hours later, he decided to go ahead and edit war by reverting and breaking 1RR. This user has been blocked 4 times already for edit warring on this same module, but he doesn't seem to care as this looks like an WP:SPA whos only objective is to do POV pushing and bias the map. 90.44.195.188 (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Biwom reported by User:D'SuperHero (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverting 8 last edits - I disagree with these changes, mixing "acting" and "directing" does not seem a good idea if it leads to repetitions"
 * 2)  "/* On intolerance */ replicating Anupam karn's latest edit"
 * 3)  "/* In the media */ reverting: seems better to me"
 * 4)  "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: not an improvement imo"
 * 5)  "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: what does this mean?"
 * 6)  "/* Awards and honours */ you cannot call the Padma Shri and the Padma Bhushan "honorary accolades" and you cannot put the doctorate stuff in the same sentence because it's just not the same level"
 * 7)  "/* On intolerance */ fixes"
 * 8)  "/* On intolerance */ "noted" does not mean much"
 * 9)  "/* On intolerance */ I am not sure the lawsuit is worth mentioning"
 * 1)  "/* On intolerance */ "noted" does not mean much"
 * 2)  "/* On intolerance */ I am not sure the lawsuit is worth mentioning"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "G.A"


 * Comments:

Editing out the references prior article is nominated for Good Article. D&#39;SuperHero (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I was hardly edit warring. D&#39;SuperHero made many many changes during the last 48 hours, I was just reverting small pieces that I objected to, one by one in order to put proper edit summaries. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama should be brought to the reviewer's attention, so that he/she does not lose as much time on WP:AGF as I have. Silly me. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * S warm  ♠  05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:T12999 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no that is cited from pear review paper in journal"
 * 2)  "is not copyrighted"
 * 3)  "going to have trouble.....this page is for the non sci...full of woowoo"
 * 4)  "hang on this is in dispute !!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vitamin K2. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexander Domanda reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Alexander Domanda

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

Comments:

This user, who seems to have a history of adding unsourced content to articles, is insisting on adding an unsourced figure for the number of Anglicans in Rwanda to this article. When challenged, they have pointed to another Wikipedia article as a source, but the figure is unsourced there. They have not responded to attempts to communicate. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Laurenlovelistenmusic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do Not Reverted Against, I will be Angry"
 * 2)  "Right File, Do Not Reverted Against"
 * 1)  "Right File, Do Not Reverted Against"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Similar edit war on Xbox One system software ViperSnake151   Talk  23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ViperSnake151, was Laurenlovelistenmusic warned about WP:3RR before this report? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if she hadn't been warned before, she was warned about various disruptive edits and also about being reported here to EW, and then continued/repeated her EW at Windows 10. "Repeated assertion" is not the same as WP:V, across multiple pages; in addition to misc process/template disruption. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * by User:NeilN (which I support) for more evidence of deeper problems, and then I disabled talkpage access for even further disruption of her own talkpage while blocked. I think we're done here. DMacks (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aricialam reported by User:Khairulash (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calvin_Cheng&oldid=693131348]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aricialam&oldid=693304291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_Cheng&oldid=693299709]

Comments:

Hello. I had written a section on a biography of a living person. It is by no means perfect, of course, but it is well-sourced, factual, and neutral. Aricialam, however, reverted this substantive edit for four times over the span of about 8-9 hours, thus blanking the entire section. In response, her reverts were undid by three different Wikipedia users including myself. Throughout Aricialam's reverts, a total of five warnings were given, none of which were heeded. It must also be noted that Aricialam had previously removed the warnings, although I had subsequently reverted them back. Finally, I'd like to humbly point out that Aricialam is extremely possessive over this article: she has reverted many, many worthwhile edits to the article prior to mine. A brief survey of Aricialam's reverts reveals that these edits share a striking similarity: that they usually cast the subject of the article in a poor light. I'm admittedly new to Wikipedia as an editor, but I'm sure this is inimical to the spirit of the Wikipedia community that I so greatly adore. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Mark Arsten, thank you for protecting it. Is it possible for you to undo her reverts before protecting it? At the moment, the page is missing an entire section due to her repeated reverts, which had breached the WP:3RR. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, sorry. Absent a compelling reason, admins generally default to the present version when fully protecting a page to avoid the appearance of taking sides. Also, the possibility of WP:BLP issues would have to be examined in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tzily reported by User:Doc James (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:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Einstein95 reported by User:Natsume96 using Patrol. (result: reporter blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:




 * Comments:
 * User did his edits under the guise of User:Vague Rant. Got three warnings including final warning. Did his edits as "Removed nonsense" or "Removed fake games".
 * Natsume96 was previously reported for edit warring and was blocked for one week for edit warring not only on another article, but also on this page. When asked to provide proof of these games existing or their notability, Natsume96 failed to do so. I also object to me and Vague Rant being the same person, as any administrator can verify that the two users do not share IP addresses and have edited different articles. Also why would a non-admin edit under the guise of an admin? -Einstein95 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Natsume96 appears to be a persistent vandal, repeatedly adding unverifiable information about supposed games and game platforms to articles and threatening other users with immediate bans when they undo those changes (see user's history of edits to user talk pages), frequently pasting imposing templates onto user pages even after being warned against doing this. The same user has previously been banned from Russian Wikipedia for what seem like similar reasons, although I don't read or otherwise understand Russian, so I can't confirm that reliably. The user has displayed a moderate awareness of Wikipedia protocol (cf. posting block warning templates on user talk pages), e.g. attempting to divert a deletion discussion on Articles for Deletion by claiming the discussion had closed and removing the notice from the (since deleted) article and now filing an edit warring dispute here.
 * When Natsume96 first registered on English Wikipedia, their posted user page seemed to acknowledge this history of vandalism and even recommend that they be banned from all Wikimedia services: I must confess to struggling with the doctrine of assuming good faith with regard to this user; all evidence is in fact suggestive of the opposite. I won't take any further action on this user as long as I'm (proxy-) accused of edit warring with Natsume96, but I present this information in the hope it will assist other admins in their dealings with user. Lastly, and perhaps needless to say, I explicitly disclaim the assertion that I am editing under the guise of User:Einstein95 or vice versa. Vague | Rant 13:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Natsume96 then began edit warring and vandalizing *this* page, and Administrator intervention against vandalism. Now blocked 2 weeks for vandalism. Clearly !HERE. Extension to Indef in order. Keri (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 02:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2.86.255.196 reported by User:Bovineboy2008 (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693461911 by Blaze The Movie Fan (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 693460933 by Cyphoidbomb (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Note: A report already exists at ANI about this user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:108.20.179.31 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User persistently adds, at least three or four times, that the Disney Channel sitcom is of the science fiction genre, while providing no reliable source for the addition, even though time travel is a premise to this series. User is not violating WP:3RR per se, but has been disruptive to continuously add the unsourced genre. MPFitz1968 (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  04:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reliably sourced statement from law enforcement authorities.  It is not media speculation."
 * 2)  "This is a report on law enforcement speculation, not media speculation"
 * 3)  "reliably sourced"
 * 4)  "/* Pursuit */ tweak"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Disgruntled employee */ resp"
 * 2)   "/* Disgruntled employee */ +"


 * Comments:

Editor refuses to stop reverting back in content that is inappropriate at this time. As we all know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and content that reads "may have been" is not appropriate as it is not proven - regardless of what reliable source it comes from.

