Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304

User:2.98.175.149 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 697903682 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 697903079 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 697865809 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 697865658 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 5)  "No reason for this sidebar"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 697786312 by Snowded (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Regressive left. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP is an abuser of multiple IPs and is again edit warring. They have used two IPs on Regressive Left to revert the same content. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is part of a sock farm hitting multiple articles. Summary here Snowded TALK 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Two more reverts since this notice was posted Snowded TALK 19:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:DrKay. This IP is part of a sock campaign described at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Theoosmond reported by User:Drmargi (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff=697865560&oldid=697863468]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "redundant edit"
 * 2)  "There is no need for this edit. It makes the table too complicated."
 * 3)  "Consensus not achieved."
 * 4)  "I haven't claimed consensus, the edits by AlexTheWhovian that I reverted were made without consensus."

Plus one as an IP:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is the strangest case. Alex The Whovian added a utterly non-controversial set of sub-headings to an episode table that identifies the two parts of Doctor Who Series 7. They were neat, didn't disrupt the table, in keeping with the way the season was organized, and helpful. But for some reason, Theoosmond is determined to remove them. He's claiming no consensus, but has failed to open a discussion the talk page. This editor has been warned numerous times recently, notably by Redrose64 regarding disruptive editing, and displays little understanding of consensus building processes. He has paid little attention to the warnings on his talk page, and continues to demand consensus without engaging in consensus-seeking processes, aside from some brief discussion on Alex's talk page (linked above.) I don't see this improving, especially given the somewhat erratic rationales for removal of the headings (headings!) in his edit summaries. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. There doesn't seem to be a continuing war. But if User:Theoosmond reverts again, admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698105472 by Jess (talk) Discuss in talk section. Whom is correct."
 * 2)  "/* Definitions and distinctions */  Whom is correct; see talk section for details."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 697814493 by Jess (talk) Consensus is defined when no one changes the edit. No one has compromised or contributed to the talk section yet. If you have objections, discuss them"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 697811283 by Modocc (talk) Go to the talk section and refute the cited material. The edit is accurate to the science and elaborates on the contrary philosophic opinion"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 697810466 by Modocc (talk) Sourced and sufficiently described/linked."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* January 2016 */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Has been discussing on talk, but continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The first set of reverts stopped at 3 within a 24 hour span. There are a number of users that will revert without adding to discussion in talk. Some users began contributing to the Talk section about the edit and discussions are ongoing. The second edit shown on January 4th was a minor "who" to "whom" grammar edit with an explanation and substantiation in the Talk section (this edit was designed only to change that specific point of grammar and no content). Ephemerance (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There were, however, three reverts within 24 hr on Jan 2, and, you have been edit warring for a couple of days overall. Please stop it.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ephemerance, you're not "entitled" to 3 reverts. Read WP:EW carefully, particularly the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead. I'm glad that the edit war has stopped. Please try to lean more heavily on the talk page and establishing consensus in the future, instead of (not in addition to) edit warring. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are allowed up to three reverts within 24 hr. The first edit was for the sake of content. The second edit was a compromise and dealt only with "who" versus "whom." After the three reverts, a discussion has been ongoing in the Talk section and no further edits relevant to the proposed content has been reintroduced by myself. Perhaps if some of the regular users in the atheism section would choose to discuss or compromise on changes (as outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy) instead of mindlessly reverting and ignoring the Talk section there would a mutually agreeable understanding. It's not my intention to break wiki policy. There are legitimate changes that I feel are necessary for the neutrality and correctness of the article. Ephemerance (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has made no promise to stop (he thinks he is correct) so it sounds like this behavior is likely to continue. A sincere belief that you are right is not a defence to a charge of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KK Metscher reported by User:Eteethan (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "included protest flag"
 * 2)  "Included protest flag"
 * 3)  "included protest flag"
 * 4)  "Included protest flag"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Subject warned with this.  Ete ethan  (talk)  23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that the user is also a seller of flags -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox . clpo13(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:173.55.55.190 reported by User:32.218.152.138 (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:


 * SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 4 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)
 * The editor should seem to also exclude anything about ISIL in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Afganistan and the list goes on. Editing in the ISIL topic area requires WP:COMPETENCE which appears to be an issue here. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See an earlier dispute of the same issue at: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301. On that occasion, User:Legacypac withdrew the edit warring report on the basis that User:Kendrick7 had decided to drop the matter (See Kendrick7's answer in that complaint). If Kendrick7 has reversed his earlier decision it may be time to reopen the question of his edit warring about the sanctions banner. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:199:100:87CE:7C5F:7AD1:EDE:F38B reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698129451 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 2)  "Should be able to confirm own birthday"
 * 3)  "Birth Year = Source is Felicia Day own Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/FeliciaDay   OR  IMBD http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1260407/"
 * 4)  "Felicia Day was originally contracted by Microsoft and if you do a BING search "Felicia Day age" you will find her birthday.  BING is the source, not a link within the search engine, but the Bing site itself"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Felicia Day. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Felicia Day. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Felicia Day. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See the discussion at Talk:Felicia Day as to why these edits are especially problematic. General Ization Talk   04:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Film Fan and User:Serijvip reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Film Fan will observe a personal 1RR)
Page:

