Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive303

User:141.8.61.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am not vandalising Wikipedia because we should use the aggregated 33% non-religious figure and according to Gallup 62% answered no in Germany."
 * 2)  "Since the article is about irreligion by country the 33% non-religious figure shouldn't be split and if you check the sources well you will find out that Bangladesh should be 1% Germany should be 62%."
 * 1)  "Since the article is about irreligion by country the 33% non-religious figure shouldn't be split and if you check the sources well you will find out that Bangladesh should be 1% Germany should be 62%."


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


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


 * Comments:

Second edit after previously block for for edit-warring, extended to one month for block evasion on 16 November 2015, was to revert as 1 month earlier (and against consensus), proceeded to vandalise by inflating figures against sources and revert 3 more times, the last after warning. NebY (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * for edit warring by User:DMacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:CIreland (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696088643 by CIreland (talk) No, it's not—there are modernly unflattering elements dropped and modified throughout, such as the massacre."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696023737 by Sapphorain (talk) Not debating with someone who is explicitly uninterested with accuracy and fine with apologizing away a massacre of women and children"
 * 3)  "RV: No. This is plainly not a summary, this is biased and unsourced opinion acting as a summary as I demonstrate on the talk page. WP:PROVEIT—you want it to stay, go dig for the sources nd then deal with the fallout of presenting opinion as fact."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 696005531 by Sapphorain (talk) No, this isn't vandalism. All of this is unsourced and slanted. Cite it out in a neutral manner if you want similar content."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Made aware of 3RR in May


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


 * 


 * Comments:


 * This user came out of nowhere and has not attempted to engage in discussion that is going on at the talk page. This is a waste of everyone's time and seems more like an attempt to game the system rather than improve the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has been on my watchlist since 2007; take a look at the history. And yes, I'm rather hesitant to engage with this kind of personal attack. CIreland (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack. What I'm taking away from this is that you're not interested in discussing exactly how we should be handling discussion regarding a historical massacre—one that may have recently been confirmed by archaeology, actually, and which the article inarguably whitewashed—but you're quick to attempt to silence one side of discussion That isn't helpful and shouldn't be encouraged. If you have something to add, revert-warring isn't the best way to do it. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this user also didn't bother to report the user who he has sided with there,, who has performed 4 consecutive reverts: , , , . &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * At the time of the report, Sapphorian has not made a fourth revert and their most recent was hours previously. You have detailed the reverts now, so I'm sure the closing admin will see them. CIreland (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will give Sapphorain some credit: at least he or she bothered to use the talk page. However, I see that you still have yet to do so. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * has now engaged in discussion at the talk page—which, by the looks of it, would have rendered such a report unnecessary. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, I'm old and past it and can only type and think so fast. CIreland (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * for 72 hours. Please take care not to violate 3RR in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Biscuittin reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) (user warned: )
 * 6) 5th revert:  (restores )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Request to user to self-revert ; refusal in reply

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

Comments:


 * This is a vexatious report by an editor who is trying to shut me up. I have not done a 4RR on the article content. I merely re-added an accuracy tag because there is an accuracy dispute in progress which has not been resolved. Biscuittin (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The user was given a chance to self-revert but would not do so. The article is under WP:ARBCC so editors ought to be especially patient and diplomatic when considering changes that might be opposed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:113.169.194.187 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported:

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

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

OR text removed not in link cited. Quis separabit? 02:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: (done out of order but IP will not engage in any way, anyway)  Quis separabit?  01:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2.48.132.253 reported by User:KylieTastic (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid unhelpful edit"
 * 2)  "Reverted bad faith edit"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696170785 by Vansockslayer (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism by a meat puppet"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Had issue with 'same' editor in the past see ANI report and ANI report KylieTastic (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User:66.87.103.106 reported by User:Caballero1967 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 10:25, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+34)‎ . . W. Craig Jelinek ‎ (I'll keep editing.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
 * 09:47, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+64)‎ . . W. Craig Jelinek ‎ (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
 * 09:47, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . W. Craig Jelinek ‎ (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)]
 * 09:46, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . W. Craig Jelinek ‎ (Keep deleting these facts I'm screenshots get it everytime.)(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)]


 * Comments:

I was alerted to the possible vandalism or disruptive editing of user: 66.87.103.106 when the edit warring had already begun. I advised the user to follow instructions in sourcing and explaining the material, but she/he decided not to follow advice, and as you can see above, decided instead to "keep editing." The user has already surpassed the three edit rule WP:3R. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If the disruptive editing stops, I will withdraw this case in two hours. I have requested a page protection, and perhaps that would be more effective. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The pages has been protected, and I think this would be the best route. The user seemed obsessed only with this page. So, I am withdrawing the case. Thanks.


 * Result: Article semiprotected one week by User:BethNaught for violations of WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

User:101.182.142.136 and User:101.189.22.150 (appears to be the same user) reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: and


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removing unsourced information"
 * 2)  "no such decisions"
 * 3)  "Undid revision: no such decision"
 * 4)  "Undid revision: that's vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision: reverting actual vandalism"
 * 6)  "Undid revision: prove it - until then it's vandalism"


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


 * Comments:

The user(s) has undone repeated revisions resulting in an edit war between him and several users, including myself, which I have attempted to avoid. The user(s), 101.182.142.136 / 101.189.22.150, appear to be the same person based on editing patterns and hostility toward myself and other editors. The user appears to be undoing all edits in an attempt to maintain possibly vandalized/inaccurate version, while accusing edits from several editors of being vandalism when they clearly are in good faith. Another user (The Jobber is Here) attempted to move discussion of topic onto the talk page for discussion/consensus, but also had his smaller revision undone and the the user refuses to come to any consensus or allow any further editing or corrections. The user repeatedly has replaced unsourced information within the article with other unsourced information. I have asked the user to cease the vandalizing revisions/removals, but the user continues to undo edits and accuses anyone who undoes his editing of vandalization. WHWC (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My reversions are correct as the edits being placed are original research. No sources have been provided. If I am edit warring then so is the reporting user because he is not listening and understanding that original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring by IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect decision as now controversial information has been added that is unsourced and I can't remove it per WP:OR, and edit war is not resolved at all. He is simply taking advantage of your decision to semi protect the page knowing that I can't do anything about it. You've been used by an OR vandal. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Try to reach agreement on the talk page. It is unclear whether either side of this dispute has sources to back up their views. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The edit war has continued, with the IP side being taken up by Mega Z090, who I had already filed a Sockpuppet investigation against (Sockpuppet investigations/Mega Z090), as he appears to use the registered account and the various 101 IPs to give the appearance of extra support in disputes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree as well that they may be Sockpuppets with Mega Z090. I'd have reported him for warring earlier, but I originally thought it was two different IPs, though he later admitted he had used the multiple IPs unintentionally. It's not just the similar positions, but also the very similar irrationally uncivil tones and editing. I think it might just be a very persistent troll. WHWC (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If the two sides continue to revert while nobody provides genuine sources, based on links that work, it may be necessary to fully protect the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:97.85.113.113 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696252252 by Maxbaby01 (talk)airline article disagrees, please take to talk!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696309093 by 97.85.113.113 (talk)restored due to a disagreement with a disruptive editor"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696309093 by 97.85.113.113 (talk)restored due to a disagreement with a disruptive editor"


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


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

There are plenty more diffs showing edit warring by this IP, I wasn't able to select them with Twinkle, however.  CatcherStorm  talk   08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Maxbaby01 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696140640 by 97.85.113.113 THIS IS STILL CONSIDERED A HUB PER GREAT LAKES AIRLINES WEBSITE REGUARDLESS OF IT ONLY BEING TWO FLIGHTS A DAY! IT IS STILL CONSIDERED A HUB ACCORDING TO THE AIRLINE!"


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


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


 * Comments:

There are plenty more reverts showing edit warring, but I wasn't able to select them using Twinkle  CatcherStorm  talk   08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aeonx reported by User:Doc James (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While this article is has being worked on by a paid editor from the company in question User:Aeonx states he is not paid but a consumer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: I believe Doc James is making this personal because he disagrees with the viewpoint that A2 Milk may in fact be helpful. Furthermore, if you read the talkpage, there apparently USED to be someone that was a former employee of the company (but this is no longer the case). This is just another indicator that Doc is simply trying to push a POV and claim I'm a paid employee - I again will state I have no connection to any A2 Milk or any milk related company. Also please review the diffs above carefully, I have not even made 4 reverts that violate the WP:3RR; there is at most 2, the others were adding content which I opened for discussion in talk, noting Doc only provided talk and Warning AFTER the first 3 diffs. IMO user:Doc James does not show behaviour consistent with a WP admin - this should be looked at. Aeonx (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Unless I am misreading him, Doc James is repeating a claim that a paid editor is still editing the A2 article. If so, and he is referring to me, it looks like a deliberate act of mischief-making. At this edit on 21 December I made quite clear that the financial arrangement I'd previously had with the A2 Milk Company to expand the article was long finished. I had declared my payment in July 2014 and removed the notice in January 2015. If it is not me whom Doc James is maligning, who is it? BlackCab  (TALK ) 09:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thks for clarifying User:BlackCab. Have adjusted is to has. Missed that comment when writing this. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 reported by User:Vansockslayer (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696330488 by Suitcivil133 (talk)you are wasting your time, consensus was reached before you joined wikipedia, trolller"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696329955 by Suitcivil133 (talk)do not vandal or rever the page catalonian."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696329585 by Suitcivil133 (talk)So obvious suitcivil is a pro barca vandal, moderators should take a look at his edit history. All FC barcelona related."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 696329089 by Suitcivil133 (talk)Stop pushing barcelona to more titles with frivolous records. its obious you are a barca fan."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 696323403 by Suitcivil133 (talk)reverted back to consensus version"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Copa Eva Duarte. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Football records in Spain. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Test,see if it works. Vansockslayer (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Vansockslayer (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Vandalism. A consensus has already been established. Another douce that confirms it. http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/detail/card/honours-football Now there are at least 3-4 sources. On the other hand you have zero that prove the opposite."
 * 2)  "I speak Spanish fluently. You do not. Which consensus? From the mouth of the horse (RFEF). http://www.rfef.es/noticias/rfef/historia-supercopa-precedentes-1936-1953 Second last paragraph. You really need to grow up."
 * 3)  "You can continue your vandalism but eventually the facts will prevail once a moderator discovers your trolling. It's futile. You are disputing FACTS and removing SOURCED material confirmed by RFEF and numerous other sources."
 * 4)  "Do not removed sourced material? What is it that you don't understand Nepali?"
 * 5)  "Ongoing vandalism by a sockpuppet. Moderators should take action. This user is removing SOURCED material that is confirmed by multiple sources. Take a look at his disruptive user history as well where he is removing sourced material at will."
 * 6)  "Stop removing sourced material that is confirmed by multiple sources. You have been warned."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Copa Eva Duarte. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Football records in Spain. (TW)"


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


 * – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696329160 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696261199 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696245426 by Davey2010 (talk) arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mince pie. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2015 */ +"


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


 * Comments:

Yesterday I fixed 2 sources (changing the publisher bit from "independent.co.uk" and "bbc.co.co.uk" to "The Independent" and "BBC"),

PoD reverted saying "arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"