The editor in question added the content originally and seems to be unwilling to let it go - even though it is not encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NODEADLINE, and WP:RSBREAKING has been pointed out to him. Discussion has started at the article talk page, editor has not yet attempted to join in the discussion. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

&mdash; do you intend to keep attempting to re-insert that material without consensus, or will you take it to the talk page / other forms of dispute resolution instead? -- slakr \ talk / 02:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked, but it doesn't appear that either Winkelvi nor myself crossed the 3rr threshold. Here's the thing, however, the edit I made was reliably sourced and no other editor objected to it.   Instead of reverting me, Winkelvi should have started a discussion on the talk page.  By reverting an edit that was neither vandalism, nor a BLP violation, he/she was the one who was revert warring.  In other words, Winkelvi's behavior is counterproductive towards building a good article.  And, he has wasted your time by bringing this here when a violation of 3rr did not occur.  He was also dishonest, because he tried to represent my first edit to introduce the new material to the article as a revert to make it look like I had crossed the line.  I suggest WP:BOOMERANG and be done with it. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, it's starting to become more clear that the information contained in my edit was correct. I expect Winkelvi to now go add the information to the article if it isn't there already. I will not revert him since I was the one who tried to introduce it in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This dispute has been rendered moot as new information has surpassed the disputed content, so no one is getting blocked over this. Please remember that these disputes on major news events are understandable and okay, and our readership is notified that the information presented can change rapidly. This was a reasonable dispute on both sides and there's no point dwelling on it. S warm   ♠  05:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Legacypac (Result:Combine with report below)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Lots of versions in a rapidly evolving story

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  calling on others to stop edit warring
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) +2 more reverts as I was filing the report - see below.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and response deleting warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Edits are all to scrub the shooters reported religion from article, which is basic biographical info. These are all the recent edits to the article by this user. Various other editors adding info.Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The content in question violates WP:NPOV. Consesus exists for its non-inclusion.  ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect to, to term this "basic biographical info" is, at best, contrary to any spirit of neutrality. It is also the topic of a lively back-and-forth here. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 07:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the 3RR board for dealing with edit warring parties who refuse to stop, not for debating content. Take it to talk. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct; meaning, it is not the board with which to attempt to color a reponding admin's opinion with phrases such as, "which is basic biographical info". That sentence should have stopped at "... religion from article." — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 07:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Johannesgotha reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/693560631

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/692293664
 * 2) Special:Diff/692413052
 * 3) Special:Diff/692428000
 * 4) Special:Diff/692668173
 * 5) Special:Diff/692857178
 * 6) Special:Diff/692947997
 * 7) Special:Diff/692949165
 * 8) Special:Diff/692949631
 * 9) Special:Diff/693007191
 * 10) Special:Diff/693232167
 * 11) Special:Diff/693281343
 * 12) Special:Diff/693284681
 * 13) Special:Diff/693538681
 * 14) Special:Diff/693539057
 * 15) Special:Diff/693545486
 * 16) Special:Diff/693547520
 * 17) Special:Diff/693550430
 * 18) Special:Diff/693558179
 * 19) Special:Diff/693562813

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/693546219

Comments:

As per the user's block log, the user has been blocked previously for this issue for 24 hours; however, they continued their persistent forcing of their preferred revision of the linked page. There seems to be no ability to discuss the issue with this user. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 11:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to let me know if they continue edit warring when the block expires. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This user had proposed the change on the talk page, where it was rejected, as the standard for the presentation of the list is the episode guide at starwars.com. The user has refused to discuss further, and keeps reverting to his preferred version, despite the demands of multiple editors that he discuss. His edits also outright remove sourced information. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kitplane01 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See Talk Page"
 * 2)  "Now Sourced"
 * 3)  "Yes, there are many people who think this concept is controversial.  See Neutral point of view."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 693530999 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 5)  "Added links to new york times, washington post.  This is VERY mainstream media."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversial in the lead */ new section"

I keep trying to edit the changes to answer criticisms. This seems an unreasonable charge to make. I've been editing since 2004 with thousands of edits and never had anyone do this to me. This procedure was not followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitplane01 (talk • contribs)
 * Comments:
 * Kitplane01 might avoid a block for 3RR violation if they will promise to stop reverting until consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, per WP:BRD, you should have taken it to the talk page after being reverted the first time, instead of responding in edit summaries and continually reinserting the same content! I will leave it up to you as to whether you will accept Ed's offer. S warm   ♠  04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but it wasn't vandalism so EvergreenFir is at 3RR also in the reverts. Its a content dispute, not vandalism, so we have more than one party edit warring here.--MONGO 05:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I know I'm at the 3rd revert, but I did not pass the "bright red line". TBH, the last revert is just so Twinkle would load the relevant info. Note, this is not really a content dispute. Two editors ( and myself) removed Kitplane01's edits and this was a continuation of edits from Nov 24. User was warned, reverted many times, and did not engage in discussion until this noticeboard posting. This is more POV pushing, even if not bad faith. I do think Kitplane01 is trying to "do the right thing", but in the wrong way. Kitplane01 as finally engaged on the talk page. If that's where it continues, I'm fine with that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have reported it after I did one revert, if again reverted. 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 08:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. User:Kitplane01 may be blocked the next time they edit the material in dispute unless they have first obtained consensus on the talk page. Your above comment about DRN makes no sense because this is not WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Cr7777777 (Result: nominating editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:    

Comments:

Contaldo80 repeatedly reverts any edits identifying Charamsa as a fired Vatican official, which is a well documented fact. Is this Wikipedia entry supposed to be like an encyclopedia article, or is supposed to be gay propaganda that hides the identity of cited sources? Cr7777777 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; clear continuing of disruptive editing. -- slakr \ talk / 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A good administrator is worth their weight in gold. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User:ParkH.Davis reported by User:Viriditas and User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693549076 by Bus stop (talk) WP:NPOV this information has nothing to do with the shooting"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 693548659 by Viriditas (talk) WP:NPOV"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 693548059 by Harizotoh9 (talk) WP:NPOV Please stop edit warring."
 * 4)  "/* Suspects */ WP:NPOV and has nothing to do with the shooting"
 * 5)  "/* Suspects */ WP:BLP and WP:NPOV"
 * 6)  "/* Suspects */ has nothing to do with the shooting"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * and Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and response deleting warning


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

We reported this User at the same time. At Viriditas's request I've merged the reports Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

The content in question violates WP:NPOV. Consesus exists for its non-inclusion. ParkH.Davis (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion, however the above diffs show that you removed the sourced claim that the suspect was of the Muslim faith six separate times in less than 24 hours, reverting multiple editors in the process. As the above warning diff shows, you had received a separate 3RR warning several days earlier, so you were fully aware of the rules. Viriditas (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus exist for the non-inclusion of the content in question as it clearly violates WP:NPOV. The status quo exists without the content in question.  My reverts were simply preserving the status quo.   ParkH.Davis (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no concensus to remove all the bio info, and 5 or 6 other editors added it. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Trying to be fair to everyone, there is no question that is edit-warring. That said, it is generally accepted (and at times a requirement) that disputed content—and especially so if more than one editor has expressed a potential violation of policy—stays out of the article during the discussion. Specifically, while 2015_San_Bernardino_shooting is not a BLP, it does describe an event with living victims, living relatives of the deceased victims, and living relatives of the deceased perpetrators. Per policy, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." — ATinySliver / ATalkPage &#128406; 08:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With Muslim leaders at press conferences and the Director of an Islamic group in LA talking about their daughter, and no one saying he is NOT a muslim, there is nothing to debate here. WP reports facts, and like his job, name, age, and travel history his faith is just a fact. Not including the fact is POV - are you trying to save readers from info that is in major media reports? Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See —and, if there was nothing to debate, why are we debating? — ATinySliver / ATalkPage  &#128406; 08:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The credibility of the edit warring's position that the removed info on religion is not relevant is undermined by this edit . Not clear why they continue to be able to edit this topic . Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

User: H1N111 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:   (same person)

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: The user insulted me.