User being reported: 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
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

There's little in the way of discussion from either user. The above is just the "highlights" of this edit war - I count no fewer than nine back-and-forth reverts between 18:37 and 19:24. There is an attempt to start discussions on the article's talkpage, which both users then choose to ignore. FF's block log speaks for itself as does the history log of the article in question.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I used the article's talk page repeatedly - pinging the other user - as well as their talk page, with no response on either, and I was only removing an erroneous AKA that they added. I asked them repeatedly to comply with WP:BRD and requested they stopped edit warring on their talk page. It ended after a couple of extremely childish retorts from the other user, and the page has been fake-AKA-free since. Of course, if reverting vandalism on top of the information given above still qualifies as edit warring (I'm unclear on this) I will pledge not to engage in such a situation again and instead take it straight to this complaints board. Please let me know. Cheers and Happy New Year - especially to you, Lugnuts.  Film Fan  17:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * By repeatedly you mean once? Or three times if you count correcting your own errors. The inital talkpage post was made at 18:56. The article history shows you made six reverts after that in approx. 20 minutes, with a further three reverts before going to the talkpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In this particular case, by "repeatedly" I mean three times - four including the personal talk page message. And I left the first talk page message after the first revert on January 1. If you are able to answer my question above I'd be grateful, so that I can avoid such accusations in the future and peacefully contribute to Wikipedia with the clarification I seek re reverting vandalism. Cheers. And please don't hate me. I think it's time are feud ends. Grudges do no one any good.  Film Fan  19:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First you have been around long enough to know the difference between vandalism and a content dispute which is what this is. You were removing sourced info added by . Next you have pledged in the past to "not engage in a situation involving edit warring" - to  among others. A few weeks or months go by and then the behavior happens again so what assurance can you give that you aren't just saying this to avoid a block. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I suppose here isn't the place to rip those sources to shreds. My assurance is what I posted above. But to add to that, I can say that instead of judging for myself what vandalism is, in the future if I revert something of that nature (or indeed anything) that is then re-instated without any attempt from the other user to engage in a conversation despite my efforts, I will report it instead of trying to undo it. I haven't had this particular kind of situation before and although I haven't yet had my question answered, I'm getting the inclination that I should have brought this issue here after the ignored talk page comments and before the reverts clocked up. So my assurance is this: I will report instead of getting involved in what I judge to be disruptive editing. Even if an edit screams "bullsh*t" and the other user is blatantly ignoring protocol, I'll let admins deal with it. The truth is I wanted to deal with it myself to save admins the time and effort, believing I was actually doing the community a favour, but I was wrong, and at this point there couldn't possibly be any more kinds of situations that might be deemed by some to be disruptive editing that I could be unaware or unclear about. I take from this that no matter who made the first move, the first revert, the falsest misinformation, etc., WP:BRD will zap both sides. That's what I know now, and that's how I assure you there isn't a chance in hell I could find myself in this situation again. And I'd like to finish by saying I bring many productive edits to Wikipedia which benefit the community, and, like all of us, I'm still learning. Cheers.  Film Fan  02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Film Fan has been blocked 12 times in the past, for durations as long as a month which makes me question whether this good resolution will be followed in practice. But this might be closed without a block if he will agree to a voluntary WP:1RR restriction on all editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that most of the blocks only happened because of previous blocks (you never get a chance at a clean slate at Wikipedia) and because of one particular user who holds a grudge. But I can agree to 1RR.  Film Fan  15:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Film Fan has agreed to accept a personal WP:1RR restriction on all pages. Though it's voluntarily accepted, this restriction can be enforced by blocks. User:Serijvip was also part of this edit war. Any admin who believes that a block is needed for Serijvip should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Renamed user 2931-018231 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698277750 by Night Gyr (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 698262572 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 698026463 by The Anome (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 698016003 by Snowded (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 698015638 by Snowded (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 698014412 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 698011867 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 8)  "Fixing error in ref"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 698008716 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
 * 10)  "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so."
 * 1)  "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so."


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


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


 * Comments:

User had name change and then went straight back to edit-warring on same article after block. -- haminoon  ( talk ) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He also requested that his userpage and account be deleted on Jan 4, saying he didn't want to stay here anymore. Obviously he's since changed his mind because he's edit warring again. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring here (repeatedly blanking this report). Vsmith (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so." (This is a reversion to an earlier version of article.)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 698008716 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
 * 3)  "Fixing error in ref"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 698011867 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 5) 13:08, 3 January 2016‎
 * 6) 13:13, 3 January 2016‎
 * 7) 13:15, 3 January 2016‎
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Men Going Their Own Way. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Most of these edits have been discussed at Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way.