So I reverted saying "Website addresses are never used in "Works/Publisher" - The only thing that's supposed to be in "Works/Publisher" are the company names",

He reverted so I obviously reverted and left a warning and then a note basically repeating the above in the hope we could have a civilized conversation instead of warring but the only reply I got was to "Piss off" so here we are.... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Publisher names are always preferred over website addresses so I really cannot understand what the problem is ? .... Anyway thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On the point of substance, that isn't necessarily true - website names can be and are used in some citation styles, although usually in the work field rather than publisher. Using publisher name instead isn't wrong, but per WP:CITEVAR if the article has an established style using website name it should be left alone.
 * On the point of procedure, both of you are edit-warring and neither of you have taken the issue to the talk page. Keep in mind that 3RR isn't an entitlement, per BRD you should have gone to talk on the first revert, so this proceeding will likely end either with the page protected or with both of you (not just PoD) blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Adding: or with no action, since he hasn't broken 3RR yet and you could take it to talk right now... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen Website names used on any article and the ones that I have seen I've changed them (and no one's ever had an issue), I disagree I believe he is edit warring... To be fair I've taken it to his talkpage after the 2nd revert and he's twice told me to Piss off so at this point me going to the talkpage would achieve absolutely nothing other than being told to Piss off .... – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Takes two to Tango. I see it the same way as Nikkimaria – either block the both of you (Parrot of Doom for reverting after the warning you left, and you for reverting right before the same warning), or you can take it to the article talk page now. Prodego  talk  18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I kinda assumed his talkpage was fine but obviously not!, I love this fucking place at times!. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies if this was confusing. There wasn't anything wrong with notifying on the user talk page, It is completely fine to start a discussion there. However, before you left that message you reverted Parrot's reversion. Regardless of whether or not you notified him, you should not revert a reversion of your own edits without discussing it first (per WP:BRD). It doesn't matter whether or not it was permissible to revert your edit to begin with. Does that clear things up? Prodego  talk  23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Nope I agree It would've been better if I left that message once I was reverted instead of quickly smacking undo, Problem is I constantly think using the edit summary is fine (even in edit wars) but it's not!, I apologize for the rather blunt message above, Could I ask tho what made you decide not to block me ? ... Bet it was tempting!, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think blocks would have accomplished anything. And I assure you the novelty factor wears off after the first 20 or so. :) Prodego  talk  02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * . It's a mystery to me why either of you thought it worth edit warring about. Thank you for at long last taking it to talk, Davey2010. Closing with no action. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

User:207.161.234.111 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result:blocked 31 h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696467129 by Dan Koehl (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696466417 by Dan Koehl (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sitush reported by User:ForbiddenRocky (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696514397&oldid=696514213 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696514747&oldid=696514627]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696514747&oldid=696514627]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696515095&oldid=696514919]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696515902&oldid=696515553]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&diff=696515574&oldid=696295339]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Told to fuck off: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&diff=696515677&oldid=696515628]
 * Sitush knows they are in violation of 3RR:

Comments:

This is on top of violation an AE sanction. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a bright line violation. I'll do it again when I am unblocked. I am not in fact the problem here, as is exemplified by comments such as this. Determining what is or is not a "meta" subject is subjective and, although I accept the bright line issue, I do ask that the reviewing admin consider the entirety of my recent edits. The reporter is gaming the system, as seems to be common, and even in the very thread where they tried to hat my comment they were making arguably meta replies to other people. We need to get rid of someone and that someone is not me. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I observe that one of the edit summaries in question [] reads '''Stop, Bernstein - fed up of you and your "people" controlling this shit through lawyering. Yes, I'll be blocked now - don't care.''' I wonder whether the intent of “your ‘people‘” is to suggest that the editors who fail to agree with Sitush are my peons, my sock puppets, or whether he’s insinuating a religious connection. I mention the latter because it is so ubiquitous in Gamergate’s discussions of Wikipedia strategy, which frequently allude to my Jewish-sounding name. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And ^ this ^ is exactly the tag-teaming that I am objecting to and the reason why I took the action that I did. Yes, I'll be blocked but I at least have a sense of morality here, which is sadly lacking among others. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I object to you insinuating some anti-Semitic bias on my part. A typically low blow that lacks foundation, as is your attempt to link me to "Gamergate's discussions of Wikipedia strategy" (I neither know what they are nor where to find them and demand that you support your insinuation or retract now). - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that this is rather useless? MB is not going to change his opinion of Gamergate based on internet debates with strangers. And edit-warring on the talk page is basically useless. Getting blocked will do nobody any good. I think Sitush got a bit frustrated, that's all. This is all much ado about nothing. By the way, MB's insinuation that Sitush's comment was anti-Semitic is highly inappropriate. Your "people" here simply means people who share a POV, nothing more. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting angry is not an excuse for UNCIVIL behavior, let alone 3RR, especially since he's often going on about getting people such as myself kicked off with his own brand of "rules lawyering"; rules apply when he's using them as a threat to make people agree with him, but not when he's in clear violation? He knew he was violating 3RR. And he knows GGC is a contentious area; he's been by before. If he has a problem with the rules, he should take them up to the correct FORUM, instead of breaking rules to make POINT. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but rules should be followed consistently. See the comment just preceding, where MB insinuates that people arguing for a certain position, including myself and Sitush, are GG supporters organized off-wiki. I just shrugged it off, Sitush didn't. To clarify, I don't want anyone blocked here. In this area, emotions run high. Nothing can be done about this. Just accept it. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting blocked will do nobody any good. I think Sitush got a bit frustrated, that's all. This is all much ado about nothing. -- I agree. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a 3RR and a personal attack nothing? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Find me a single decently long discussion on the GG talk page sans a personal attack. Water off a duck's back. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone else's bad behavior is not an excuse for one's own behavior. And really justifying any bad behavior on a something as contentious as GGC is asking for trouble down the line. And the back here might be the camel's not the duck's. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What personal attack? That FR is effectively a SPA? That is a statement of fact easily proven from their contribution history. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All parties involved are warned to stop edit warring and are encouraged to try to be more civil in their interactions with each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:85:c101:b205:39d6:fda5:8d24:3341 by User:Jeff5102 (Result: Already blocked)
Page: User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also LGBT in Islam


 * By Neil N  talk to me 22:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:71.49.245.222 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked/page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "He criticizes Iran and Syria. Delete him"
 * 2)  "Deleting."
 * 3)  "He is against Iran. Delete him."
 * 4)  "He criticizes Iran. Remove him."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Majid Rafizadeh. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Probably same as IP User:2600:1012:B000:3731:7D78:F29D:ADEE:9EBF who is already blocked. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * and (semi) for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Jekson Bim reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696460033 by KDS4444 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Article suitable for inclusion in the wiki !"
 * 3)  "←Created page with 'Lovifm Music is an independent online free radio provider, based in the Byelorussia.The company was formed in...'"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* References */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Lovifm music. (TW)"


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

User still edit warring. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 1 week by User:UkPaolo. Repeated removal of AfD templates. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Invisiboy42293 reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 696290941 by Sir Joseph (talk) Formed in America, sings in English, covers American pop songs. Also, Jewish rock is a new article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696292024 by Sir Joseph (talk) Look, nationality is standard in band article leads. Beatles are British. Unless SR are totally Israelis, they count as American."
 * 4)  "/* top */ Their FB says hometown NY, current Beit Shemesh, so I'll offer this as a compromise."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* American? */"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by Invisiboy42293: First of all, it has American as origin on the side, and independent here means it's not affiliated with any record labels. In additin, SR is in Israel so the current roster of Shlockers is mostly Israeli, but that is..."
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Invisiboy42293: First of all, it has American as origin on the side, and independent here means it's not affiliated with any record labels. In additin, SR is in Israel so the current roster of Shlockers is mostly Israeli, but that is..."


 * Comments:

He kept reverting the Independent to American, when I either pointed out to him that 1) SR is not necessarily American, considering they cover all music, and 2) the independent is on the affiliation of the band that they are not part of any record label. I have used the talk page, I have explained myself on the reverts. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, did not mean for this to become an edit war. To quickly clarify my position (because its hard to express things in edit summaries):

Again, very sorry that things got this far, and hopefully we can come to an understanding.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The nationality in the lead is standard, and is meant to be general rather than covering every specific member. Since Shlock Rock was formed in the US but is currently based in Israel, I have changed the lead to "American-Israeli".
 * I did not realize "independent" was referring to them not being signed to a record label (admittedly I wasn't reading the edit summaries all that carefully). Even so, label status is typically covered in the infobox or later in the article, not in the lead sentence.
 * Feel free to close, I don't know if non-admins can close but it looks like an honest misunderstanding and I think we can let it slide. At least someone is working on the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:TracyMcClark (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Straight out violation of 1RR per wp:ARBPIA and wp:ARBPIA3.

Self-revert was offered on my talk here and theirs here, to no prevail, and are fully aware of imposed DS.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Merry X-Mas Joseph.--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no violation. My two reverts were quite substantially different. The first time I reverted back to the way it was, based on the ARBPIA ruling (which is one downside to the ruling, that sometimes good data does not get included). The second one I modified to better source the information. TMC, blindly reverted and did not look at the data. In TMC's submission, Israel is stated to have flooded Gaza with the opening of dams. I provided a source that it is false, a hoax perpetuated every year when there's flooding. I then reverted to a better version that TMC preferred leaving out the puffery, but taking out the part about check claims while still leaving in the part about the agricultural claims. This is not a violation of 1RR, these are substantively different edits and I have tried to comment on TMC's talk page to try to work out the language to use for the section. I included links to show that the dam claim is a hoax. Here's the Al-Jazeera article: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gazans-flee-floods-caused-israel-dams-opening-150222115950849.html I figured that would be a RS on that Palestinian side. Sir Joseph (talk)  22:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fresh, blatantly fresh (as expected).--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what that means. Sir Joseph (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Use the talk page to work out the dam issue. People seem to be claiming that check dams are not openable. Somebody should read the sources carefully and find a good formulation. This appears to be a 1RR violation by at least one party, which will be overlooked for now. hasn't reached 500 edits so should not be editing any I/P articles at all, given the new ARBPIA3 restrictions. The link to Al Jazeera given by SIr Joseph shows that Al Jazeera actually retracted their news article about Israel opening the dams. ("In southern Israel, there are no dams of the type which can be opened."). Notice how subtly they handled the 'check dam' issue. This appears to be strong evidence that the simple claims of dam opening causing Gaza floods shouldn't be accepted in Wikipedia at face value. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * that's because the other links the user put in had that while there might be little dams to prevent erosion, they don't effect Gaza miles away. I just included the AJ link because that's an arab news source. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