Comments:

The user removes sources, information and images. I put a warning in his user talk but he blanked the page. He attacked me in many times. He told me " so shut your mouth!". , "use the brain", "miserable" and "tonto" (stupid in english).  He wrote in spanish here and here  --Bleckter (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Good afternoon, everyone, now I come to clarify everything because I have freedom of expression. At first, wich Mr. blecker says that I "insulted" him for to be the victim and now all say that I am vandal without verifying the situation, that sucks, so I reply him in this way. Arriving at the important point, remove the fonts placed by Mr. Bleckter because the "genius" mistook race with genetics, for example, in the table of white populations of Latin America, Mr. blecker put that in Argentina 44% of the population is white, I take the trouble to check their sources and the sources clearly talk about genetics, this mean that 44% of Argentines have pure European genes, but racially 85% of Argentines are white because the race is measured across racial factions (including skin color), and many white Argentines are in some case mestizos but their factions are mostly European so it can take them into account as part of the white race, this is the same case for mestizos with indigenous, black, Chinese and even Arabic predominance, This I had already explained to Mr. Bleckter but his brain will not let to understand, also, the reference placed in Nicaragua was only tourist information, and wikipedia need serious sources gentlemen, thanks so much.--H1N111 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please check his vocabulary, "fuck", "sucks", "I am removing your trash"  and "other librarians accuse me of vandal by influences of Mr. bleckter" .  Check his redaction  and the spanish words  obviously he doesn't know speak english.  --Bleckter (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I can speak English, also I can speak British English, Australian English, French, Portuguese, Italian, German and Argentine Spanish, without lying. But to try to explain to ignorants as you, I get angry. Many greetings--H1N111 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Making personal attacks against the other editor isn't persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dinesh kanwar singh reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of warnings:

Comments:


 * User is edit-warring to remove surnames from an article in violation of WP:MOS, and has continued to do so after four messages from two editors telling them to stop. Psychonaut (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Long-term edit-warring. User's only edit in talk space was here where they didn't acknowledge the surname issue. This comment was left approximately 2 minutes after TPROD warned Dinesh to stop removing surnames. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:96.95.79.85 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693759294 by Bluefist (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 693759424 by Bluefist (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 693759579 by Bluefist (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 693759639 by Bluefist (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 693760035 by Bluefist (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693760035 by Bluefist (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR, and user's first edit in the group removed hashtags from episode titles, which is integral part of every episode's title in this Nickelodeon series. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not an edit war, just a vandal, he has been reported and was previously banned 4 days ago for harassment. I have stopped reverting him because it's better to just wait until an admin bans him then revert the page.  Though with Huggle it's one button press.  Bluefist <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;"> talk  18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ongoing disruption &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Pak Lodin reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline, it is established"
 * 2)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline, it is established"
 * 3)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
 * 4)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
 * 5)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
 * 6)  "Revert, 1MDB Airlines is a real airline"
 * 7)  "rv, 1MDB Airlines is real"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring across multiple pages: —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Titusfox reported by User:Andy Toes (Result: Reporter blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777542

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777602
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777668
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693777826
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Toes&diff=next&oldid=693778167

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATitusfox&type=revision&diff=693778678&oldid=693778300

Comments:

Harassment warning also issued but ignored: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Titusfox&diff=prev&oldid=693778102 Andy Toes (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Reporting user has also removed Vandalism notices and .  T F  { Contribs } 21:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (see each -23 edit)
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I can't find a better place to raise this, so here goes. This user insists on removing the ISIL Sanctions template from November_2015_Paris_attacks. They feel that the WP:GS/ISIL sanctions we all live under don't apply to them or this article. Comments about rouge admins will not help resolve any dispute. While not 3RR, this is edit warring as far as I can tell. Legacypac (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - without getting into the merits of the sanctions, I'd say the repeated re-addition of the template, sometimes repeatedly on the part of the same user, was also edit warring, just as much as removal of it might be. The template was first removed by an admin, User:Fuzheado, and then repeatedly removed and re-added by a number of people. LjL (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment While I still think this article has little if nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, which was the edit-warring dispute WP:ARBCOM was actually trying to solve with their WP:1RR sanctions, I do live in constant fear of the WP:ROUGE admins. Their name having been invoked, I have decided to drop the matter forthwith. Good luck and God bless, ! -- Kendrick7talk 01:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Withdraw on the basis that Kebdrick7 has agreed to drop the matter. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the source makes it pretty clear that Renault own the team; therefore, calling them "Renault" is most representative for now - after all you said it yourself: they MAY keep the Lotus name"
 * 2)  "/* Signed teams and drivers */Even if the team name has not been confirmed, we can reasonably assume that a French car manufacturer is French"
 * 3)  "Renault is a French manufacturer - do you really think that this is debatable?"
 * 1)  "Renault is a French manufacturer - do you really think that this is debatable?"

Another two reverts have followed since:
 * 1)  (note:this was the first of string of edits that formed one reverted altogether)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Renault "are not French" */ reply"


 * Comments:

One of the reverts was accompanied with a personal attack directed at. Tvx1 15:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First, let me just tag here; he left a message on my talk page as a response to the above.


 * Please allow me to apologise for my actions in edit-warring. I have tried to keep my nose clean since April, and I believe that I have largely done a very good job of it. I also believe that in cases like this, self-reflection is an importantpart of the process; by demonstrating an understanding of what happened and why, we can make changes for the future. We are all prone to an occasional lapses in judgement, and that is what I have done here. Confronted with an editor who I believe has a history of consistently low-quality edits, I lost sight of what I have been trying to achieve since April and let myself fall into an old habit that I have been trying to break. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * An update on the events. The user made another revert, which I have listed above, despite the talk page discussion and despite this report. The comment they made here followed their recentmost revert, though. Tvx1 21:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Another, inadequately sourced, revert (which comprised of several edits) has followed since. It has been listed above as well. Tvx1 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In your opinion it was inadequately sourced. Several users in the talk page discussion alluded to the existence of and supported the position put forward by the source. I simply located it and added it, in keeping with the discussion on the talk page. It is a constructive edit, with a reliable source in support of it. If Tvx1 wishes to characterise it as "inadequately sourced" and tantamount to edit-warring, then I think he needs to demonstrate why the source is inadequate and how it is in defiance of an established consensus. So far, all he has provided is his opinion on the article talk page, and when I made a similar edit to another field in the same table, he characterised it as "sourced well-enough" on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Prisonermonkeys, your last block was for three months and today we have a clear case of edit warring. Per the normal practice at this board you should be blocked. The only reasonable escalation from three months is indefinite. That's not a good outcome. Can you make an assurance which will allow this to be closed? For example, promise to make no more edits on this article that don't have prior consensus on Talk? EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ &mdash; I cannot promise that it will happen again. I can, however, promise that I will make every effort to see that it doesn't. It has been eight months since my last block, and in that time, I think that I have demonstrated that I can make that effort. There may be another occasional lapse in judgement in the future, but if so, I will do my utmost to be more conscientious in my conduct. Is that acceptable? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a hard question, how about you promise to make no more edits at 2016 Formula One season for the next 12 months? EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not difficult at all. I can contribute constructively to articles and talk pages, but it does not fix the problem in the way that consensus is established by the wider community, and I am concerned that in the grand scheme of things, nothing will be fixed. I can only change what is in my power to control. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the sources is inadequate because it doesn't mention a name change having been applied for, let alone one being accepted. Therefore, it's not sufficient to support the changes you have made. I have mentioned that on the article's talk page now as well. Tvx1 00:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked three months, since no agreement could be worked out with User:Prisonermonkeys that would guarantee an end to the disruption. This report shows him making a 3RR violation on December 4 at 2016 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys still doesn't seem to recognize any problem with his editing there, and he won't agree to take a break from that article. This is the same duration as his last edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Jojhutton (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no consensus to restore cluttered version"
 * 2)  "I did take this to the talk page, 2 & 1/2 hours before your revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Wars_(film)&diff=693333221&oldid=692866496"
 * 3)  "restore easily read version that doesn't clump everything in the predicate, see talk"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lead sentence word order */ get consensus first"


 * Comments:

User has continued to edit war over this edit. User has been reverted by several other editors and has reverted again after being warned. Not all of these edits occurred in a 24 hour period, but this user has been blocked for edit warring in the past and should know better. JOJ <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  14:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I clearly did not violate 3rr. I was thanked for my edit by User:GoneIn60.  Joj reverted me here for the second or third time with his first edit summary suggesting that I needed to make a case on the talk page two and a half hours after I had already started such a dicsussion, to which he did not respond for another seven and a half hours after reverting me.  His prior reverts were without comment. It appears he reverts first, then issues warnings, and then engages in discussion.  I am not wed to any version of the lead, which I have tried in various ways to make more readable.  Joj is wed to only the prior version, and reverts to that alone, opposing any improvement. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Originally, I reverted the first edit which separated the terms epic and space opera used to describe the genre in the opening sentence. That was my beef initially. Then in a series of later revisions, μηδείς addressed my concern and reinstated the other changes in a good faith attempt to improve the opening sentence. These additional changes are now being contested by other editors in a discussion on the talk page. While I do believe μηδείς acted in good faith initially, I think at this point it is counterproductive to continue to reinstate the changes while the discussion is ongoing, especially since there are multiple editors that disagree with them. I don't have a preference either way at this point. It doesn't appear that a strict violation of WP:3RR occurred, so perhaps getting everyone on the same page here with warnings instead of a block will be enough to cool the situation. My 2¢. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I made it apparent in my comments that this isn't a 3RR issue, but an obvious problem with habitual edit warring. You were warned, yet decided to continue edit warring. This isn't your first time with edit warring. Obviously the lesson hasn't sunk in with the previous blocks. JOJ  <sup style="color:#CC9900;">Hutton  20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As an admin, I'm disinclined to block anyone here. The discussion is ongoing, and my only recommendation is for both parties to leave "The wrong version" (whichever version they think is wrong) to be visible until after the dispute has been resolved.  It is always seen as an act of good faith to leave it wrong, and then let the discussion play out.  So here is my recommendation on how to proceed, to be applied equally to both parties: 1) If the version is exactly what you want, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded.  2) If the version is what your opponent wants, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded.  3) If the version USED TO BE what you wanted, but then your opponent changes it, so now it is what you don't want, ignore this action, don't report them for anything, leave it alone and don't edit it until after the discussion has concluded.  Literally almost every single edit war ever would conclude with no one being blocked, and the consensus version of the article eventually being publicly visible if people just left the article alone during discussions even if other people aren't leaving it alone.  So, moving forward that's my recommendation to both parties: Do nothing, allow the discussion to play out, and then enact consensus.  Also, if your perceived opponent does something, still do nothing.  Don't even report them.  Just let them be the asshole, and let yourself be the good person for once.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have to admit I am quite confused. I am the one who started the discussion on the word order apart from whatever content is finally settled on.  After well over a month, we still have two content disputes (keep or delete "epic" and "space opera") that have nothing to do with my suggestion that "Star Wars (subject) is a 1977 American Epic Space Opera Film written and directed by... (predicate)" is far too heavy in its predicate to be easily read.  I will be happy not to ask for a boomerang or even a trouting of JOJ for reverting me before warning or discussing, for reverting me with the advice to discuss after I had started a discussion two and a half hours prior, and for using 3rr warnings as a content negotiation tool, while both quoting himself above as having warned me for violating 3rr  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Star Wars (film). (TW) but also "ma[king] it apparent in [his] comments that this isn't a 3RR issue".  I really cannot fathom how to avoid being handed half a dead baby under these circumstances.


 * So I will request instead of JOJ being sanctioned, that User:Jayron32 or some admin close the overlong informal content RfC's on the article's talk page, so we can formulate what's left in a professionally written way. I'll be happy not to take action before an admin does. μηδείς (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Which "informal content RfC's" are you referring to? --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Better to ping me in the future as I intend to unwatch this, but I am talking about the discussions of whether or not "space opera" and "epic" should be kept or deleted. I did comment, only after being asked to comment, that "epic" should be kept, given the bigger than life, far away, long ago, mythic style and various refs that refer to the movie as epic.  Again, so far as this discussion goes, my sole concern was that the lead could be a lot more reader friendly than it is, and that my edit simply moved the words around.  The response to that seems incredibly out of proportion, and I suspect it has a lot more to do with content concerns than care for the ease of the reader.  I am unwatching this page now.  So if anyone wants input, please ping me. μηδείς (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * μηδείς, thanks for the response. Since a clear consensus hasn't formed there yet for either part of the discussion, I was considering moving it to an RfC. Besides, the way the poll began is misleading, since it is lacking a clear description; I've seen some reply with oppose when they actually meant support or vice versa. If an admin would like to close that discussion, great, but I think the debate is far from over. Regardless of its outcome, however, I think it is a completely separate issue. Its closure shouldn't be needed in order to move forward in the newest discussion about rewording the opening sentence. The genre will remain in some form, whether or not that's "epic space opera", "space opera", or "science fiction". The only detail we need to adhere to right now is to keep those terms together and not separate them. The rest of the sentence is open to restructuring, should a consensus agree with doing so (so far that's leaning in the other direction). --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinion on the "epic" and "space opera" terms. I think both are appropriate, and in looking for support for the term "epic" I actually found a paper at google scholar that had done an analysis of that very article, and it quoted a 2009 version which used "epic space opera" (not followed by "film".)  One problem I foresee with an RfC is that we may get voters saying to remove the terms, not because they oppose the terms, but because at this point the wording is simply too awkward.  We'd also be getting into the problem of asking a complex question, whether one, both, or neither of the terms should be deleted, and that will mean confusing the issues, and a lack of consensus.  I do think the current discussion by active editors on the talk page is pretty clear.  Again, please ping me if there's further comment I should respond to, since If I watch this page it stays at the top of my watchlist, which is a bit annoying.  Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexiulian25 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: blocked for NPA)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  18:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2)  12:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 4)  22:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)  23:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, discussed at other places.

Comments:

This user has been edit warring a while on the article mentioned (Macedonian First Football League), but also other articles like List of Macedonian football champions, after which he got this 3RR and edit warring warning on his talkpage 15:03, 3 December UTC. And the editor keeps on warring.

The conduct of this user, including this personal attack at talkpage of admin User:GiantSnowman led to this final warning and a report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which has not yet been handled.

Discussions has been at
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football
 * User talk:Qed237
 * User talk:Qed237
 * User talk:samtar where User:samtar has tried to help and discuss with Alexiulian25
 * User talk:PeeJay2K3 with User:PeeJay2K3

This editor does not seem to understand he can not act like this and keeps on despite several strong warnings. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks in multiple languages. I have hope but little confidence he won't resume edit warring after the block expires. He seems to have a sense of entitlement. Katietalk 17:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:601:8700:6A90:8C95:A423:E5A1:519E reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: stale )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "-__-.....Whatever. I put a link next to her birthplace, which I shouldn't have had to do. But if you're going to be a Nazi, then fine."
 * 2)  "This shouldn't be a topic of debate. Her being born in Simi Valley is outdated and inaccurate info, which isn't uncommon for celebs. And as I said, there's a source in her "early life" section. Now please don't start an edit war."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 693820815 by Callmemirela (talk)My edit is fine. And it is sourced in her "early life" section. If you revert it again, I will revert it back."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 693817353 by Callmemirela (talk)She was born in San Bernardino county, not Simi Valley."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shailene Woodley. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP started edit warring to keep a version of the actress' supposed "real" birthplace. NY Times states otherwise and so many other sources state other birthplaces. IP refuses to participate on the talk page to address this issue. I have stopped reverting as I think the last edit as unsourced BLP. I was even classed a Nazi by the IP, which they received an NPA warning for that. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  03:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If he resumes, let us know. Katietalk 17:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:80.144.111.77 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result:blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rev. - Clark`s correct ranking in F History"
 * 2)  "rev."
 * 3)  "rev."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jim Clark. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Jim Clark. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Katietalk 17:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:49, 3 December 2015‎
 * 2) 09:02, 4 December 2015
 * 3) 10:20, 4 December 2015
 * 4) 13:50, 4 December 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has warned others regarding article where he is edit warring

Comments:

User:EEng is also under notice that he has violated Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity through his persistent edit warring and various and sundry incivility (e.g., most recently "calm your bowels". This is merely one example. He is well aware of these decisions, as seen here. For now, the issue is edit warring, and EEng's block log includes several blocks over the past year or so, including multiple blocks for edit warring. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I could give abundant further examples but I'm on a phone right now with a tiny keyboard. EEng (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first diff is not a revert
 * This appears to be a kind of low-budget retaliation by the OP for my placing a DS notice on his talk page (diff supplied by OP above)
 * Discussion opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_World%27s_Oldest_People, which OP has ignored.
 * OP has formed a tag team with another user, and this section of that other user's talk page is enlightening: User_talk:Inception2010.
 * OP's civility and other behavior is hardly exemplary e.g. "I don't give a steaming turd"

Comment from an administrator familiar with this topic: What you're looking at is one of the disturbingly large number of GRG lackeys pushing useless fluff into an article in contravention of a host of policies, not the least of which is meatpuppeting. They're essentially acting at the behest of an indefinitely topic banned and blocked editor, Ryoung122; removing edits made in defiance of a ban isn't edit warring, and this is essentially what EEng is doing. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this is canvassing. Secondly, User:Alansohn had not contributed in this topic area before a few weeks ago and is one of the most active users on Wikipedia, so stop with the standard GRG/fanboy/sockpuppet/Ryoung122-related complaints. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) It's not canvassing to bring a bad-faith complaint to the attention of an admin familiar with the topic area. (2) Experience shows that even experienced, intelligent editors like Alansohn can find their critical faculties thrown off-kilter by the addictive drug of longevity fandom. EEng (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get more f$#%ed up on Wikipedia than it does here. (1) admin, with complete and total ignorance of the facts here, has called me "one of the disturbingly large number of GRG lackeys" and accuses me of "meatpuppeting" and "acting at the behest of an indefinitely topic banned and blocked editor", a charge that is completely and totally false. There is no trout large enough to properly slap this dude for this shameless personal attack; (2) his lackey spreads his belief that I have had my "critical faculties thrown off-kilter by the addictive drug of longevity fandom", but that somehow he is completely and totally immune from this disease; everyone else is insane and he's the only one who knows what to do here. When an admin who claims to be "familiar with this topic" actively uses cynical personal attacks to cover up for edit warring by another editor, we've got bigger problems than edits on Longevity-related articles. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who thinks the slapfights over longevity-related articles is bordering on the absurd, I agree that TBotNL's and EEng's comments are obvious and unnecessary personal attacks. There's no call for that. How WOP articles got so heated, I'll never understand. clpo13(talk) 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was not referring to you but to the army of SPAs who frequent the topic, some of whom have showed up at that article. As you're rather clearly not an SPA, you are not in that group. And now that I've been dealing with this topic area for 5 years, as the 2010-2011 ArbCom case shows, I think I just might have a pretty clear understanding of what I'm looking at here. Although you can't find the discussions now, the people in this topic have many times resorted to off-wiki forums attacking those of us fighting the incessant GRG promotion; I don't take kindly to that sort of thing. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 23:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , you are completely and totally off base here in attacking me for some imaginary episode elsewhere on- or off-wiki, for which you magically can't find any evidence; I don't care what you are convinced happened elsewhere as it has zero relevance here. I don't take kindly to your personal attacks that seem to be rather clearly intended to cover up for EEng and blatantly push your preferred side of the debate, firmly pressing your thumb on the scale to push your position. To have posted that your remarks were a "Comment from an administrator familiar with this topic" is a blatant abuse of your authority. You have undermined any shred of credibility you have on this issue. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was kinda my point; you're not the one I'm concerned about, it's some of the others who've showed up there. Your view of my credibility is duly noted, you're not the first and probably won't be the last who's critical of my involvement in the topic. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment EEng has taken it upon himself, without opening a discussion, to decide what a reliable source is. This RSN discussion concluded that Table E and Table I were reliable sources because of fact checking process (i.e. age verification). Table C was not commented on but contains validated cases, so there's no reason to assume it's not reliable. EEng's edits were therefore unjustified and a case of edit-warring. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Comment May I suggest that someone will keep their eyes on EEng so that other articles won't be threatened in the same way in the future? 930310 (talk) 11:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected one month. During that time, you can use Edit protected to ask for any changes that are supported by community consensus. Anyone may use alert to notify editors who ought to know about the discretionary sanctions under Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

User:‎AKAKIOS reported by User:Themightyquill (Result:Declined (no diffs) )
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:
 * Attempt (my multiple users) to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zwarte_Piet
 * My warning to all involved editors not to edit war.

Despite attempts by multiple users to engage Akakios in discussion, my warning (to all) not to engage in edit warring, and even a noble attempt by to compromise by responding to his concerns, the reverts continue. Althought Akakios has not violated the 3RR, despite being in an obvious minority, the user shows an unwillingness to try for consensus before pushing forward edits.

I haven't left difs because I'm not sure whether to link to the original article before Akakios's edits, or to the version where Constablequakers tried to deal with Akakios's concerns. I hope you'll understand. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No diffs provided and no 3RR according to reporter gives pretty much nothing to work with. I'm tempted to do a non-admin close if the reporter does not make a better formed case why there is misbehavior here. Legacypac (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Vinayak579 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring to insert unsourced and non-English content —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 08:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Advice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: and the template they removed 2x is itself a 1RR warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: notification placed in threads of talk page at the same time notice placed at top first time, with no comments by anyone.

Comments: Since this article and its talk page now fall under 1RR (ISIL related), removing the 1RR warning at the top 2 times in far less then 24 hours is a very obvious breach of 1RR. Note I have not edit warred because I added the top notice originally (not a revert) and restored it once (is a revert). I'm not seeking a block, only a declaration that WWGB is edit warring in breach of the 1RR rule. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Response. User:Legacypac arbitrarily adds the ISIL template to an article, and then holds me accountable to 1RR. This despite the fact that ISIL did not claim responsibility for the attack, nor did one perp have any stated interest in ISIL. The other perp indicated on Facebook that she supported ISIL. How does this amount to it being an ISIL-related article? WWGB (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I' e created or edit a number of pages under these sanctions. We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies The suggestion the wife only is ISIL supportive while they had a bomb making factory at home is strange. Legacypac (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I just learned that "the one revert rule continues to apply to articles, not all pages, in the scope of the sanctions" (General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This complaint relates to a talk page, not an article. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I understand that allows someone to revert once at any given page, then revert once at another given page. So not 1RR across the topic but per page. The enforcement log shows long blocks for edit warring over templates and maps so it is clearly not just related to articles. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Uncivil behavior WWGB has now called me a 'lone wolf' on a terrorism article which makes it sound like he thinks I'm a terrorist. . Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no allegation of terrorism. A "lone wolf" is someone who acts alone, which is what you did in adding a contentious template to an article where its relevance is very dubious. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't debate the inclusion of the new page each time it just applies. Actually, that's exactly what we are forced to do until there is some authority (Arbcom?) to rule on very borderline cases like this one. I don't think even "broadly construed" is intended to mean "everything where the letters ISIL appear, regardless of how tenuous the connection". If we are given such a vague definition, cases must be debated and consensus must be reached. I'm open to correction on this - by Arbcom. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:WWGB is advised that if he adds or removes the Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting again before consensus is reached he is risking a block. See the current discussion at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. If consensus decides that the template doesn't belong on the article then there is no more 1RR restriction. All parties should wait patiently for the discussion to finish, and if necessary, for it to be reviewed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it the rule is: If it contains the letters ISIL, the sanctions are in effect unless consensus is reached to the contrary; in other words, the default is sanctions in effect. Ok. But you linked to a discussion about a different template unrelated to the sanctions. The closest thing I can find to a discussion about the applicability of the sanctions in this article is Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting, which hasnn't had much participation so far. It's a big talk page and I may have missed something. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. The template that WWGB was reverting was SCW&ISIL sanctions, not Template:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. But if WWGB wants to get the SCW&ISIL sanctions removed he should wait for consensus to be reached at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting, or at one of the linked discussions. Another unilateral removal is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:113.210.128.87 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result:Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You are indeed dumb asshole!! The reporeted say TVXQ! sold more than 1 Million in Japan alone in 2013 and around 900,000 ~ 1,000,000 Million in 2014, so how the hell TVXQ!'s records sales sray the same over the years? TOTAL it you dumb asshole. Nice try!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on TVXQ albums discography. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on TVXQ albums discography. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