This user is removing the entire contribution I made instead of making the proper changes. He is the one that should have been reported here. If there are mistakes, fix them, do not remove 100% a valid contribution. Perene (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The article has been fully protected by . -- GB fan 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I only semi-protected it, and edit-warring between auto confirmed users is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked at it wrong. -- GB fan 13:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like only a block will work. At least two more reverts and messing around on talk pages Snowded  TALK 13:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, what will work is for you to fix the article with the necessary changes instead of defacing. Perene (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly suggest you self-revert and engage on the talk page before it is too late Snowded TALK 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Article content is under discussion here.  appears not to have contributed there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If the article can't be ever edited anymore, then lock it for everyone. That's what I call fairness. Is anyone barred from trying to make valid contributions? You are removing 100% of what I inserted, so it is you that are completely wrong. I don't deserve any punishment. If there are mistakes in what I published, fix them, bit by bit, instead of reverting the whole thing and vanishing with everything. This isn't very encyclopedic from your part, it seems to me you are all following an agenda.Perene (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "agenda" is this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is what is actually happening here. You simply refuse to fix this article and wants your biased, polite and carefully-devised-filled-with-feminist-propaganda-version suited for the media interests to prevail. Like I said, this isn't encyclopedic, you aren't doing any of those edits to fix anything, you are removing the WHOLE CONTRIBUTION and you all have a clear agenda to me. Wikipedia is the best disinformation tool ever created thanks to people like you, who have nothing better to do besides bullying users who don't side with your views and spoiling what could have been good articles. This is exactly why the number of valuable contributors has decreased over the years and no one in his right mind takes this site seriously. Once again: the article isn't preventing registered users from editing, so if you are going to punish contributions, then lock it 100% until you decide when and how it should be edited. Referring to endless blather in the TALK pages isn't going to cut it. It's just another ploy.Perene (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene is still at it. This appears to be a case of WP:DIDN'THEARTHAT with a side-order of WP:RGW. I've given them a warning about WP:3RR, and reverted their latest edit. There's a clear case for blocking them at this point, but I'm not going to block them myself, because I've previously made substantial edits to this article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He's back at it again and doesn't seem to have learned his lesson at all. (He also seems to have renamed his account in the meantime, which is why I didn't realize it was him and thought he was a sock at first). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Renamed user 2931-018231, who is the renamed version of User:Perene, has been indef blocked by User:Worm That Turned. People who ask to vanish are expected not to edit Wikipedia any more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:123Steller (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - the article was full-protected and when the protection expired '''a one revert per 24 hours rule was imposed by administrator User:KrakatoaKatie. The 1RR was broken by User:KIENGIR today.'''

Comments:

There is a dispute that is taking place on several articles. User:KIENGIR was also involved in edit wars on the same topic at and. 123Steller (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically the whole thing began here. USER:KIENGIR reintroduced text (with some adaptations by himself) that was removed in May of this year after a lengthy discussion, in which I and user:82.119.98.162 and user:Prudoncty and at least two other anonymous editors took part. We removed the text that was partly written by user:prudoncty and with some adaptations restored text that I had added back in 2009. On the 23. December KIENGIR reintroduced the removed text for reasons I fail to understand. Another problematic aspect is that the text was partly authored by Prudoncty, a confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user:Stubes99. This means that there is a WP:DENY aspect involved in this case. Of course the conflict is a spillover from the conflicts at Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867). What makes KIENGIR's actions even more difficult to understand is that yesterday evening, KIENGIR and I actually agreed on text for the Hungary article and are (the way I see it) on the verge of agreeing on text for the Austrian Empire article as well. Why go on with text that we have now both decided to remove from other articles here on this one? Frankly I've been baffled by the way this user operates, for some time now! On his most recent revert User:KIENGIR wrote: "If you are debating an edit, before changing it you have to reach consensus first, so long keep the article unharmed and follow DR". Shouldn't he have thought about that on the 23d of December, while this matter was already going on concerning the other two articles, before reintroducing the removed text on the article involved here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now wrote to User:KIENGIR on this matter here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My punishment has been expired, so I'll take the chance for a reaction:


 * I am sorry, braking 1rr was not willful, although not any Administrators reacted directly my question, I came to realize regardless of my current time any edit will be registered with UTC(+0).


 * If Gerard von Hebel would give totally accurate information to the Administrator's he would mention these and/or write these instead of what he have written:


 * - Regarding the Austrian Empire page, Hebel had 8 contributions vs 5 (me), regarding the Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 article it was 2 vs 2. Barely to be able call it as an edit war, since 3RR, the bright line was not broken. Moreover the definition of edit warring clearly states: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. He should have say only in those two pages we started to debate on the content but the debate took place in the talk pages, and since I or anyone having a counter opinion did not edited the page after that, but Hebel in the Austrian Empire article - and also the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 - still made edits during the discussion that is against the "status quo ante" policy regarding BRD.


 * - Regarding the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 article I made clear the referred consensus I don't see on the talkpage and also I did not revert anyone's edit and I added a new & modified content thus Hebel does not tell here the truth if I'd reinstate something that was removed earlier by "consensus" (even if some parts may be identical partly, but we speak about more and longer material regarding different pharagraphs). I could again raise what kind of "consensus" is that is made by some "IP Addresses" that - maybe with one exception this case - are totally not neutral and act as a support against any Hungary related case. In any relevant resolution at least more users or Administrators from both sides, by an ANI discussion, even involving Wikiproject's should be carried out and then we can speak about real consensus.