 * See my last comment on my talk page. But of course, if you say it is a content dispute and DS doesn't apply there is not much sense in wasting any time reporting, is there?--TMCk (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * don't forget to tell him that you reverted my comment, which explains. are you still saying that Israel opens up dams and floods Gaza? discretionary sanctions apply for vandalism here there's no case of vandalism it's a content dispute where you were reverting without looking at the sources. There is nothing to gain in this case with discretionary sanctions in either party Sir Joseph (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, EdJohnston, this is not about flooding which was not even mentioned in the article but about water diversion. Of course you can just take the op's word at face value and ignore the rest.--TMCk (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * flooding is a big part of water sanitation, but I'm still not sure what your point or vendetta is . Sir Joseph (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop with your bad faith soapbox distortion? Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * is there a reason why you want to see me blocked instead of going to the talk page that is a vendetta.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither of you has used the talk page. And will Sir Joseph carefully check all the claims he is adding in this edit? The claim "there are no dams" looks to be technically incorrect. Why not work out something better? EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * there are no dams that can effect Gaza. So regardless, it doesn't belong in an article about PA water issues. Tmc claims Israel had built many dams.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this your justification for not using the talk page? If both you and TMCk agree to wait for consensus, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my initial thinking was that TMC saw an ARBPIA violation and reverted. I saw the data and I knew that the flooding claim was a hoax and reverted back and made a comment in the edit summary to that, and with the comment that it's a downside to ARBPIA that good data is reverted. I thought that would be the end of it. I would be OK with talk page. I took a look at the talk page and it looks pretty dead. I still don't see TMC refuting the claim that Israel opened up floodgates causing the flood in Gaza and that is troubling. I would be OK with you lifting protection. I will post in the talk page what I've done and see what results, but the claim that Israel purposely flooded Gaza can't remain, especially since Israel also flooded, as a point of fact, they are in the midst of heavy record floods right now. Wadi means valley, if you live in a valley, you will get floods every so often. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Ed, I don't care wasting my time with someone who distorts content and makes preposterous claims about what I said. I also don't care much about any single articles here in general. But it's obvious now that I need to care even less for due process and develop my neglected edit-warring skills. This seems to be the best way to have one's edits standing strong and protected with much less effort. Thanks for the lesson, Ed.--TMCk (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And this here is what the article actually said: "In Gaza, the only source of surface water has been the Wadi Gaza. Since the early 1970s, Israel has built check dams,[19][20][21][22] and diverts part of its water for agricultural purposes within Israel prior to its arrival to Gaza.[23][24]" There is no mention of flood at all! Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and a check dam has nothing to do with Gaza, so why is it there? And then the other user added information which you reverted, but I found useful regarding Gaza, considering the mention of check dams. If you're going to mention check dams, then you need to mention that the claim that check dams actually does something to Gaza is ludicrous and a hoax. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965460/Palestinians-left-homeless-heavy-flooding-Gaza-water-levels.html There is a dam on the Niagra River, should that be in there as well? And since you don't own the article, the section is about surface water, so a mention about flooding is perfectly acceptable since Gaza is susceptible to flash floods.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[] (previous 3RR warning) +  (warning made on his talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (not a diff, as the discussion has been ongoing for a long time)

[] article talk page.

We requested a 3rd opinion. (who agreed that the content the above user was trying to include was not suitable) We then went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (which was closed due to deadlock) We then went to RFC (and apart from the above user voting to keep his content, every other user voted to remove it)

Comments:

This is a case of a well established editor, who knows exactly what the edit warring/3RR rules are (having reported others and been reported in the past []) We have gone through all the steps in dispute resolution and at every step he has been told that he is wrong. Other editors have been drawn into the revert cycle (myself included) and have had the self control to back down. Also, and I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the same user is reverting my edits on my own talk page. [] - I know it's only once, but this goes to show the incivility of the user along with previous comments such as []. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - As noted, this dispute was taken to third opinion and to WP:DRN. The Third Opinion request was removed by the coordinator because DRN "outranks" Third Opinion.  I tried to mediate the case at DRN, and failed it because the reported editor refused to compromise on the insertion of language that other editors thought was WP:UNDUE in the voice of Wikipedia.  We then posted a Request for Comments.  In my opinion, courtesy by the reported editor would be either to leave the article alone or to edit the article only after discussion until the RFC is closed, and then follow the consensus of the RFC.  I would suggest a warning, except that the reported editor has already been warned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks as though User:Dennis Bratland is the only person who broke WP:3RR. They are risking a block. The disputants agree that the speed record is bogus, so I don't know what keeps them from finding suitable wording. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * is forum shopping and gaming the system. Creating a skunked dual-report at 3O and DRN at the same time, which then jumps back to the article talk page for an RfC. And even that process is not allowed to run to completion. Instead Spacecowboy420 and just charge ahead making the very changes that are still under discussion, and gaming 3RR to push through their preferred version. Their reverts are just this side of the line and so they get to try to win the battle. I requested page protection a week ago so it wouldn't come to this, but was turned down.<P>Others have noted  what is obvious to me: Spacecowboy420 is a highly experienced Wikipedia warrior who didn't just start editing this last October. This is someone who has been seeking controversy and using noticeboards to target enemies for quite some time. The reasons for creating a "new" account just a couple months ago are easy to deduce.<P>We are still waiting expert opinions to resolve this false balance problem on Dodge Tomahawk, using Wikipedia to advertise and promote Dodge cars by treating implausible performance claims as equal in weight to the independent sources which have with one voice told us these marketing claims are laughable nonsense.<P>I have no intention of reverting any more. This is going to have to be resolved at a higher level forum. I'm not going to accept voting on whether or not an article will take flat-Earth nonsense seriously, but I will cease reverting. It would be nice if others could do the same. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. This was a 3RR violation, but no block seems necessary since the editor has responded. All sides should note there is little point in having an RfC if people are going to keep on reverting right through it. If you think the edit warring is likely to continue, I can apply full protection for the duration of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, EdJohnston. I'm sure that despite the differences of opinion, that Dennis Bratland's edits were made in good faith, with the intention of having a good article. I'm sorry, I assumed the RFC was concluded with the votes to keep or remove the offending terms, my mistake. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting for the record that the article is now fully protected for 72 hours (if my math is right). – Brianhe (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sponge58 reported by User:Grangehilllover (Result: malformed )
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: Throughout 7 years of Tracy Beaker Returns and The Dumping Ground, the first 2 episodes have been doubled up to an hour, however, the episodes are written as the 2 separate episodes as when they are repeated, it is as 2 episodes consisting of 30 minutes. If you look at the previous series pages for The Dumping Ground episode guides, all the first 2 episodes are written as separate episodes. The user keeps putting it as 1 when it is 2. Also, he keeps adding the character Chloe when there has been no casting announcements.


 * Katietalk 03:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:HavenHost (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff (added 14:22, 22 December 2015‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning made on editor's talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015‎ – As of this writing, user reverted my edit for the 4th time (reverted-without-talk). Here is the link to the talk page's diff: diff

Comments: User refuses to accept other editor's edits. In our case, user keeps reverting edits thus removing inline sources. Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015‎ – As for his/her 4th revert-without-talk, user stated that the information I added is "tosh on his perspective" (POV) as per edit summary. As per history review, Unbuttered Parsnip had previous edit warring warnings and issues with other editors, as well as personal attack notices.


 * Warned. HavenHost (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Unbuttered Parsnip has broken WP:3RR and is risking a block. I left a message and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User has been blocked previously for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you so much for your immediate response on this issue. Nothing personal against the user but based on his/her history, user already had a number of edit warring issues with other editors and had issues as well with addressing personal attack statements. User tends to monopolize Wikipedia based on his/her own POV only as per edit summary he/she has. User even ignores reliable sources and keeps on breaking the 3RR. I will appreciate every action and sanction that would be given to this user. Whatever the Wiki admins decision is, I will fully commit and comply with due process and no hesitation. Again, thank you so much and may you have a wonderful holiday! HavenHost (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you for your simple one-sided to this argument. First of all, I am GMT+8, so my first message about this came as your text about 1:30 am., after which when I wake up in the morning, you've all had jury and judge.  You seem not to have seen my original edit at 21-DEC at 10:07, so as far as I see it, the other guy reverted of my edit.  It was s/he too went here and other places (e.g. Moalboal, Cebu; Tuburan, Cebu; Tabuelan, Cebu) which have edited without any summary at all.  Other editor seems not to have known policies, (e.g. WP:V), does not know how to write in talk pages, and hasn't made any message to me about his/her 3RR.  You may see that I opened 3RR at 13:10 22-DEC and s/he made something about 6 hours later.

(personal attack removed) – Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Fri 12:38, wikitime=  04:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With regard to your statement: You seem not to have seen my original edit at 21-DEC at 10:07, so as far as I see it, the other guy reverted of my edit. It was s/he too went here and other places (e.g. Moalboal, Cebu; Tuburan, Cebu; Tabuelan, Cebu) which have edited without any summary at all.
 * As far as I see it too, I did not revert your edits on those articles. I simply "add more information" since everyone of us has the right to edit as long as we see fit (these are OUR pages, so we don't monopolize it), but if you look into their corresponding histories, I never reverted your edits at all. Adding and removing content are two different things though. Also, when you said that "I haven't made any message to you about my 3RR", I actually left you two sections in your talk page to notify you in PST (see User_talk:Unbuttered_Parsnip and User_talk:Unbuttered_Parsnip). Keep calm and Happy Christmas! HavenHost (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC).

Two users reported by User:172.56.34.223 (Result: semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: and User being reported:

Are engaged in an edit war on the page Royce Gracie. Warnings have been placed on both pages. They continue to edit war.

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:


 * Dynamic IP adding contentious, poorly sourced info in violation of WP:BLP. Semi-protected one week. No violation by registered editors. Katietalk 01:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2.48.39.79 reported by User:Dat GuyWiki (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Before the reverts Previous version reverted to: Left alone/not reverted.

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

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

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

Comments:

I should probably add that I believe that User:FreeatlastChitchat is the same user as the IP. Chitchat has had multiple warnings about 3RR violations. Also, for first editing a hour ago, the IP seems to have some knowledge about WP since he is also linking to WP:Consensus and telling other users to discuss it on the articles talk page, which he doesn't even do. Finally, Chitchat has been suspected of being a sockpuppet, even though the case was closed without a block. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I swear by God that I have no relation at all with User:FreeatlastChitchat or anyone else. The reporter is liar. He is the one who is edit-warring a consensus version and vandalizing it by removing well sourced content without discussing or explaining why he is removing them. I edit on the Arabic Wikipedia only and don't edit here. The article on the Arabic Wikipedia says that the result was a decieve Afghan victory (check it yourself), and this is what every reliable source says. The reporter and his possible British meat puppets keep removing these sourced info just because they don't like it.--2.48.39.79 (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil with your comments and assume good faith. When we try to help you, you remove the content saying we are 'trolling and vandalizing.' User just got blocked for edit warring. Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Went WAY past 3rr. Blocked for 3rr. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 12:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:99.233.155.197 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This IP has been blocked multiple times for edit warring to list staring cast of shows in their preferred order despite there being an official order per credits, notably on Girl Meets World, and they refuse to learn their lesson. Alongside the linked page, they've also disrupted Blaze and the Monster Machines, Power Rangers Megaforce, and List of Power Rangers Megaforce episodes since their last block expired, but it seems difficult to fix their disruption there because other edits have been made since. They've been warned several times by myself,, , , and ClueBot NG. Amaury (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Girl Meets World article was semi-protected in part due to this user's edit-warring there back in September. And user requested on the article's talk page to have the article unprotected, which is the wrong place to make such request. While it is not certain what they would do if article were to be unprotected, the history of this user's edits suggests they would make similar edits that got them blocked in September. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 3 months. This editor constantly reorders lists of actors without consensus. They have received four previous blocks; the last was for one month. Block could be lifted if the user will agree to change their behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:TheManchoMan reported by User:100.12.206.17 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [not reverted]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Was warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:100.12.206.17