There are multiple more reverts on the page that this IP made. For some reason I wasn't able to select these reverts using Twinkle, so please look at TVXQ albums discography's page history to see the edit warring.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting! This IP has been repeatedly reverting my edits, adding in her own unsourced content about the group's sales figures. This IP completely disregards the fact that there is already an official number reported about the group's sales figures (KOR: ENG trans: ), which I added on the page, but she keeps taking it out. I told her to recheck her so-called "sources" to understand why I had to revert her edits, but she ended up attacking me. According to the older edits on the TVXQ page, I have a feeling that this IP is the blocked user . Darkreason (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: Page protected by NeilN--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:FyzixFighter reported by User:Timber72 (Result:No merit)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,894 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (rv - actually wikipedia is about verifiability, not WP:truth, RELIABLE sources support this statement, a self-published blog is a source but is not a reliable source) (undo | thank)
 * 2)  FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,879 bytes) (-93)‎ . . (Undid revision 693934175 by Timber72 (talk) - a self-published blog is not a WP:RS)
 * 3)  FyzixFighter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (111,894 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (and fixing this to be in accordance with Abrahamic religions, where many reliable sources are provided that support this)


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nontrinitarianism>

Comments:

Verifiable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, have been added. "FyzixFighter" seems to have a problem with religious views that may potentially conflict with his, has been involved in edit wars before, and thus does not seem to be able to maintain neutrality about the topic.

Also, one of the edits mentioned is a keystroke error, the result of hitting "enter", thus saving the page, before the reason was properly documented, and thus not a violation.

Timber72 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A few technical points - First, the timestamps and links for the diffs of the reverts are wrong - they look like the remnants of a cut-and-paste of the immediately preceding report. I believe diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 are what User:Timber72 intended. Second, diffs 2 and 3 are consecutive edits without any intervening edit. Third, the diff of edit warring Timber72 listed is actually the warning that I left on his/her talk page after Timber72's third revert. Perhaps Timber72 was referring to this warning which Timber72 placed on my talkpage, which honestly seemed a bit odd to me since I had only reverted once at that point. --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: No merit, closing, the filer warned. Please see the above request.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User: H1N111 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He was blocked.

Comments:

The user was blocked yesterday and today continues reverting editions. Also he was blocked for personal attacks. 
 * block him/her longer, he attacks other people. 333-blue 00:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User picked up right where they left off when the block expired. Has this become a case for an indef? Their account was created on November 25. If User:H1N111 will promise to behave better in the future the matter could be reconsidered. I'll leave a note for the editor. EdJohnston (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a good evening gentlemen, for my part, I promise to not say insults and make personal attacks. But first, I want to remind to Mr.Johnson that I explain him why I reversed the edition of Mr.Bleckter, and also what I said the same in the talk page, I want to see what he says about it.--H1N111 (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * H1N111, if that's the best you can do I'm planning to go ahead with the indefinite block. You continued the war right after your last block expired, showing you have no intention of following our edit warring policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * honestly, the page White Latin American was in perfect condition but I said, for the umpteenth time, that genetics has nothing to do with race, and Mr. Belckter mistook race with genetics, but I start to believe that all this was planned against me, but no matter, I will not put my edition, because sooner or later the truth will be known. The lie hard while truth comes. Greetings (and don't disturbed me again)--H1N111 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I leave, I'll leave this note of November 23: I come to label that the user Blecker after to accusing me and put his hands on data of Argentina and Costa Rica, he did not follow editing, this could signify a WP: SPA.--Special:Contributions/190.148.92.240 (User talk:190.148.92.240) 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --H1N111 (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – User continued warring on the same article after their block expired. No appropriate response to warnings. Personal attacks and battleground editing, 'removing your trash.' EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:75.80.175.107 reported by User:Pemilligan (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User repeatedly removes "murder" categories, giving different reasons at different times, but apparently assuming that including the categories is a WP:BLP violation against the person accused of the crime. Same behavior at 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder and other pages.

Pemilligan (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Better report as well, because he's been very zealous about this issue and I just caved in with his reasoning. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't blame you. It was pretty solid reasoning. Another guy tried this same passive-aggressive pointy edit game after I schooled him on the topic at a different article. Are you him again? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as this article goes, no, you can't say a killing was murder while the killer has an upcoming murder trial. That'd be presuming guilt, instead of innocence. Whatever 75's intentions, the edits are good. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you can say a killing was murder without presuming the accused is guilty of the crime. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * When the question is whether it was the defendant or someone else who killed the victim, sure, no harm done. The Washington one is like that. But when there's a known killer, and the trial is only about whether he had justification or excuse, it's prejudicial to decide he didn't before a jury does. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not agree. This does not convince me that calling the crime murder assumes the accused is guilty even in such a case. I think you offer a distinction without difference. If you want to establish your point of view as rule here, pursue consensus. I don't think you've established one. Still, since has been following your reasoning without offering any of his own, I will be happy to see him stop reverting changes to 2015 Washington, D.C., mass murder. Pemilligan (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. 75.80.175.107 (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

, could you expand on that? I'm not sure to which comment you're responding--which "it"--so it isn't clear to me what you think "it does". Pemilligan (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Timber72 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result:User warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693919895 by Laurel Lodged (talk) The claim may be supported by "sources", but if the "sources" are invalid, so is the claim."
 * 2)  ""Sources" are not sources if they don't line up with fact. That is what Wiki is about: fact. If I publish a blog that says "the moon is made of green cheese", you don't get to add that because it is from a "source.""
 * 3)  "The sources are not reliable if they publish that which is not true. Are we going to have a "the chicken or the egg" debate about it? RELIABILITY depends on FACT. Otherwise, by definition, it is UNreliable."
 * 4)  "So, if one self-publishes, it's"


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


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


 * Comments:

Despite being directed to policy and guideline pages, the editor still doesn't appear to understand essential concepts such as what constitutes reliable sources. FyzixFighter (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: User warned. I am disappointed nobody has done this before .--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Timber72 here: this "warning" is without merit, and the comment "I am disappointed nobody has done this before" betrays a lack of neutrality that is against Wikipedia policy. I am perfectly familiar with Wikipedia's "what constitutes reliable sources" policy. The problem is that these people simply do not AGREE that the source is reliable, which is mere opinion, and not verifiable. Warning editors and threatening editors, and hiding behind a "these edits aren't based on reliable sources" is against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timber72 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1 reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 16:36, 4 December 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 02:27, 6 December 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: /

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. See also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Ghouta_chemical_attack

Comments:

this report is connected to the cases above (same article, same content). It is not a 1RR violation, but he has repeatedly restored his preferred version, and he do so to fight other editors.

Erlbaeko (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * By "repeatedly", I assume the reporter (who was reported above for a much more convincing 1RR violation) means "twice", with well over a full day intervening. I suggest the reporter be patient and wait for me to actually violate a 1RR or 3RR restriction before reporting in future. I expect he or she may end up waiting a long time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * From the sanctions you said you were familiar with (here), it appers that you may be blocked for edit warring, without further warning, by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. Thank you. (Not that this is the first offence.) Erlbaeko (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As noted above, it's clearly not an "offense", but good luck to you in your little vendetta. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm really tempted to block you for making three reverts in three days and then reporting for reverting twice in two days. See WP:GAMING <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN Please see the report above. This is clearly a revenge report by Erlbaeko. The fact that Erlbaeko filed this report and then continued to edit war basically evidences how bad faithed this report was. Note also that Erlbaeko has been warned previously about gaming the 1RR restriction. Several times: [, . Blocks are suppose to be preventive not punitive. Well, here is where we need a preventive block since it looks like Erlbaeko has no intention of stopping. [[User:Volunteer Marek|  Volunteer Marek  ]] 17:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:STSC reported by User:Marvin 2009 (Result: stale/no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 10:25, 28 November 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 12:09, 28 November 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 17:08, 28 November 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 03:50, 29 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

this report is connected to the cases above (same article, same content). It is not a 1RR violation, but he has repeatedly restored his preferred version, and he do so to fight other editors.