 * - Hebel was informed on more pages about the reasons since if a matter is heavily discussed this is truly that, not any surprise should catch him unexpected. Despite, that is again a non-good faith act from Hebel he again referring to banned sockpuppet's but at the same time he silences about - that was already cleared by our discussion on his talk page - that the original text was introduced by user Fakirbakir - Hebel told me this on his own, and I supported/support always Fakirbakir's version and interpretation, and not any sockpuppet's interpretation. So his "concerns" stress patterned to wash again the things together with the fear of sockpuppet's, but meanwhile not mentioning the importance of the totally different root cause and approach concern's me as a way to distract Administrators!


 * - Hebel puts more oil on the fire by again with a non-good faith allusion that after we reached consensus on one page after I would reintroduce something against in an other page, that is a totally false approach as mentioned above, since the three pages may have contain similar details or undoubtedly similar or simetimes identical contents are debated, but every article should be judged on his own, and I asked him too keep the rules of fair play and at least on that page he should not introduce any revert policy and respect the "status quo ante" principle, that more of us did on the other two pages.


 * - "Why go on with text that we have now both decided to remove from other articles here on this one? Frankly I've been baffled by the way this user operates, for some time now!" -> such kind of manifestations and the latter part until the end is again more oil onthe fire based on a false premise, since as it was told the three pages may contain some identical or similar content, but it can be easily checked my edit was not restricted to such a thing, I added a content that was practically never the part of the other article, similar version could be only found only in the talk pages details per discussion. So Hebel's continous stress pattern on something that clearly not happened is again concerns me very much since Administrators have been again distracted! To say nothing of such "baffles" we have met regarding Hebel if we carefully check since 2009 his discussions up to recent times that he clearly denies some things he cannot deny anymore diluted with confusion, lack of accurate information a fixa idea seem like struggle with many false interpretation of the sources. However, a clear evolution we saw in a good way, it is still haunting after more proofs and demonstration he acted still not to understand things or regard the other party as a fool, and our good sense needed also to accept i.e. the first consensus where almost 90% of the material was his text and still regarding the clear statement of the sources he tends to avoid some things to mention he does not like.


 * - Finally, I am aware of not all Administrators will read all the content of the talk pages'/edit's content or make a total accurate check on Hebel's claims, and unfortunately they act without really checking the situation in the whole. Since by mistake a broke 1RR, I acknowledge the cause now is secondary and I get the punishment, but I urge all Administrator's to carefully check in the future even the reporters/accusers statements before quickly believing all content. Why other's were not punished by continously reverting my edit - check history -? Maybe the answer would be not braking 1RR or 3RR or also outside any time limit the number of reverts would be the answer, since the opposing parties more reverts was distributed among an IP address and a user that joined Wikipedia and created an account especially to join our debate...interesting, yes?


 * - I think if I'd revert anything in the future - even those contents that were added obviously meanwhile/after the the ongoing resolution - again I would be punished - although not such additions contributed by Hebel in the three articles were reverted by me - that concerns me because not any user can act in such a way that he has the right anytime to add and revert without consequence, but if other's would be just partly do such an act with not an equal weight, that is immediately reported, accused and arbitrated. Unfortunately I sense double measure in many cases, though I will follow and co-operate to also resolve the remaning two article's. Not any IP adresses or on-the-fly created users supporting me, I can count only user Fakirbakir, who is a polite and well-experienced Wikipedian and will not be involved in some revert/edit attack compromise.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (December)
 * 2)  (December)
 * 3)  (December)
 * 4)  (December; edits under anonymous IP after I warned Motoe about his conduct)
 * 5)  (January)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Motoe123 persists in changing the statistics sourced to reputable publishers such as the BBC and Eurosport so that they match his preferred blog. It has been pointed out that non-professional blogs are not reliable sources and he has been warned by two administrators about his actions. He refuses to engage on the talk page. The article came out of protection a few days ago and unfortunately the activity has resumed. Motoe hasn't technically violated 3RR, but I am filing the case due to the fact he has been explicitly warned by an admin and he refuses to engage on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * – 3 days. Your report implies that is the same person. That IP doesn't need to be blocked unless the problem resumes. But it doesn't sound like this editor is open to persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-war between User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic (Result: No action, please file a standard report)
I am a new editor and I'm not sure if this is the place to report these two users. They have been edit-warring between each other since a relatively long time. They have edit warred in List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. They keep reverting each other all time. and It's also important that User:Xenophrenic has been blocked seven times in the past, while User:Vellusammy created his account on 2 September 2015 and since then has edited only these two articles. This means he has edit warred in all (two) articles he has contributed to.Lostrigot (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Please file a standard report (see the instructions at top of this page). There seems to be a moderately cooperative discussion at Talk:List of wars by death toll. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:75.184.102.196 reported by User:32.218.152.125 (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:, ,