Comments:

This editing pattern has been going on since the day before yesterday on the same page and on other pages. User TheManchoMan undid another user's edits as well. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User:TheManchoMan is uncivilly responding in User Talk:100.12.206.17 Dat GuyTalkContribs 23:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

– 48 hours. Edit warring, calling other users 'dumb'. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Emces2015 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "cambios hechos de acuerdo a lo que narra la serie y lo que fue la carrera de celia cruz."
 * 1)  "cambios hechos de acuerdo a lo que narra la serie y lo que fue la carrera de celia cruz."
 * 1)  "cambios hechos de acuerdo a lo que narra la serie y lo que fue la carrera de celia cruz."
 * 1)  "cambios hechos de acuerdo a lo que narra la serie y lo que fue la carrera de celia cruz."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Celia (telenovela). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Please I'd like that my edits were respected */"


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


 * Comments:

The user insists on adding information without reliable sources and generating edit wars, even though I asked them to stop or did the contrary preferred to insult. <font color="#FFFFFF">Philip <font color="#FF0000">J Fry / <font color="#000000">talk  02:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I note below is the users response. I'm not sure that's actually a counter warning. But I am sure this is the English Wikipedia and they are not speaking English on it. From what I've seen I don't think they have any competency in the English language. The broken English that I have seen them use makes me think that they are using some form of machine translation. I submit WP:CIR offers a valid opinion here. Their Language difficulty is causing disruption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – User has broken 3RR, is making promotional changes, has been reverted by multiple editors and can't give a clear explanation in English of why the changes are appropriate.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Philip J Fry reported by User:Emces2015 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Celia, is a Spanish-language telenovela produced by Fox Telecolombia for RCN Televisión and Telemundo.[1] Is based on the life of the most important and influential Latin American singer, Celia Cruz.

Previous version reverted to: [Celia, is a Spanish-language telenovela produced by Fox Telecolombia for RCN Televisión and Telemundo.[1] Is based on the life of Cuban singer Celia Cruz]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [(cur | prev) 20:49, 25 December 2015‎ Philip J Fry (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,988 bytes) (-83)‎ . . (Undid revision 696778439 by Emces2015 (talk) Reverting unexplained) (undo | thank)]
 * 2) [(cur | prev) 03:13, 26 December 2015‎ Philip J Fry (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,988 bytes) (-318)‎ . . (Undid revision 696797038 by Emces2015 (talk) Removing unsourced content) (undo | thank)]
 * 3) [(cur | prev) 06:29, 26 December 2015‎ Rsrikanth05 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,988 bytes) (-320)‎ . . (Reverted 1 good faith edit by Emces2015 using STiki) (undo | thank)]
 * 4) [(cur | prev) 13:18, 26 December 2015‎ Philip J Fry (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,988 bytes) (-328)‎ . . (Undid revision 696846070 by Emces2015 (talk)) (undo | thank)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Por favor para que analicen este caso en que yo he enriquecido la pagina Celia(telenovela) y alguien sin exponer su verdadera razón reedita y elimina lo que yo aporto; mis aportes son basados en diferentes artículos y las evidencias mundiales que existen para respaldar lo que he escrito en la pagina sin embargo hay una persona que insiste en incitar al odio y al conflicto ofendiéndome al borrar lo que escribo y encima me envía un mensaje criticándome el aporte catalogándolo de innecesario y luego me reporta como intransigente cuando en realidad el es el intransigente. Lo que hace esta personas es claramente un capricho tratando de manipular una pagina a su antojo pues si yo estuviera escribiendo algo falso le daría la razón pero no es el caso. Lo que he escrito en la pagina es completamente cierto, la persona que borra lo que yo escribo evidentemente tiene algún conflicto infundado o inaceptable con la personalidad de la trama a la que se refiere la pagina de la obra en cuestión

Emces2015 (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Google Translation:"Please to analyze this case in which I have enriched Celia (soap opera) page and someone without exposing your real reason rewrites and eliminating what I bring; my contributions are based on different items and global evidence exist to support what I wrote on page however there is a person who insists on inciting hatred and conflict offending me to delete what I write and above send me a message criticizing the contribution cataloging unnecessary and then reported me as uncompromising when in fact he is uncompromising. What makes this person is clearly trying to manipulate yourself a page at will as if I were writing something false I would give the reason but it is not the case. What I have written on the page is completely true, the person who erase what I write clearly has some unfounded and unacceptable conflict with the personality of the frame to the page referred to the work in question." Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This 3RR notice is a counter-warning of the one directly above it. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:57, 27 December 2015 ::Simply I have asked the user to add references to all the praise that is making this soap opera seems unnecessary and not something that has to do with the series. As you can tell in the series only speak about the musical career of the singer Celia Cruz, not everything that she has done to improve their country. That only they speak their loves and several concert I do. Here is the page that confirms Telemundo. If you write in Spanish because the user was also he speaks that language, and I think it would be more logical to understand both converse in the same language. But the user begins to feel offended and falls into insults towards me. If I reversed its edition was clearly because there was added references to anything that he wrote.-- <font color="#FFFFFF">Philip <font color="#FF0000">J Fry  / <font color="#000000">talk  16:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Filer blocked per another report about the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Initial discussion of edits in wrong section. 

HughD noting incorrect placement of discussion and thus was aware of the attempt to discuss disputed content (no comment on disputed content)

Moved discussion to dedicated section

HughD correcting title of dedicated section (no comment on disputed content)

First comment by HughD directed at related to disputed content after 4th revert

Comments:

Filing delay due to holidays.

It appears HughD did violate the 3RR rule on December 22 but hasn't edited since December 23. It also seems Springee's only engagement on this article is to revert the edits made by HughD. Springee has been edit warring himself having 3 reverts within a 24 hour period, with a 4th revert less than 1.5 hours after the 24 hour period. According to WP:3RR: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Springee has recently been placed on a 1RR sanction for edit warring. These boards are suppose to be preventative not punitive. Since the edit warring has ceased, I see no reason why further action is necessary, but if action is to be taken, then both editors should be held accountable.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: The edits by both HughD and Springee are stale for purposes of 3RR enforcement. HughD has not edited Exxon Mobil since 23 December. This report was filed by User:Springee who has also been editing Exxon Mobil. Springee was placed under 1RR on American politics for one month by User:Slakr but it appears that the 1RR restriction expired on 8 December. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

User:202.89.85.138 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Please return to the previous edition */"
 * 2)  "/* Please return to the previous edition */"
 * 3)  "/* Please return to the previous edition */"
 * 1)  "/* Please return to the previous edition */"
 * 1)  "/* Please return to the previous edition */"


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


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


 * Comments:

This IP, along with, has been engaged in a protracted edit war on and  over the use of terms. The IP has also been engaged in an edit war on the main article's talk page, changing t悶絶チュパカブラ to say the exact opposite of what they stated. I gave the IP a 3RR warning (linked above) as well as given a warning from about editing other user's comments, however, the IP engaged in one more revert to changed the comments back to their preferred version despite both warnings. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Auggyp reported by user:Caballero1967 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

It seems that User:Auggyp has been engaged in a similar behavior with user:Bunco man the day before. It appears to have moved from an IP account to the current one.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, all the warnings in the user's talk page: User_talk:Auggyp

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

Comments:

This user has been engaged in disruptive editing for more than 24 hours, and has reverted more than 3 edits. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The user has done it once more, after being reported here: diff. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And again. diff. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Soon this request could become obsolete. If the user desists and there is no more reverts or disruptive editing in the next 12 hours or so, I will withdraw this request. It would have been helpful if there would have been a warning or block earlier. Two unnecessary disruptive edits would have been avoided. But the way it seems to go now, if there is any kind of decision against the user, it would be more a form of punishment than a precaution. Perhaps a warning would be the only reasonable measure. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The situation has become more complicated; a type of tug-of-war between editors and their passionate political ideologies who are bringing to WP hostilities they have cultivated in other websites. See here: diff. I am not sure what would the best course be. The article is already semi-protected, but that does not affect any of them since they are already autoconfirmed. Any suggestion? Thanks Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The NAP is not an anarchist principle as claimed by User:Auggyp. It is listed and referenced exactly 10 times within the Libertarian Party platform, which I reference in the article and recently added an additional source reference. The sentence below is how it reads now. What is the problem with it? It is true and well-sourced.

"Petersen opposes some fundamental Libertarian positions, such as the NAP[7] (Non-aggression principle), one of two foundation principles of libertarianism.[8]" Jeff Smith (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Auggyp has been blocked 31 hours by User:Boing! said Zebedee. If the war continues, full protection may be the next step. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * *Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:74.216.54.171 reported by User:Dschslava (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 696960098 by Dschslava (talk) You're an idiot, learn to count. That was my 3rd Revert (4th edit). 3RR applies to more than 3 reverts, as in this one."
 * 2)  "You should have been aborted at birth. This isn't about disagreeing, it's about something that a host mentioned at an awards show not meeting notability standards."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696959341 by 2602:304:CDC0:D470:31AC:952A:B418:78AE (talk) Stupid person, blanking is erasing a section, not a paragraph"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 696958679 by Helmut von Moltke (talk) Its encyclopedic in your own deluded world. No one is denying the facts, but this event doesnt meet notability."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA breached. Maybe vandalism as well. In any case, continued after 4im by Helmut von Moltke. Dschslava (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: has already blocked the IP. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: IP continues to breach WP:CIVIL due to edit war on their talk page with 2602:304:CDC0:D470:31AC:952A:B418:78AE. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. Looks like protection is amply justified, given the chaos on this article during December. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dingowasher reported by User:JMHamo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restore comment agreed on talk page"
 * 2)  "/* 2015 */ include comment as agreed on talk page"
 * 3)  "restore well-referenced comment removed in violation of WP:3RR and talk page discussion"
 * 4)  "/* 2015 */ include comment as agreed on talk page"
 * 5)  "restore well-referenced comment removed in violation of WP:3RR and talk page discussion"
 * 6)  "restore well-referenced comment removed in violation of WP:3RR and talk page discussion -- if you have issues with this please discuss on talk page"
 * 1)  "restore well-referenced comment removed in violation of WP:3RR and talk page discussion"
 * 2)  "restore well-referenced comment removed in violation of WP:3RR and talk page discussion -- if you have issues with this please discuss on talk page"


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

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


 * Comments:

Fails to wait for consensus and pushes through what he believes to be right JMHamo (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:LeoC12 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 697124034 by Legacypac (talk) "Widely" is an arbitrary term; in the same way, I can say that Kosovo is widely unrecognised (half of the countries in the World agree to this pov)"
 * 2)  "Recognising dispute in status; the likes of South Ossieta are not members of the "countries" category; this is the only non-biased option preserving nPOV"

Two duplicate templates when anyone edits the article that say https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=edit"]
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kosovo. (TW)"

''You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours on this article and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page (see announcement and modification) and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.

An administrator has applied the restriction above to this page. This is pursuant to an arbitration decision which authorised discretionary sanctions for pages relating to the Balkans. If you breach the restriction on this page, you may be blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Please edit carefully.

Discretionary sanctions have been used by an administrator to place restrictions on all edits to this page. Discretionary sanctions can also be used against individual editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any Wikipedia policy and editorial norm.