Marvin 2009 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 18:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Marvin 2009 reported by User:STSC (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:

User: Marvin 2009, a single-purpose account editing on Falun Gong related articles only, is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia and persistently reverts and removes edits which he regards not favourable to Falun Gong. In this incident, he just kept removing "anti-communist" description from the lead of the article regardless of other editors' inputs. STSC (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What User:STSC said is simply not true. I was to add back two removed contents from reliable sources:
 * First one: In the February 2007 interview with The Associated Press' Nahal Toosi, the English Epoch Times chair Stephen Gregory said: "It's not a Falun Gong newspaper. Falun Gong is a question of an individual's belief. The paper's not owned by Falun Gong, it doesn't speak for Falun Gong, it doesn't represent Falun Gong. It does cover the persecution of Falun Gong in China." Nahal believed to say Falun Gong "owns" Epochtimes can be technically inaccurate, while many Epoch Times staffers, including Gregory, are Falun Gong practitionrs.
 * Second one: In 2008, David Ownby, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at the Université de Montréal and the author of Falun Gong and the Future of China said the newspaper is set up by Falun Gong practitioners with their own money.
 * In addition, i did not remove the "anti-communist" description. I only moved it from the first paragraph to a different section based on the discussion on talk page.
 * Plus, I am not single-purpose account. I edited other pages like People's Daily as well. User:Sinceouch2422 might qualify for this title. On this page, recently I saw User:Sinceouch2422 keep adding lines from a blog source and removing lines from the reliable sources. I discussed this on talk page a few times and tried to correct such edits for protecting the article.
 * Finally the warnings User:STSC put on my talk page previously was not fair. At those occasions it was User:STSC lunched multiple editing wars. This time, i just noticed the note User:STSC put on article epochtimes talk page a few hours ago. It was my time after mid night. I am going to response to the note, which does not have any ground. Marvin 2009 (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You have persistently removed the relevant descriptions from the lead disregarding other editors' inputs.
 * You're a SPA because your edits have been mostly only related to Falun Gong, even on other articles.
 * STSC (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * STSC reported me on multiple items. Now do you acknowledge only two items left? As to these two items, let me explain. In the talk page there is no consensus that the "anti-communist" label should be put in lead. In fact I proposed to move it the article at least twice. It seemed that nobody disagreed. So I moved it to the correct section a few times. On Wikipedia FG related articles, I saw the similar situation occurred as if decribed in a westernstandard.ca report titled with "Embarrassed by reports of live organ harvesting, CCP sympathizers launch a high-tech disinformation campaign" [[Sowing Confusion]. Some IDs like User:STSC and User:Sinceouch2422 who have been fooling around, hiding reliable critical info against China Communist Party, so sometimes I tried to prevent the damages they caused. Otherwise i could be involved in more other pages. It is User:STSC and User:Sinceouch2422 who do not respect editing policy in FG related pages and always launches edit wars. If going through your two record in recent months, this is quite clear. Thanks. Marvin 2009 (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Your disruptive edits are undefendable; other editors had put back the 'anti-communist' in the lead but you alone kept removing it, and within 24 hrs you have removed it 4 times. STSC (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You guys kept deleting the critical info from the Washington Post without any grounds. I was addressing that issue. I did not revert or deleted the anti-communist label, and just move it a correct place on consideration of the discussions. Plus the wrongdoing you did previously (like disregarding the consensus one talk page and deleting Canadian parliament info etc.), actually I am the editor who should report you and User:Sinceouch2422 here. Simply I did not want to get you guys into any trouble, so i did not report. Now you reported me. i have the same feeling as that time i responded to your warning on your talk page a few weeks ago. At that time, you put a warning on my talk page, but in fact it was exactly you and User:Sinceouch2422 who severely defied WP:OR, WP:NPOV and other wiki policies and should be warned. Marvin 2009 (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

<BR />
 * Katietalk 19:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:BRG~itwiki (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  .. →‎Motivation and timing: there was obviously no consensus for inclusion of this highly POV and UNDUE material. Please stop trying to sneak it in.
 * 2)  .. I've "seen" the mediation. There was no consensus for these changes, people just got tired of telling you over and over again that they disagree. You then came here and tried to sneak it in
 * 3)  .. self revert for now but this is ridiculous WP:GAMING and disruptive behavior. Very much acting in bad faith
 * 4)  .. yes, per talk and mediation, there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits which you snuck in while mediation was still on going. If you want to continue the mediation that's fine but leave the article alone for now
 * 5)  .. there's no consensus for this, it's WP:FRINGE, mediation is ongoing and you two (someone who's been blocked for edit warring here previously plus a brand new SPA) are gaming the rules

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The page had a "Motives" section since at least September 2013 (the page was created at the end of August 2013) and a "Timing" section since August. As I pointed out in the talk page it is common, if not customary, to have a section about the motivation of a crime or the objective of a military action. In June 2015 an edit war started and there was a vote to remove said section, which failed. The talk to sort out the open problems is ridden with personal attacks and off topic discussions. The only reason given for the reverts is that "there's absolutely no consensus for these POV edits [...] while mediation was still on going", but the section predates the mediation and the edit war that made the mediation required, so, if anything, it should stay there at least until the end of the mediation and not the other way around. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad faithed report filed by a new single purpose account whose main purpose appears to be to edit war on the Ghouta Chemical Attacks article. As a few other users have noted on the talk page, the whole thing is fishy and there's a good chance this is a sock of a previously banned user (trying to figure out the sock master).

Also, there's been no 1RR violation here, at least not by me. I did make two reverts on 12/4 but after the second one I immediately remembered that there's a 1RR restriction on the article and self-reverted. User BRG~itwiki very dishonestly presents my self-revert as one of the reverts. That right there tells you what kind of an account this is.

On top of that, there was no 3RR warning either. User BRG~itwiki just includes the diff of the notification of this discussion as if it was a warning.

WP:BOOMERANG please.  Volunteer Marek  18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. More baseless and gratuitous accusations, prompted by a stubborn unwillingness to discuss the issue. BRG~itwiki (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this has been extensively discussed, mostly during mediation. But this is a noticeboard for discussing behavior of users rather than content. There are good reasons why unregistered IPs and obvious SPA with less than 50 edits (like your account) should not be engaged in edit wars in subject areas that are covered by discretionary sanctions. If they do, they can be (and in my opinion should be) indefinitely blocked. This is one of the reasons I reverted your edit on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is another false statement, My very best wishes. A simple search found 612 edits. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My account is older than yours. The said section was there (for good reasons btw) when the still ongoing Mediation started, so removing it is against the rules. Doing it again and again is really obnoxious and off-putting and it is a symptom of the vested interest that is behind many edit wars on sensitive articles on Wikipedia. BRG~itwiki (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Huh? Your account was started on May 7 2015 and has 27 edits, about half of them to this article. Your thinly veiled references to my editing on articles you've never edited with this account clearly indicate that you've had previous accounts here (your assertions about the mediation are also false, but nevermind).  Volunteer Marek   17:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * BRG~itwiki warned about WP:GAMING <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BRG~itwiki has made yet another revert without discussion to the article: -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Volunteer_Marek has also made yet another revert to the article: Erlbaeko (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * there's an ongoing mediation on this very issue and there's no consensus for inclusion. Someone - not saying it's you, but someone - is trying to sabotage the mediation process and consensus by using a throw away single purpose account, BRG~itwiki, to edit war. We should leave the article as it was during the mediation process and restart discussing it at the mediation talk page.  Volunteer Marek   19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And there still hasn't been any violation, Erlbaeko, so this is just more evidence of bad faith on your part.  Volunteer Marek   19:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And semi-protecting the article in the meantime would be a *very* good idea.  Volunteer Marek   19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko, after BRG~itwiki, who was explicitly warned for gaming, reverted. BRG~itwiki blocked for gaming. Enough., the article is semi-protected. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 693697704 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Rv. see mediation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 693804821 by My very best wishes (talk). See talk."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 693941276 by Kudzu1 (talk) No consensus for removal. See talk, mediation and tree EW-reports at WP:AN/3.""