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The 75.* IP was warring to add unsourced temperatures. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:8-f4t-r4t-8 reported by User:BoxOfChickens (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "CHECK THE ARTICLE!!!!! http://www.ssgmusic.com/best-of-2011-sean-palmers-top-25-underrated-acts-of-2011/2/   YOU ARE ADDING INFO THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE ARTICLE YOU ARE SOURCING FROM. CHECK YOUR REFERENCES!!!!"
 * 2)  "STATEMENTS HAVE NO SOURCE!!! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!! CHECK YOUR FACTS!!!!) HELLO??!!!!! !CHECK THE SOURCE, YOUR INFO DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! WHYYY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!!!!"
 * 3)  "STATEMENTS HAVE NO SOURCE!!! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!! CHECK YOUR FACTS!!!!"
 * 4)  "THIS INFO IS FALSE AND HAS NO SOURCE - CHECK THE SOURCE LINK YOU ARE QUOTING - SENTANCE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!"
 * 5)  "DO NOT REVERT! REMOVAL OF UNSOURCED FALSE INFO. THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT EXIST, NO SOURCE! PLEASE CHECK BEFORE YOU TRY AND REVERT AGAIN TO FALSE INFO!"
 * 6)  "removal of false and un-sourced information."
 * 7)  "SOURCE ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH FALSE INFORMATION REMOVED, SO I HAVE REMOVED IT FROM THIS WIKI."
 * 8)  "name updated from article that was corrected"
 * 9)  "INCORRECT INFORMATION! ETHAN DID NOT NAME THE BAND! LEGAL NAMES ARE ROU AND SADIE PINN."
 * 10)  "Ethan Kath had NOTHING to do with the bands name or anything else.Stop entering this as it is spreading INCORRECT info.Also, Rou's legal name is Rou, Sadies is Sadie Pinn. I booked their flights for a show,I have seen passports.Facebook the band for facts"
 * 1)  "Ethan Kath had NOTHING to do with the bands name or anything else.Stop entering this as it is spreading INCORRECT info.Also, Rou's legal name is Rou, Sadies is Sadie Pinn. I booked their flights for a show,I have seen passports.Facebook the band for facts"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 6)   "/* The internet changes */ new section"
 * 7)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
 * 8)   "Warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:8-f4t-r4t-8. (Twinkle)"
 * 9)   "/* January 2016 */"
 * 10)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users. (Twinkle)"


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


 * Comments:

Persistently removing properly sourced info and yelling at me that it is false. I have warned them for adding unsourced material (since there is no warning for removing properly sourced material) and harassing me with sharply worded comments on their talk page. They are removing information from a web source that has changed since it was cited, and saying that it does not contain that information before. I don't think they realize that the access date of a web source is important. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * He is now stating that if an online article is updated, it is updated for the purpose of removing false information even if that is not explicitly stated. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * * Please note that the reporting user place seven final warnings on the IPs talk page before coming to this talk board, as well as talking in caps/bold, edit warring, and being in violation of WP:CIV. Boomer Vial (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have placed the multiple final warnings because the behavior has been continued and he has continued to yell at me. I started using large bold text in order to differentiate my comments from the many unsigned comments and warnings on the editor's talk page. I am trying to remain calm and handle this issue in a civil manner. I apologize if my attempts to warn the user and get them to understand the concept that websites are updated for many reasons other than to remove false information make it appear that I am being uncivil. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It now appears that there may be sock puppetry involved. See and Sockpuppet investigations/8-f4t-r4t-8. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – by User:Bbb23 for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:217.22.190.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Germany should be 62% not 59% and it has always been like that and only recently it is erroneously being changed to 59%."
 * 1)  "Germany should be 62% not 59% and it has always been like that and only recently it is erroneously being changed to 59%."
 * 1)  "Germany should be 62% not 59% and it has always been like that and only recently it is erroneously being changed to 59%."


 * 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:

Previously blocked twice (16 & 24 November 2015, both for one week) for block evasion. User:141.8.61.233 was blocked for 6 months on 19 December 2015 for identical edit-warring. NebY (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

NebY and I both reported the user within minutes of each other. I've removed my almost identical report and add the comment from it here: Repeated addition of unsourced number. The IP has a history of edit warring and vandalism on religion-related articles. Warnings given on user's talk page. Sjö (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 months by User:Materialscientist for persistent addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2A02:582:709C:300:80EC:EF1:7A19:BE4D reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Using the name Macedonia for a country violates UN treaties"
 * 2)  "The use of the name Macedonia for a country violates UN treaties."
 * 3)  "There is no country named Macedonia there is just FYROM. The use of the name Macedonia violates UN decisions."
 * 4)  "Historical truth"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Macedonia . (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Arbcom Balkan DS warning"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Macedonia. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

POV edits in violation of Arbcom DS on Balkans. Will not stop despite warnings. Dr.  K.  22:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Macedonia has been semiprotected for a week by User:Ymblanter per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sadda14 reported by User:Titusfox (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "shut the fuck up!!  .. .just delete the article..that's it!!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 698193816 by FourViolas (talk)      .. ..I'm asking for the admins over here to delete the page!! (they know who) ..!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 698193710 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on CCN Digital. (TW)"