Before you make any more edits to pages in this topic area, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system and the applicable arbitration decision.''


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


 * Comments:

This editor breached the 1RR restrictions clearly shown when a person edits the article, and on the talk page. A review of their edit history and various talk page warnings shows they are an anti-independent Kosovo advocate. Time to build a block log for this behavior and encourage NPOV editing. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply made changes to a controversial article in the hope of making it better (i.e. in good faith). By removing Kosovo from the countries category, what do you think was my intention? The only clear one is to stop Kosovo's portrayal as a country, meaning independent state. In attempting to reach a middle ground and to offer a fair PoV to all Wikipedia users, my reasoned edits were reverted as a result of bias. There is consensus on Kosovo's independence, and that is why it neither belongs in the countries category, nor the provinces or unrecognised states/units category. Its rightful one is the partially recognised/unrecognised category.

LeoC12 (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for violation of the WP:1RR restriction at Kosovo. Any newcomers to editing on the topic of Kosovo should become familiar with the prior discussions. If you revert on this article you will be stepping into the spotlight and may receive unwelcome attention from the many page watchers (927 people). Serious changes should wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In light of the block, I've gone ahead now and restored the article to be as it was before these edits, reversing the edit warring action. That might be counted as a technical 2RR, and if it is, no objection to someone else changing it back. I'm not trying to overstep the sanctions here. Legacypac (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

User:165.112.97.73 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Also reported at AIV prior to violating 3RR. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:85.72.247.184 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 697031653 by Clpo13 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 697025530 by Clpo13 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 696881153 by Bovineboy2008 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2010 in film. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has reverted against consensus at MOS:LARGENUM (and elsewhere, including Talk:2015 in film). The consensus is to round the worldwide gross numbers but this user reverts to the full numbers without any discussion. I've warned them about consensus and explained on my talk page why the numbers are rounded but they continued to revert following that warning. See their behavior at 2011 in film, 2012 in film, 2013 in film, and 2014 in film. These pages have previously been the subject of edit warring over the worldwide gross numbers. The formatting of those numbers is currently in discussion at Talk:2015 in film. clpo13(talk) 20:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I prefer the Extended content for the lists of highest grossing films for the pages 2010 in film and beyond rather than the content that you present-they have the full grossing number for each film rather that the grossing number shortly.This is because it I easier to compare these films in full grossing number.Besides I ask this only for the pages related to years in film not for the pages about the film for example 300 (film) says that the Box office of this film was $456.1 million.I ask for this page to remain the same, not to be changed.Understood; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.247.184 (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:97.123.235.204 reported by User:QuintusPetillius (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: (clearly the same person who was recently blocked under the usernames: User talk:67.0.63.191 and User:Lawismarkellot

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clan_Eliott#Article_destruction_by_User:_Lawismarkellot_who_is_also_using_IP_address:_67.0.63.191>

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Ok so User:97.123.235.204 is clearly the same person as User talk:67.0.63.191 and User:Lawismarkellot, both of whom were recently temporarily blocked from editing on Wikipedia for making the exact same edits that this new IP address is making. He is not even trying to hide the fact that it is the same person and has made exactly the same edits to the Clan Eliott article as the other two accounts which were blocked. This person does not want to engage in discussion about the article content and now seems to be going on about his personal ancestry (Eliott) as if that makes him some sort of ruling authority on on the subject. But aside from going on about his personal ancestry he has made no attempt to discuss on the talk page even though myself and other users have tried to do so. I have simply been reverting the article to the previous version which was before this person came along editing under various names and IP addresses, but more importantly to the version for which we have a Consensus between myself, User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and also User:Arjayay who have all reverted the same edits by the person I am reporting. Just as before the editor I am reporting is again adding masses to the article which which is drawing conclusions from primary sources, and combining secondary sources to prove an otherwise unpublished point of view which is original research and not permitted on Wikipedia as per: No original research


 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:AlexiusHoratius per WP:RFPP. See also a previous AN3 complaint in Archive302. The 97.123.235.204 IP seems to be making eccentric edits based on his personal concerns related to the Eliott clan. There are now enough names and IPs to keep track of that maybe an SPI should be opened. In WP:Articles for deletion/Clan Crozier someone has described that article as "an essay made up of irrelevant and unconnected ramblings". The strange edits seem to have begin in July, 2015 with some contributions by User:Lawismarkellot. I'm considering whether an indef of Lawismarkellot would be appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment an indefinite ban on User:Lawismarkellot might be appropriate because he has been temporaily blocked before only to retunrn to making the exact same edits this username was blocked for because IP addresses were blocked from editing the Clan Eliott page. QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Terabar reported by User:D4iNa4 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  10:17, 27 December 2015‎ Terabar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,384 bytes) (-1,175)‎ . . (Removed Copyright violation from Daiji World.)
 * 10:47, 27 December 2015‎ Terabar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,384 bytes) (-1,175)‎ . . (Undid revision 696983242 by Capitals00 (talk) Just read. http://www.daijiworld.com/disclaimer.asp)
 * 1)  11:04, 27 December 2015‎ Terabar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,384 bytes) (-1,175)‎ . . (Undid revision 696985088 by D4iNa4 (talk) Violation is Violation.)
 * 2)  11:24, 27 December 2015‎ Terabar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (29,384 bytes) (-1,175)‎ . . (Undid revision 696985825 by D4iNa4 (talk) Copyright Violation is Violation. Just read WP:CV and Copyright disclaimer http://www.daijiworld.com/disclaimer.asp)
 * 3)  09:10, 29 December 2015‎ Terabar (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (29,602 bytes) (-668)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Capitals00 (talk) to last revision by Terabar. (TW))

Looks like a purely disruptive edit warring account to me. He also abuse rollback.

At first, he was falsely claiming a critical quote to be copyright violation, even though small quotes are not copyright violations, and he has been including his own made up false estimation of 300,000 converts all time back by misrepresenting source. Now today when other editor made new edits, since Terabar edits are unexplained removal of criticism, Terebar abused rollback, he has been also making personal attacks on talk page, "I am not in the habit of wasting my time", "There is no need to lie on this issue. I have reverted you because you are simply lying over here"

Previously massively edit warred on Template:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar by abusing roll back and finally violating WP:BLPCAT on every edit, he never even participated on talk page. That template was protected. During the same time he was edit warring on Dalit Buddhist movement.

I am inclined to think that he is not going to stop these unnecessary edit wars, unless he is blocked. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned twice, 11:13, 27 December 2015 and 10:55, 27 December 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Defence : It was not me who was always reverting Edits. Other users have also reverted his/her vandalism on the pages. See     

User:D4iNa4 was blocked for using multiple accounts 2 years ago.See and sockpuppet investigation  He/She is again back with his disruptive editing with his second account called Capitals00. See Block log.  I am going to soon open a Sock Puppet Investigation very soon. He is using both the ids to revert the edits of other users.
 * Even his second account Capitals00 was also blocked for Sockpuppetry.
 * A User also accused him of being a Sockpuppet of Capitals. See Sockpuppet investigations/Capitals00/Archive.
 * Slavery and religion: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
 * Cho La incident: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
 * Indo-Pakistani War of 1947: Capitals00 ; D4iNa4
 * WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Batapur: Capitals00 voted delete with very similar wording to D4iNa4's AfD nomination.

Also see these similiarities on Dalit Buddhist Movement article.  

Even he keeps on adding the Copyright content and say that there is no violation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terabar (talk • contribs) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

He also keeps on editing with his Ips. But he just removed his Ip from my Talk page. See my talk page revision history.  Terabar (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Just because you read an SPI, where a user's allegations had been proven to be misunderstanding, you are copy pasting that failed SPI as justification for your disruptive editing? Calling legible edits a "vandalism" is also a personal attack. Looks like you really don't understand the policies of wikipedia and also that this is not a battleground. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your old habit of using these two words "Misunderstanding" and "Misrepresentation" when you defend yourself. Removing Vandalism and Copyright contents are not Personal attacks. It is just your imaginary assumption and nothing else. You were clearly violating the Copyright law on Wikipedia when you just added that Quote. On wikipedia you have to respect Copyright law. Wikipedia doesn't work according to your own rules. You were also clearly blocked for using multiple accounts. I also don't need a suggestion from the one who himself is violating the law and teaching others to be pious. Terabar (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There were five reverts by User:Terabar since 27 December. In my opinion he should be blocked for edit warring. There doesn't seem to be much behind the claims of copyright violation and socking, and it still looks like Terabar has no valid source for 300,000 converts to Buddhism. Terabar may avoid a block if they will promise to make no more edits to this article unless they are supported by a prior talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I have the source where it says that 300,000 people converted to Buddhism. See . I have always tried to talk on talkpages of improving the article of Dalit Buddhist Movement. You can see a long discussion over here with a user where I talked about improving this article. See [] and []. Anyhow I will try to resolve the dispute through talkpage. I am not familiar with many technical tools on Wikipedia. So any help would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Terabar (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Terabar, this is your last chance to accept my offer, if you want to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I already said in my above edit that "Anyhow I will try to resolve the dispute through talkpage.Italic text" I will also open a Sockpuppet Investigation soon because I know that these two users are being operated by the same person. What else do you wish? Terabar (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – Good intentions aren't enough. The community has a right to some assurance that this edit war will stop. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:Kahastok (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Refactored edit made by a separate user )
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)  (note, the second part is also a revert)

The part to check in particular is the addition of point re: the involvement of Alexander Haig in the second paragraph, but there have also been reverts in the section about the French.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. He rejected it here

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

Comments:

Editor has been repeatedly reverting to push his edit. Talk page involvement has been singularly unconstructive (largely, the editor has repeated over and over again that the edits are uncontentious and reliably sourced). Reviewing admins may also wish to note this recent AN/I case where his behaviour was very similar. Kahastok talk 16:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the standard pattern with this editor. He will proclaim his own edits as "non-contentious and reliably sourced" and thereby license to edit war, given, in his mind, that everyone else is editing through their own POV or engaging in WP:OR. He is completely unable to understand how the consensus process works, and more troubling, cannot separate how contentious the content of a source is from his own handling of that content.  He's been told by numerous editors that his handling of the material above is contentious, and he simply won't hear it.  His responses are an endless loop on "I'm adding non-contentious, reliably sourced material" and thereby, his edits should stand, unquestioned.  Worse, he edits over and over and over while discussion, such as it is, goes on rather than leaving the article at status quo.  There are some significant competence issues emerging with this editor given his performance not only here, but in several other articles of late.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To start let me quote you the exact words by another, independent editor when the complainant reverted my edits: misrepresenting? appears to be just what the source says Not reverting, improving following talk history discussion and trying my best to reach consensus as the edits clearly reflect. It seems that DrMargi fails to realise that I was constantly working to revise the edits to bring them into consensus following their complaint on the talk page, but oh no, its all some sort of 'pov agenda'. Also, the editor referred to the first edit not the final edit which was much improved following discussion. I had to repeat myself with these two editors as they seemingly failed to understand that you cannot remove non-contentious, reliably sourced material just because they didn't like the multiple authors conclusions, the same conclusions that they conflate with mine, other editors were also shocked at the removal of the source material. As to the rest, I'm sorry you have been bothered with all with this.Twobells (talk) 20:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What I realize and you, painfully, do not is that when an edit is challenged, you a. leave the article at status quo (that is at the version before your edit) and b.  you stop editing the article while you discuss on the talk page.  It is only through this process that we reach consensus.  We do not "constantly [work] to revise the edits to bring them into consensus following their complaint on the talk page..."  That behavior is called edit warring.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Twobells is warned they may be blocked if they make any more edits at Events leading to the Falklands War that do not have a prior talk page consensus. They would normally have been blocked, but on their talk page they [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Twobells&diff=697335697&oldid=697311526 have agreed to wait for consensus]. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Trekphiler reported by User:Mevagiss (Result: Both 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * "Attempt to resolve"? All he's done is make changes & rv me without any discussion whatever. I'm the one who opened the discussion, to which my accuser made no contribution except to call my changes "subjective". He's completely ignored the fact he is the one changing the settled version, not me, & his subjective opinion on the correctness is no more right than mine. Moreover, since he's the one changing the consensus version, he's the one who needs to establish his version is better, not me. He's made no effort to do so. So who's edit warring? <font face="cursive" color="#9400D3">TREKphiler  <font face="cursive" color="#008000">any time you're ready, Uhura  20:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. If either User:Mevagiss or User:Trekphiler reverts the article again before consensus is found on the talk page, they may be blocked. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available if the two of you can't come to agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Can someone please explain to me how consensus will be achieved here? The other editor simply ignores points made me and by others and redefines the words discuss and edit war to suit himself. I have not come across someone before who deletes a genuine attempt to justify changes and then starts a new section which appeals to other editors (no support forthcoming either), then claims that I make no attempt at discussion--Mevagiss (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You've only made two posts to the article talk. As yet there has been no use of WP:RFC or WP:DRN. It is too soon to declare failure. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:50.45.233.119 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert vandalism"
 * 2)  "Man is man."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 697245145 by FourViolas (talk)"
 * 4)  "Cosmo is real name."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor insists on modifying the article to use the subject's former, male name rather than the name they now use, violating WP:IDENTITY, and has edit-warred to do so, violating WP:3RR despite warning. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   03:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:مصعب reported by User:Bad Dryer (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:

Please see talk page. Wp:speedy indicate that editors remove speedy deletion template not anyone or anyuser. Unfortuonately the creator of the page remove the template and then someother users who are not editors don't follow the policy and remove the templte. Regards'---مصعب (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what 'editor' means in this context - it means any Wikipedia editor, not someone who has actively edited the article in question. Bad Dryer (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * User reverted again despite being warned here. User clearly demonstrates unwillingness to discuss issues on talk page and prefers to disrupt the page. --Makeandtoss (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 December 2015‎ (UTC)
 * User took his disruptive behavior to other pages Zumot Winery. He added a no reference tag to a completely sourced article. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all assume good faith. Second thing is Wp:editor dosent equal any wikipedia use or Ip. Just who have the editor flag. Wp:speedy clearly indicate "The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." And I follow it. the creator break it.--مصعب (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a reasonable, good faith response. The page cited here states, plan as day, "An editor is anyone who edits a page or pages of Wikipedia". There is no way to use this text to support the replacement of speedy deletion tags after they have been removed by experienced users. I see purposeful disruption here, particularly in the context of the underlying dispute -- this editor's absurd position that there is no evidence that wine is produced in Jordan. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * if you want to continue wikilawyering, then as soon as a Wikipedia user has removed the speedy tag you have put up, he has edited the article, and is a WP:Editor. You are being disruptive. Bad Dryer (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * User continues to disrupt. . You seem to not know the difference between editor and administrator.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * sorry there is some crosswiki deferences. I mean Autoreviewer which is named in arabic wiki "محرر" which is translated editor. That make some misunderstanding of policy and i am sorry for that. But it seem to be Canvassing here against me. And no assuming any good faith with me--مصعب (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is canvassing against you, but you are harassing me by disrupting articles in my contributions list.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * i create a page just now in arabic wiki to remove the misunderstanding. I am new with dealing with english wiki policies. But please see page history and see that creator break the policy 2 times and remove deletion template here and here also--مصعب (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you that these two edits were after you ignored (and so disrupted the page) the fact that User:Chiswick Chap removed your template (which is a completely legitimate removal since he is not creator).Makeandtoss (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. The user is warring to restore a speedy deletion template, leaving 3RR far behind. At this point, WP:AFD is the only valid option. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:14.97.*.* reported by User:Eperoton (Result: Semi)
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:


 * . I propose to semi-protect Ali. This article has been the target of numerous unwanted edits by anonymous IPs these past few days. It's becoming a drag to keep reverting them. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that motion. Since this notice went up there have already been three different problematic IP edits there. Eperoton (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: The Ali page has been semiprotected for one year. The log shows eight previous protections. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Xx236 reported by User:Kevjonesin (Result: Just advice)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version:

Diffs of both User:Xx236's reverts and of complainant User:kevjonesin's reverts may be found along with some surrounding contextual notes at: ... which also has links to both relevant user and article talk page posts.
 * User:Kevjonesin/sandbox/RR-argh

Comments:

I'll start with admitting that I'm not a saint and made multiple reverts myself; however, I'd like to note that I did offer edit summaries, often fairly detailed. And that much of the exchange centered around re-linking a bad URL (readily apparent to anyone doing due diligence and actually following the links they repost to check for source validity; i.e. a patently self-evident error). I'm open to taking a 24–48 hour break from editing the page or editing in general if it's suggested I do so.

I'd like to ask that someone with administrative authority communicate with User:Xx236 and address his haphazard unexplained reversions and emphasize the need to use specific language when attempting to communicate with others. I quite frankly found his lack of direct response to the content of my inquiry when I prompted him to clarify what edit or edits of mine he was questioning when he posted to my talk page to be off putting. His hyperbolically titled unspecific entry on the article talk page that appeared at some point further puts me off. Its failure to offer diffs or even name whom he is trying to communicate to ... through overall context it seems likely it was me he was trying to communicate to ... but in a peculiar and oblique (passive aggressive?) fashion. I really don't know where eccentric ends and hostile begins with this one. Additionally I'm left questioning to what degree territoriality of frequent page editors towards unfamiliar users may have come into play. I'm asking an authority figure to offer some frank mentorship and to additionally raise the question of whether a user who rolls back multiple edits without a explanatory summary should be allowed to continuing having access to rollback tools. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * . I don't see anything sanctionable here. Kevjonesin, you are the only person who has reverted the material three times between 22 — 29 December. Volunteer Marek and Xx236 have both reverted twice. I encourage everybody involved to stop reverting and discuss on talk. Kevjonesin, a little advice for you: if you want input from previously uninvolved editors, the way you've framed your RFC — including your own responses to your own questions, before anybody else has posted — may be a little overwhelming. Please consider simplifying and shortening it. (Indeed I found your sandbox overwhelming, too; I've gone more by the article history.) As for Xx236's style of discussion being offputting to you, other people might find your own style offputting as well, or perhaps rather, as I said, a little overwhelming. Please consider that we're all volunteers, and can't make too great demands on each other's time. If there's any more reverting, I will protect the article. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, sorry about the sandbox link being unwieldy, it was actually initially intended just as personal notes. I was tiring when I posted here but wanted to bring things to attention whilst they were fairly fresh. I can see in retrospect that waiting a bit and presenting with more brevity might have had merit.


 * The most salient portion for 3RR consideration is #Reversions on Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) wherein I enumerate 3—5 (depending on how the count is calculated) reversions by User:Xx236 within 24 hours. That they were largely unexplained in summary and made use of rollback tools seems worth noting.


 * As to the RfC on the article talk page, yeah, I considered holding off on personal comment but decided to provide examples of the format I was seeking. Failure to do so in the past has led to people trying to contrive a !vote where comment and discussion had been requested. After dealing with two different editors repeatedly failing to check a bad citation link I was hoping to attract more considered and detailed response.


 * Apologies again for starting off with so much tangential stuff included. Might try to start off more focused and concise and bring in context as/if needed in the future. Thanks for your time and attention and please (re)examine the numbered diffs. --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I miscounted, Kevjonesin; both you and Xx236 did revert three times; you slowly, between the 22 and 29 December, Xx236 quickly on the 29. I won't sanction anybody for any of that. But for the rest, detailed on your subpage, your way of counting reverts to make out that Xx236 perhaps reverted five times (!) is a bit idiosyncratic. Consecutive reverts count as one, i. e. your reverts at, , and  count as one. Right? (If you don't agree, take a look at the WP:3RR policy.) That rule is obviously to your advantage — without it, you would have made four reverts in a couple of hours. Of course you can't then say that Xx236's single revert of all three of yours should count as three… ("to roll them back en masse without explanation should be considered equivalent to three additional reversions for Xx236"). I'm baffled you should think that's reasonable, and it's simply not the way we count here. Anyway. There has been some more discussion on the talkpage now, with a proposed compromise (offered not as part of your RfC, which perhaps that editor found unmanageable). I hope it can be the basis for more discussion and less reverting. Please take any further points there; AN3 really isn't for lengthy, or any, content discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC).

User:Chris Ssk reported by User:83.37.104.3 (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:

I told him to discuss his removals in the talk page, but he did not want.
 * comment. The removal of unnotable, unsourced, and unreliable info should be self-evident and shouldn't require discussion and consensus.


 * The entry removed is not notable, was showing info last updated 3.5 years ago and most fields were ?. Including it didn't provide any benefit to the article. That alone should be enough given past edits to the same article removing old outdated entries, , ,.


 * Even so, I tried to update/populate the info before removing it,I couldn't find anything, (search below if interested). |Mer is not listed under Linux Foundation's Projects, |searching their site for mer doesnt find anything. It is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article about mobile operating systems.
 * Wikipedia isnt only improved by adding. Sometimes removing content improves things Chris  Ssk  talk 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isnt only improved by adding. Sometimes removing content improves things Chris  Ssk  talk 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isnt only improved by adding. Sometimes removing content improves things Chris  Ssk  talk 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isnt only improved by adding. Sometimes removing content improves things Chris  Ssk  talk 23:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You say that Mer is not notable. Why does it have a Wikipedia page? You should have tried to remove its page first. Wikipedia should be improved, instead of content removed because it is incomplete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.104.3 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you attempted to get consensus anywhere for removal of Mer (software distribution) from this article? I see lots of irritated replies in the edit summaries but no proper discussion.  There seems to be little current activity on the Mer project. Even https://git.merproject.org/explore/groups appears to be amazingly inactive. (mer-core has six users). If anyone is persuaded that the article Mer (software distribution) has no ongoing usefulness, they might nominate it for deletion. Perhaps it might have historical value even if the project is inactive. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I didnt because I believed the removal of unnotable, unsourced, and unreliable info didnt need consensus. TBH, that was my first edit in an attempt to overhaul the article, I wanted to change the tables so that data shown in columns would be shown in rows, making them sortable,easier to add/remove etc. I didnt notice it when I removed it, but searching the article's history it seems the MeeGo column was renamed to Mer and from their pages while mmego was a full OS, Mer is only middleware.