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* same ol' POV pushing which just won't stop */ re"


 * Comments:

Gaming the 1RR with a 2nd revert at 25 hours. Editor was previously blocked back in June for pushing the same content (literally much of the same text), in the same article. Article is also currently subject to mediation; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack. Previous warnings about gaming rv rules at User talk:Erlbaeko and User talk:Erlbaeko VQuakr (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, also evaluate the actions of user . He is clearly trying to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle, etc. VQuakr (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Which, btw, is strictly forbidden. I believe he do so to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

that the report below is connected to this case (same article, same content). As I see it, a group of users,, , , , and Sayerslle, have repeatedly restored their preferred version. Most of them have been edit warring, even if they have avoid breaking the one-revert rule, or even coming close to do so. I believe they all have been playing games with policies and guidelines in order to avoid the spirit of the consensus policy. That they lack consensus for removing the content appears from the articles history, several talk page discussions and this mediation. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User Erlbaeko was previously blocked for edit warring on the same page and warned by an uninvolved admin about general sanctions in this area . He then started was a party in mediation on the subject. It is my understanding that mediation failed to produce consensus to include these materials (I asked mediating admin to clarify this ), however Erlbaeko resumed edit warring immediately after during the ungoing mediation . Now, speaking about BRG (a complaint below), this is obviously a WP:Meatpuppet account of Erlbaeko per WP:DUCK, or at least they act as such. Given very small number of their edits, it acts as an account with "a clear shared agenda" as noted here, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, I did not start the mediation, nor is it closed, and as far as I know, I have never met or had any previous contact with User:BRG~itwiki. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"As I see it, a group of users..." - Erlbaeko, you know that's just another way of saying "I am edit warring against consensus", right? I mean, you're saying that six users (it's actually more) disagreed with your changes but you decided to edit war anyway. Your only support here is that brand new throw away WP:SPA User:BRG~itwiki.  Volunteer Marek  18:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't count blocked users, it’s actually five users that have removed the content (at the moment). It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal, but I don't expect them to watch this page. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's at least that many that have expressed that they disagree with the removal - that's demonstrably false.  Volunteer Marek   20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not false, and I can find diffs that proves it. (I will if the closing admin ask for it.) Erlbaeko (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Utterly false. This edit-warring against consensus is intolerable, especially considering there is an open mediation regarding this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not follow this page very closely, but it seems there were no RfC on this page to include (or not include) this specific disputed material. The link provided by BRG below refers to an old discussion (not an RfC) on this page with regard to inclusion of different material. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A little background info: VQuakr has a point when he says it is more or less the same content, even if it is slightly different wording/sources. Overall, consensus for the Motivation section was reached through editing over several years. It was first removed by "My very best wishes" on 5 June 2015, ref. diff (his very first edit to the page). That he lacked consensus for that removal appears from: 1) his removal was immediately reverted, ref. diff, 2) this talk page discussion. From there several editors have been involved on both sides, but there has never been consensus to remove the content. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was one of the disagreements which led to beginning of the mediation where I am not a party. Based on response of mediating admin and your response on article talk page, this question was indeed extensively discussed during mediation (contrary to the claim by BRG below about refusal to discuss) and there was no consensus (either way) achieved. However, it appears that a clear majority of contributors who actively edit this page right now do not want this content to be in the page. Therefore, your recent reinsertion of this text  was not supported by other contributors. You was told  (edit summaries) that there is no consensus about it, and these reverts indeed indicate the lack of consensus. Given that, your continuous reverts, like this (i.e. during the standing 3RR report about you) can be a reason for a block or other sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "consensus for the Motivation section was reached through editing over several years" - this too is completely false. Note that Erlbaeko links to the page which defines "consensus" although they make it seem as if they were linking to some discussion which established this consensus. This looks like they're being purposefully misleading. No such discussion actually exists. Here's people trying to deal with the WP:UNDUE problem as far back as 2013. Yet Erlbaeko would tire people out, edit war, and then come back and try to restore their fringe version repeatedly. For at least two years. This has gone long enough and it's a textbook case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS.  Volunteer Marek   17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

And the edit warring is ongoing
Here. Erlbaeko continues to edit war on this article against multiple editors even as this report is discussed and even as mediation is still open. They're basically trying to sabotage the process of mediation because they were not getting what they wanted.

Note that Erlabeko has been blocked for edit warring on this very article previously and that they have also been warned about gaming the 1RR restriction (also on this article). Which is exactly what they're doing here.  Volunteer Marek  17:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Three reports about the same edit war. Yay. Since I closed the other two with warnings, I'll also close this one with a stronger one -, stop gaming the system. Any more reverts timed to avoid 1RR may result in a block or topic ban. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Fix ping  --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN, I am not the one who is gaming the system in order to avoid the spirit of consensus. I have explained it to VQuakr here. Did you read it? Erlbaeko (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read through these reports and right now the only one that's close to a block is you. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can live with a block, if that is what it takes to have someone to listen here. I am dealing with editors that believe the consensus policy is "irrelevant", ref. User_talk:Erlbaeko The last time I checked the Consensus policy was Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and I am reverting to enforce it, not to game it. Please, take a closer look. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "I can live with a block" is pretty much as clear cut admission of "I intend to continue the edit war" as you can get. That's why I said above that we need a preventive block here as it's clear that Erlbaeko has no intention of respecting consensus.  Volunteer Marek   19:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am respecting consensus. You are not. I can find diffs to prove that there never was consensus to remove the section. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, you were/are edit warring against five different people. It's ridiculous to claim you have "consensus" in that situation.  Volunteer Marek   19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's you, "My very best wishes" and Kudzu1, that is edit warring to remove it at the moment. That is tree users in my counting. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So in your mind an editor's input only counts if they edit war? VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said, nor is it what I mean. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * that is not what the policy says. Per WP:ONUS, you are required to achieve consensus to include disputed material. Of course, even if there was clear consensus to include that does not make it permissible to edit war. VQuakr (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that policy,, but that does not mean that you just can delete sourced material that have been in the article for a long time, and then demand consensus to include it again. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You need consensus to remove sourced material, and that is basically what this dispute is about. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't what WP:NOCON says. VQuakr (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved experienced administrator comment on this, please? It is important to get a clarification on the last statement. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Btw, here are the users that have opposed the removal of the Motivation section (by reverting the removement or commenting on the talk page/mediation): To me this means that there is no consensus for the removal, and that the ones that have removed it are the ones that are gaming. It also means that this block is made on wrong premises. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko Ref. diff
 * BRG~itwiki Ref. diff
 * Darouet Ref. diff
 * Γνῶθι σεαυτόν Ref. diff
 * Mnnlaxer Ref. diff
 * THIS is why it's impossible to work with you on this. You won't drop the matter, you keep beating the dead horse, you misrepresent discussions/rules/anything that serves your POV, you stonewall and obfuscate, you don't listen and you keep going and going and going and going with it until everyone's bored and tired and stops paying attention, and then you sneak back in and try to implement your own POV anyway. Then the whole circus starts again.  Volunteer Marek   22:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I won't drop it. You only need to admit that you lack consensus for the removal. Then we can work constructively on improving it. Simple as that. Erlbaeko (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)