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

Blatant sock of Voda9 - Sockpuppet investigations/Voda9. Bazj (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * stray thought... If we accept it is a sock of the article's creator, is the blanking a valid G7? Can it be deleted and salted? Bazj (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: User has been indef blocked by User:Ymblanter per WP:NOTHERE. There is also an SPI report. Since an AfD is running, we might as well let it finish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:66.152.115.226 reported by User:Thomasmallen (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militia_occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge&oldid=698094624]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid censorship"
 * 2)  "Undid censorship. keep calling it vandalism, but this is USDA Certified Grade A Censorship"
 * 3)  "memoryhole pls stop"
 * 4)  "Undid persistent vandalism by Thomasmallen (talk)"
 * 5)  "fixing corporate-monopoly on the coverage here.... and undoing persistent censorship"

There are many many more.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.152.115.226&type=revision&diff=698100906&oldid=698097850]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User calls it "reverting censorship" in some edit messages. Thomasmallen (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As per Thomasmallen, the situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox . clpo13(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:37.217.133.213 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, 26 Dec 2015, as IP

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), 30 Dec 2015 as 37.217.133.213
 * 2), 31 Dec 2015
 * 3), 6 Jan 2016
 * 4), 6 Jan 2016
 * 5), 6 Jan 2016
 * 6), 6 Jan 2016
 * 7), 6 Jan 2016 after 3RR warnings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by myself, and  by user.

Article talk pages never used.

Comments:


 * User has reverted page numerous times by IP user. May also be a sockpuppet of User:Anusasana Parva, User:46.52.91.145, User:5.82.124.241, and User:37.217.77.80. Seeing as the there is a user of almost the same name editing the article, it could be a safe bet that this is a case of paid editing. Boomer Vial (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:84.143.229.44/User:84.143.229.135 and User:91.44.83.84 reported by User:Peter Isotalo (Result: protected )
Page:

User(s) being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: link

Comments: Three IP-users are engaging in groundless reverts of referenced content regarding sexism in Dead or Alive 5. At least two are most likely the same individual. No attempt has been made to use the talkpage.

Peter Isotalo 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Lostrigot (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

''' Comments: ''' They have been edit-warring between each other since a relatively long time. They have edit warred in List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. They keep reverting each other all time. and It's also important that User:Xenophrenic has been blocked seven times in the past, while User:Vellusammy created his account on 2 September 2015 and since then has edited only these two articles. This means he has edit warred in all (two) articles he has contributed to.Lostrigot (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (This is a duplicate of this report filed just above.) There was indeed a lot of hectic back and forth on those two articles between myself and the SPA, but all remaining editing concerns were hammered out and resolved (both in-article and on the Talk page) a couple days ago.  I haven't touched the article since then. (I'll reserve comment about a 4-day old account with fewer than 50 edits filing AN3 reports and templating editors.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic has explained more about his use of reverts for record-keeping on my talk page. I share his view that this is 'not optimal' and am wondering if this report should be closed with warnings to both parties. We don't usually sanction for wars that have stopped, assuming they have really stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic are warned. At Talk:List of wars by death toll there is over 100,000 bytes of discussion with only the two of you participating. At the same time, both of you keep reverting on the article itself. This is not good. If the two of you have strong feelings about this article you need to get opinions from more people. Consider WP:DRN or WT:MILHIST. If you just keep reverting each other (week after week) blocks will be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Euphiletos reported by User:5.198.127.32 (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User consistently editing out reliable sources on this topic in the introduction, and is also not providing an equal or better source whilst doing this.


 * Katietalk 21:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Ferakp (Result: protected )
Page:

User being reported:



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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edit warring warning link Dat GuyTalkContribs 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This page falls under WP:ARBEURO, so tread lightly. Katietalk 21:41, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:FriendlyFred (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Koshare_Indian_Dancers

Comments:

The article when I encountered it before Christmas had not been edited significantly since 2009, and had content drawn primarily from the Koshare's own website or from travel websites promoting the Museum and Dancers as an educational and entertainment attraction. Also, many of the links were dead so the information could not be verified. My research into Native American issues produced references to this topic, so I added them but also placed a NPOV tag to generate discussion, but none occurred. After a reasonable time I made changes, many of which were aimed at reducing the article to its essentials in preparation for implementing the merge with Koshare Indian Museum. That merge had been discussed and appeared to have been agreed upon in 2009 but never done. This editing eventually brought the attention of Kintetsubuffalo, who began by reverting or changing my content without discussion. His edit comments generally indicated his assumption of ownership of the article and assumption of bad faith in my edits. Eventually a section was created that presented the Native American content, and I thought the situation had stabilized. However I has unsatisfied with the wording on my summary of the content based upon the book Playing Indian by Philip J. Deloria, which seemed mealy-mouthed. Finding a synopsis of the book on the publisher's website, I added a forthright statement of the author's viewpoint on white people playing Indian in general. The book also refers to the Koshare Indian Dancers in particular, so this is not OR. It provides a context for the other Native American content based upon the writings of one of the best-known scholars on the subject. This prompted the edit war and an increase in the personal attacks and insults by Kintetsubuffalo that had previously prevented any useful discussion.FriendlyFred (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Azurachan reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: semi )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Characters */"