 * Result: User:Chris Ssk is warned for edit warring on this article. Though the removal of Mer might turn out to be in the best interests of the article, if you edit war to take it out admins may feel obliged to issue a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Should I revert the article back and wait for User:Chris Ssk to start a discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.136.32 (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not try to find the current status of the Mer distribution? For some reason you are keen on it being mentioned, but there is little to back up your side of the argument. If you can get more sources, you can post at Talk:Comparison of mobile operating systems and try to get a consensus there. If you intend to have a proper discussion, why not create an account, so you don't show up as a different IP number each time? EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 reported by User:ParkH.Davis (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has made no attempt to discuss their objections to the content in question and continues to unilaterally remove sourced content.


 * has self-reverted so there is no need for admin action. Hopefully a consensus can be found on the talk page soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:49.195.22.157 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosque%E2%80%93Cathedral_of_C%C3%B3rdoba&diff=697508119&oldid=697461203

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is also violating WP:FRINGE and WP:COPYVIO policies by inserting this material. He has been informed of the copyright problem and still insists on inserting identical close-paraphrase versions every time he reverts. Elizium23 (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:212.234.159.65 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 697430972 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 697410415 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 697263800 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 695869950 by Yeti Hunter (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Warning: Violating the three-revert rule
 * 2)  "/* December 2015 */ +add"


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


 * Comments:

Whilst I understand their initial revert falls out of the 24-hour scope, the IP continues to revert despite an edit warring warning and also being asked to discuss their contentious edits. Should said IP not be blocked, it would be helpful if x admin could discuss with them (as another editor and myself have done, but failed to get through) that their edit warring is inapropriate and they must gain community consensus for their contentious content. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 13:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. Edit warring to insert negative information to a BLP article. Whether the incident at the airport should be included is up to editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:MelbourneStar reported by User:212.234.159.65 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julie_Bishop&action=history

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:


 * Result: Filer blocked 48 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:MrEWhite, User:2600:1003:b86e:84b2:48c3:8f07:e010:716c reported by User:Dat GuyWiki (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported: ,
 * Should I also add that the IP admits to being a sockpuppet by his edit summary (Undid revision 697359161 by Jeh (talk) Sock puppet here. If you read Lisa's "30 sources", you will see they do not reliably back her claims.)

Previous version reverted to: Not reverted
 * . This edit war includes multiple suspected SPs. SPI here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (MrEWhite has admitted to be this IP user)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMicrosoft_Office_2013&type=revision&diff=697369038&oldid=695997091 All of these. Still includes SP]

Comments:

Should I comment that I had no interaction here at all. I've been on Huggle looking for vandalism, and I've noticed that a series of reverting popped up. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not the IP listed there. My current IP starts with 2606. I had nothing to do with the current revision of the page. And me and Codename Lisa has ended the argument between us two.
 * MrEWhite (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If so, then an administrator will close this report with no action taken. I'm still not withdrawing this though, so could you link me to the diff where you settled it? Also, pinging for comments. Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I resolved it on my side in the current talk under '"apps" vs. "programs"', but I am leaving it with the was-current "app" and not touching that page any further.
 * MrEWhite (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you settled it, you passed the 3RR. I am still waiting for comments by Codename Lisa. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, MrEWhite
 * I'd like to make something very clear: Let's assume the result of sockpuppet investigation came negative, and you are indeed not a sockpuppet. Okay? Then, you should realize that you used a block-evading wikihound's sockpuppet as your model of editing and this is a mistake. A big mistake.


 * What you observed and used as a model is not ordinary in Wikipedia; it is very much extra-ordinary. Never before I had reverted anyone so vehemently. (If I do, those admin that have intervened during the conflict, would block me as well. Without a warning!) There is a reason: This stalker has permanently lost his editing privileges, so per WP:EVADE, anyone is allowed to revert him and without giving a reason. He is not even allowed to have genuine dispute with anyone, let alone this pseudo-dispute whose purpose is harassment. And that's why his sock is now blocked.


 * Our policy here is . You need only loosely adhere to it. Countering a revert with a genuine partial revert by knowledgeable that shows an effort to address the issue raised during the revert is not only allowed but cherished. For other cases, you can consult WP:DR.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:MrEWhite blocked 24 hours. He wants 'apps' to be 'programs' and he comes back often to make that change. Some IPs have made the same change, including an 2606:* IP that is possibly him. I'm also semiprotecting the article. There is an open SPI case at Sockpuppet investigations/Codename MeatCommand. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Slightsmile reported by User:2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

(Reported by user with dynamic IPv6--mobile in this case.)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-war rule clearly states "even if you believe you are right," which I understand extends to "even if you are right" and "even if you believe you are reverting per consensus." In other words, even from consensus, if he keeps putting it back, it falls into the quote from WP:3RR which states that: " 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit-warring' is no defense." Correct? So you don't have to be part of a consensus to be safe from having edit-warred, right? Also for your consideration: when you count the number of editions and the space between some of them, there are certainly 3 together in the same day, but while I know the 3RR part of the edit-warring rules isn't broken until the 4th reversion in the same day's worth of time, this combative user is still warring in general. Don't forget that and just say "no violation" due to 3RR not necessarily being broken, because I know I've seen you block a warrior even without breakage of 3RR.

Also, originally this user was reverting only to the point of erasing the mention of the old ebay style in the lead ("ebaY") but NOT both of them like he/she is now (the new one being "ebay", which mention had been on there for a while already). But this user and her or his cohorts are not compromising by just leaving the current stylization mention in the lead like so many other articles have, even though he/she/they were already satisfied with that before. So I don't understand. Why delete more now than before?

This is not a true consensus among editors because one of them is being left out of the agreement. There's no compromise there for a real consensus. 2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note, this editor was blocked by for personal attacks on Talk:EBay, albeit under a different IP address. See here. clpo13(talk) 01:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Really, I was blocked at my current home address for a "personal attack" on that article's talk page? Having come mobile for now, I wasn't aware of that. Which thing that I said supposedly qualifies as that? And how is it supposedly "not a personal attack" for escape orbit to put words on my keyboard by saying that my explanation for posting a certain wording was "because I wanted it there," which is completely false?


 * By the way, I should be reporting him for that uncivil and warrior behavior too. Consider this as the unnofficial version for him for now. I'll obviously have to appeal that unwarranted blockage from home, then. 2600:100E:B12A:E8CD:C519:4540:A829:37CD (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. IPs seems to be reverting against the talk page consensus on whether to mention the eBay logo in the lead. I'll defer to User:Prodego for anything further on this dispute, since he has already issued one or more blocks. I just need to close out this 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * (This wasn't necessarily a 3RR report, but still a general edit-warring report. It almost did become a 3RR thing, though.)
 * LOL this doesn't make sense. Will you please undo that protection and block slightsmile? The point of this report wasn't for the reporter to make things harder for himself. Are ya kiddin' me? When would it ever be that way? The point of this report was to show you that the person being reported, slightsmile, should be blocked for his warring! The way this is right now it doesn't help the reporter in the least; it only helps the edit-warrior being reported! Why should that warrior named slightsmile get a pass just because his continued reversions lined up with some sort of noninclusive consensus?


 * Why even have an edit-warring rule that says that " 'but I'm right [my edit fits the "consensus"] so my revert isn't edit-warring' is NOT a defense" if you're not even gonna follow it? What's the sense in that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100e:b12a:e8cd:c519:4540:a829:37cd (talk • contribs)

User:Javaddeniro reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As can be seen on the Seljuq dynasty talk page, user:Javaddeniro has blatantly ignored what the sources in the article state, that the Seljuq dynasty was Turkic. Instead, Javaddeniro has chosen to copy&paste cultural sources from the Seljuk Empire article and attempt to pass them off as "ethnicity". Even Javaddeniro's sources clearly state, "culture", "non-Persian dynasties", where upon being shown this Javaddeniro's launches into battleground statements, such as "well, I think you do not like words like Persian or Persianate. Judging from the clarity of these sources, either said user cannot comprehend English or they are simply here to push a POV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Trying to change the ethnicity of a major dynasty is bound to be controversial. It is a concern when a brand new editor takes on the mission of a change of ethnicity and immediately plunges into an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

User:At Tojiki reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Indef)
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: consensus on talk page

Comments:

Explanation on user talk page pointing to consensus on article talk page

Possibly/probably a sock of User:Franrasyan who has previously been blocked for similar additions - Arjayay (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * – by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as an edit-warring-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

When Other Legends Are Forgotten reported by 81.132.249.228 (Result: No violation; semi-protection)
Page:

User being reported:

<!-->

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor was blocked just two days ago for reverting sourced content from an article 10 times over a month. He's continuing to editwar against 1RR over a subcategory that's existed without objection for the last 6 months. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

IP editors are not allowed on any article related to the  I-P conflict, per WP:PIA3. My reverts of the IP (who also has the audacity to report me here, after edit warring on that article he's not allowed to edit even once. In fact, it is doubtful if they are even allowed to be making EW reports regarding articles subject to this restriction) are exempt from 1RR/3RR or any other revert limitation - IPs may be reverted there without restriction (See : "as the drafter who voted against it, that This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters. pretty much gives any use a unlimited authority to revert someone who is violating it.").

Excluding the reverts of this IP and his many IP sock-puppets which are exempt from 3RR, I have made exactly one revert in the  last 9 days.

Contrary to the false claim by the IP, the category was only recently added -  here, and was quickly  reverted. RolandR is now edit warring without consensus against both myself and User:JJMC89 to add it back in. In its previous incarnation, this category was first added to the article here, by a banned sockpuppet -

With all that said, to avoid any appearance of edit warring, I have self-reverted, for now, pending clarification from administrator on whether 1 revert in 9 days, of an edit made by a banned sockpuppet and restored without consensus by another user, is edit warring.

I would appreciate getting such clarification, and also some review of the actions of User:RolandR on that page, as well as the actions of the IP who is not allowed there at all. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the article for six months per WP:ARBPIA3. Editors who are permitted to edit the article may revert an IP without being sanctioned for violating WP:1RR. However, those editors are still subject to WP:3RR. In this instance, there was no violation by based on his latest revert (before the self-revert).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:David-golota reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:David-golota insists on removing content from the article, namely regional championships, based on some arbitrary reason that he has made up (which is not present anywhere on WikiProject Boxing). He invariably fails to provide a rationale for the removal, other than this and this via edit summaries only; apparently the content in question is unworthy of being included—just because. Today he returned after several months and reverted my edits twice within a few minutes, plus a third from another user (which means 3RR, right?) Have long since tried discussing the issue on his talk page, and only now the article talk page, both to no avail. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikibreaking reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 08:48, 31 December 2015‎ 166.48.75.250 (talk) (I added 2 encyclopedia references saying otherwise)
 * 1)  10:47, 31 December 2015‎ 166.48.75.250 (talk)‎ . . (13,805 bytes) (+2,813)‎ . . (Don't delete objective references & contents for no reason. Also, regardless of how defensive you get, I obviously tell these stories every chance I get anyway. You just look hilarious trying to hide these references. Eventually, the facts will spread.)
 * 2)  11:04, 31 December 2015‎ 166.48.75.250 (talk)‎ . . (14,560 bytes) (+3,536)‎ . . (there is a difference between an opinion & a fact. If claiming to be illogical, be specific. Which part?)
 * 11:20, 31 December 2015‎ 166.48.75.250 (talk)‎ . . (14,560 bytes) (+3,536)‎ . . (using encyclopedia or not is not up to you to decide; encyclopedia is a legitimate reference on historical facts & academic perception; you are clearly over-reaching & I am hoping to find a restraint against your kind's meddling.)
 * 04:35, 1 January 2016‎ Wikibreaking (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,194 bytes) (+3,194)‎ . . (Your whitewashing is unacceptable, especially with nonsense like language purification that logically makes no relevance. Maki is new to Japan; Kimxam is old to Korean. Very simple. Show Japanese records before 19th century. This time, took out analysis.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP 166.48.75.250 created an account Wikibreaking.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:76.168.49.73 reported by User:BlueDevil54 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Thailand&type=revision&diff=697464701&oldid=691818395

has an edit in their as well which had nothing to do with the the edits and reverts between myself and IP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

|1

|2

|3

|4

Comments:

IP has for a few months now only been interested in changing the font sizes of the voting history charts on many, if not all of the Survivor television show articles. This has resulted in multiple articles having broken margins, which I have no fixed. IP has been warned as I contacted them on their talk page over a month ago with no response, |here. IP contacted me recently on my talk page trying to tell me that I was reverting with no reason, when I was only reverting back to the way the articles have always been. I have given the IP the reasons for why the voting charts are the way they are, but IP still insisted on changing them and then proceeded to break the margins on a few more pages today.
 * Looks to be five reverts by each party on the font size since 26 December. Has the font size been discussed anywhere on one of the Survivor talk pages? It appears that there is a previous complaint to the IP about table formatting at  User talk:76.168.49.73 in Bad Girls Club (season 15) by User:AussieLegend. AussieLegend states that this IP belongs to .  There's a whole series of warnings about style changes at User talk:NatalieFan. It seems logical to block NatalieFan and the IP unless the editor can propose a way of reaching agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Warning to User:NatalieFan who has not edited under that account since 20 December. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm a little late to this discussion but thought I should point out that at Bad Girls Club (season 15) the IP was persistently reverting MOS compliance that I had added. NatalieFan only appeared once the article was semi-protected, and the IP could no longer edit, which is probably why she hasn't edited since 20 December. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Boruch Baum and User:Debresser reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&oldid=697660506

Diffs of reverts by User:Boruch Baum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697665883&oldid=697660506

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697673564&oldid=697667349

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697676471&oldid=697675198

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697680471&oldid=697680242

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697681130&oldid=697680724

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697681453&oldid=697681335

Diffs of reverts by User:Debresser:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697667349&oldid=697665883

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697675198&oldid=697673564

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697680242&oldid=697676471

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697680724&oldid=697680471

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tractate&type=revision&diff=697681301&oldid=697681130

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATractate&type=revision&diff=697683179&oldid=697682162

Comments:

Rules should be enforced without anguish. It's a waste of administrator resources to be involved in such a blatant pissing contest between two editors with more than enough experience between them to be admins themselves—and unquestionalbly know better. Lexlex (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Argument about whether to include an alternate name for a work of rabbinic scholarship

Statement by Debresser
I was wrong. I admitted so on the talkpage before this was reported. I had also posted on the talkpage to resolve this issue, per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, but that didn't help. As I said there, I don't want a block for this. As I said there, Boruch Baum is wrong, but I don't need to edit war to "right the wrong", and time will get me there as well. Per WP:NOTPUNISHMENT I ask to leave it at that. As to the content issue, I have asked for input at WT:JUDAISM. Debresser (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – by User:Jfdwolff. Both parties were risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ghtfdr20112001 reported by User:TaivoLinguist (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. Brand new account, seemingly dedicated to adding Mila Kunis to this article. The user continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rm template again; this has nothing to do with the civil was in Syria"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:see strong warning to this user at end of linked discussion above.


 * Comments:

This user does not like the SCW &ISIL Discretionary Sanctions, and has voiced this on the talk page. I believe today is the 4th time they have removed the template. These sanctions exist and serve a good purpose in controlling POV editor, especially one pushing terrorist ideology or conspiracy theories. The article is about an ISIL attack. All editors deserve to be warned about the DS, making this edit's repeated removal of the DS notification template and his mocking comments towards admins in summaries quite disruptive. While the edit warring is long term, a possible good application of these very DS against the user is in order? Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I remain committed to the fact that the Paris attack has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War for which the sanctions were designed. Rules are not the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:KISS. -- Kendrick7talk 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sigehelmus reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned)
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: User:Sigehelmus has chosen not to use the talk page, instead snide remarks and false accusations are being used.

Comments:

User:Sigehelmus has added unsourced information to two articles, stating the two individuals are regarded as Eastern Orthodox saints. I have simply asked for references. Instead, Sigehelmus responses have been; Not sure what this editor's problem is. But the misplaced accusation of OR and continued snide remarks do not a community encyclopedia make. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "''NO
 * "''He is an Orthodox saint -ipso facto-. Check the articles for other Pope Saints before 1054 AD, and the basic history of Christianity while you're at it.
 * "''Ipso facto. See history of Christianity and countless other saints' articles before Great Schism 1054 AD (and especially before the Photian Schism ~867 AD
 * "''It is self-proving. Please learn what the history of Chalcedonian Christianity is.
 * "''See your talk page please. In which he posted an accusation of original research on my talk page.General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Eusebius (bishop of Milan


 * Saint Pope Evaristus - http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm
 * Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Milan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_12_(Eastern_Orthodox_liturgics)
 * This took not even 20 seconds of searching, I'm dead serious. I was waiting for you to take that step instead of wantonly deleting. And your edits to me did count as WP:OR, and you dismissed it as "trolling" and reverted it. Trolling does not mean what you think it means. And again, I just wanted you to realize that the Orthodox position is that nearly all Roman Catholic saints pre-Schism are also saints in the Orthodox Church *unless* they have done something worthy of their cultus being heretical or schismatic, like Saint Augustine (and even that is tenuous). You're covering this with red tape for no reason.--<font face="Helvetica"><small style="font-size:85%;"><font color="DarkKhaki">Sıgehelmus <font color="Coal"> (Talk) &#124;д=)  02:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned for edit warring. The listed diffs pertain to two different articles, so WP:3RR was not broken. Sigehelmus - your changes are more likely to be accepted if you give an explicit reference. Hand-waving about Chalcedonian Christianity doesn't meet WP:V. EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:VinceCustodio reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

it was the message did summary what he doing the changes the website, then please ignore the block user. the activated to was not a deadlink. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: WP:DUCK of a blocked account with an identical edit.  Mkdw talk 08:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Oripaypaykim reported by User:VinceCustodio (Result: No action.)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Dear admins. We would like to request your kind judgement on user: Oripaypaykim. This user is recommended to be banned/blocked based on the ff. grounds:

1) This user has difficulty in understanding that the website he is including in the article is a non-functional website that has "dead links." The said user keeps on reverting the changes.

2) Also, the user has previously included additional "locally produced" programs that are non-existent and without any sources. I removed these programs and yet the said user has reinstated the "erroneous" titles again.

3) In line with this, Oripaypaykim has also "removed" several times the names of the anchors. These anchors, he was claiming are not notable. However, the names of these anchors are cited in several credible online news in the Philippines and are in fact noted on a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_in_Philippine_television&oldid=697824734

4) The user seems to be having difficulty communicating / comprehension.

Having said, user Oripaypaykim has lack of judgement and is not suitable to edit nor make any changes on this article as well as other articles on Wikipedia. As a conclusion, we would like to recommend that this user be "BANNED." As a responsible editor, I cannot just let this user input erroneous details on this article. Thank you!


 * Comment

He Provide the change to cignal.tv but I had nothing to do with me but activated will happend. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor was reverting another editor who was block evading. I will note that it could have been reported sooner and at some point there is a point where once its been reported to simply let admins handle it rather than engaging in several successive reverts. Mkdw talk 08:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor has been warned about that (and the poor judgement of EW on the EW board). DMacks (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jade D Face reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: No block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

In addition to these recent attempts, this editor has made other attempts recently to ignore consensus about this particular edit:


 * 1) Dec 28
 * 2) Dec 28

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit summaries above, as well as in the talk discussion below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Q (Star Trek)

Comments: Gosh, I hate reporting stuff. Such a waste of time, but having this type of discussion is even more of a waste of time, since none of the involved editors appear to be getting through to Jade on either the point of edit warring, or of consensus. I think if the editor will agree to abide by consensus, then no further action is necessary, other than this warning, but if they continue their disruptive editing a short block might be in order.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree to abide by consensus.Jade D Face (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Closed with no block, per the editor's agreement to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:78.149.203.201 reported by User:Dat GuyWiki (Result: Rangeblock, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Before reverting

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&diff=next&oldid=697859862]

Diffs of the user's reverts: ''There are even more, but I'm guessing these are enough as it passed the 3RR. ''
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&type=revision&diff=697863576&oldid=697863529]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&type=revision&diff=697859477&oldid=697738398]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&diff=prev&oldid=697737860]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&type=revision&diff=697737772&oldid=697657040]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Law&type=revision&diff=696672943&oldid=696672729]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaw&type=revision&diff=697863975&oldid=697244917]

Comments:

I am not sure that resolution initiative is even needed for this. The user is half vandalising half edit-warring, so I wasn't sure where to take it to.


 * Result: Range 78.149.112.0/22 blocked and article semiprotected one month by User:KrakatoaKatie. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

When Other Legends Are Forgotten reported by 81.132.249.228 (Result: Semi, Both warned)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Editor was blocked just three days ago for reverting sourced content from this article 10 times over a month. He's now deciding to remove my edits from the talk page. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is disruptive use of edit board- see above - a similar request was just rejected yesterday  with a conclusion that "Editors who are permitted to edit the article may revert an IP without being sanctioned for violating WP:1RR". Someone needs to block this disruptive IP who is removing tags from a page subject to WP:PIA3, without even being allowed to  edit that page in the first place. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

An admin User:MusikAnimal has already refuted your sanctimonious opinion here, who you were very rude to as he didn't tell you what you wanted to here, and you've ignored him and continued your editwar. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Ethnocracy and Talk:Ethnocracy have been semiprotected. User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten is warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages. If the IP wants to make a sock charge, use WP:SPI. Failure to do so risks a block. The implications of WP:ARBPIA3 aren't fully understood yet so we aren't sure what rules prevail at Ethnocracy or its talk page. But meanwhile, edit warring is still forbidden. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston, seeing as When Other Legends Are Forgotten was warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages which he agreed not to do, shouldn't my edits now be restored? An SPI is already in progress. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have more questions about the Ethnocracy dispute, continue on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:79.138.132.8 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Declined )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Emmerdale."
 * 2)   "/* Emmerdale */ new section"


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


 * Comments:
 * . I am extremely disappointed with the way you have handed this Escape Orbit. You have reported a user who's last message to you before this report was: "Hi. Sorry you think that I disrupt Emmerdale teplate. That is not at all what I'm doing. Don't get me wrong, episode counts are great, but people also need to know when the episode was aired. So please do not cause anymore problems. If you have any questions, contact me on my talk page."
 * Not only that, but you didn't even reply to them before you reported them. All your communication with them has been through templates. Have you even read WP:AGF? Look at Denisarona's interactions with this editor for the right way to do it.  Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  20:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an inaccurate summary of events. My response on Prodego's talk page. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)