 * Diffs of reverts as an IP:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I have a strong feeling that this is just continuing their edit war, and attempting to dodge 3RR by using an account. Could someone either block both of them, since they're just SPIs, or semi-protect the article? It seems like a clear case of WP:DUCK. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(Azura): Block me for saying the truth to everyone? Oh how childish this is. Loewen is a mistake, Roen is the real name. Instead of acting like I was the wrong one, please seek some information instead of following FUNimation like a zombie after meat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azurachan (talk • contribs)
 * Katietalk 21:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Azurachan has also been warned to not continue edit warring once the protection expires (per their comment here) ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Azurachan has been blocked indefinitely per this. S/He has no intention of following policies and guidelines. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This artilcle has been stable for 6 years, and was accepted for WP:DYK with the current wording. This is a simple case of an editor who doesn't like US English, wording which is used on no less than 3 Featured Articles, 3 Featured Lists, and 9 Good Articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 1)  was not a revert.

A revert is taking an article back to a previous state. The first diff you listed was not taking it back to any previous state. Please see WP:REVERT for clarification.

I've made three reverts. So have you. Pot/kettle/black Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * actually, I was wrong. I'm sorry.
 * while I made three reverts on that article, you actually reverted it four times:

here are your reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Spacecowboy420, Dennis is correct. Your first change is your first revert for purposes of 3RR. You then decided to revert three more times for a total of four. One of the diffs you provided that Dennis made is not a revert of this content, and does not count toward 3RR for this incident. And can I just tell both of you that this one might qualify for WP:LAME? Good grief. Katietalk 21:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , User:72bikers has now reverted a fifth time. Apparently Spacecowboy420 is following me around to revert anything I do (this is how he decided he was interested in XR-750 to begin with), and 72bikers is following Spacecowboy420 around to support him. Be that as it may, obviously this is a 3RR violations by proxy.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has now been fully protected, but 72bikers is still in violation of 3RR and it's clear these two editors are stalking and hounding for the purpose of being disruptive, and carrying on a personal grudge. It has happened on other articles, and it needs a response. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:128.122.89.213 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698719194 by ScrapIronIV (talk) instead of editwarring, discuss on talkpage"
 * 2)  "discuss on talkpage first, as told previously also:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_York_University&type=revision&diff=681563970&oldid=681559952"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 698714785 by DatGuy (talk) mistake"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 698714157 by ScrapIronIV (talk) unjustified tag"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on New York University. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on New York University. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

COI editor at the subject university reverting multiple editors to remove the COI tag  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor seems to have something against NYU. They previously also editwarred to keep the unjustified COI tag, and was told not to do so without discussing the issue on article talkpage. They revert other legitimate edits at NYU also. Maybe they are one of these lol--128.122.89.213 (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My edits speak for themselves.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * BethNaught (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel an increase in the block length is more than justified by this and this post block pieces of abuse. 86.174.157.139 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Noel darlow reported by User:Trackratte (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User Darlow has reverted 8 different editors a total of 11 times over the past year, including 4 5 6 reverts within the past 24 hours so far. They have been told they are edit warring multiple times, and an ANI was opened roughly a week ago for their breach of WP:DDE, to no avail.

Previous version reverted to: verifiable version 8 different editors have tried to maintain

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 6 July 2015 Darlow reverts User:John Cross, removing citations and inserting unverifiable information in its place.
 * 2) 19 December 2015 Darlow reverts User:BritWPR, removing citations and inserting unverifiable information in its place.
 * 3) 29 December 2015 Darlow reverts User:Trackratte, removing citations and inserting unverifiable information in its place.
 * 4) 30 December 2015 same thing, Darlow reverts Trackratte, removing citations and inserting unverifiable information in its place.
 * 5) 31 December 2015 same thing.
 * 6) 31 December 2015 same thing (Trackratte followed steps 1, 2, and 3 of WP:DDE which states to revert each time if an editor continues to insert unsourced information, an ANI was then opened under DDE.
 * 7) 5 January 2016 same thing, but in reverting a restored version put in place by User:TheTMOBGaming2


 * 1) 20:03, 7 January 2016 same thing, Darlow reverting User:Miesianiacal, removing inline citations and replacing sourced info with non-sourced opinion.
 * 2) 23:43, 7 January 2016 Same thing but with User:137.94.1.144.
 * 3) 00:50, 8 January 2016 Same thing with User:Trackratte again.
 * 4) 01:51, 8 January 2016 Same thing with User:GoodDay.
 * 5) 03:11, 8 January 2016
 * 6) 03:28, 8 January 2016

The User has been told they are edit warring numerous times on the talk page. As well, an ANI was started for Darlow's repeated violation of WP:DDE ("persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable") 31 December 2015. Darlow has done two more reverts since he was warned of this edit warring notice.

Users Trackratte, Ninteyone, and Miesianiacal have all discussed this at the Talk page on multiple occasions, however it still remains unclear as to what User Darlow's objections are as they state they agree with the sources and facts, and want something similar in the lead as the other editors are proposing, yet continues to simply revert any other editors attempts to add verifiable sources (eight different editors being reverted to date) replacing sourced information with unsourced material, instead of any attempt to work collaboratively.

Comments: Given that the user has been simply reverting any other editor's attempts at making this article verifiable at an increasing rate, the latest being four reverts in a single day, and refuses to work collaboratively to improve the article and actively works against its verifiability, the user should be topic banned from this article for a given period at the very least. Particularly as they have been informed of edit warring and WP:DDE on multiple occasions (including an ongoing ANI) to absolutely no effect. trackratte (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This complaint is quite obviously vexatious. I have repeatedly requested (and latterly insisted) that attempts should be made to resolve differences of opinion about controversial changes to the article in Talk BEFORE making any edits to the article in order not to degrade article quality. User Trackratte has consistently refused to engage with points raised in any meaningful way and instead has (a) ignored specific requests to discuss the article content and seek agreement from other editors prior to making changes (b) has chosen to seize upon every excuse to escalate our disagreement rather than attempt to find ways to resolve our differences in good faith. The fundamental problem is that Trackratte will not (for whatever reason) acknowledge that we have a duty to draw a line between the symbolic function of a monarch in a modern democracy and the practical reality that they do not wield any real power. Noel darlow (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When you've reverted six times against three editors in less than 24 hours, this notice is not vexatious in the least. The rest of your complaint is smoke and mirrors to distract from the facts that content was discussed on the talk page, a proposal was made to which you didn't express objection, and you've persistently reverted the implementation of it, justifying that by claiming it hasn't been discussed. Additionally, you're deliberately confusing matters further with contradiction: you have been arguing at talk that you have a problem with wording, and not with the sourced facts, while "solving" the supposed problem with composition by just repeatedly reverting to delete the sourced facts and stating the matter needs to be discussed. It's a cyclical trap that prevents change, though you dress it up as the proper way to do things. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are deliberately misrepresenting my actions. I have attempted to maintain the integrity of the article by reverting what appear to me to be retrograde edits at the same time as (repeatedly...) suggesting a reasonable process by which we might attempt to resolve any differences - ie discussion and agreement prior to making changes to the article. You are welcome to continue to waste my time, your own time, and the Wikipedia admins' time as you see fit but the fact remains that sooner or later you, and others, will have to put away your smokescreen of grievance and deal with real issues which have been clearly expressed. The issue is primarily not about article content but about possessing the good faith necessary to resolve a disagreement. That is the first step you must take before we can even begin to discuss the real meat of any apparent disagreements. Noel darlow (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your chronic revert warring is the issue at the moment. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Darlow, you have reverted the same additions from eight different editors to date, deleting references and inserting unsourced material. You have done a total of roughly 14 reverts on the same topic, 6 of which have been in the past 24 hours, with 8 different editors in contradiction of WP:3RR and WP:DE. This has been an ongoing problem by you for well over a year now, and the number of editors involved shows that this is certainly not an isolated event, so please don't try and play the victim and pretend that it is. trackratte (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My name is not "Darlow". You can call me Noel if you like, or Noel Darlow, or Mr Darlow if you prefer. I believe I have good reason to attempt to preserve the integrity of the article while we discuss possible changes. As you are very well aware, the proper place to thrash this out is in the article Talk. If you were willing to have a real discussion where you meaningfully engage with other points of view we could perhaps reach a conclusion and then consider what changes ought to be made to the article. Based on your actions to date, I am not convinced that you are willing to do this but I'd be delighted to be proved wrong. Noel darlow (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Something was thrashed out at talk. Rather than express any objection there, you reverted its implementation six times.
 * You had the option to edit the article to accommodate the sourced material in a fashion you think is better and then see how others reacted to that. You chose instead to revert to delete the sourced material.
 * There's no getting around any of that. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact there has been no real discussion of the point at issue (how to present practical realities and legal technicalities in a non-confusing way) just denial and accusations of edit warring. I honestly don't know what you expect to achieve with your aggressive behaviour. Noel darlow (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dev raj gujjar reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pakistan"
 * 2)  "adding pakistan and notable section"
 * 3)  "/* Pakistan */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 698620535 by Sitush (talk) please don't remove, gujjars are present large amount in pakistan"
 * 5)  "dont remove pakistan"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Reported user is engaging in falsification of sources, adding unreliable sources, and edit-warring constantly. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  08:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * There have been numerous warnings etc given, including a notice of sanctions but the contributor keeps blanking their talk page. Discussions include here and here (latter just before their last revert noted above). I suppose the explanations could have been better but there are weird things going on here, including some peculiar statements on their userpage. - Sitush (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I also note that I have not added an additional revert of Cluebot out of courtesy for the reported user. Dr.   K.  08:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 16:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:66.122.182.234 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article was changed to a redirect to the main franchise article per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Land Before Time: Journey of the Brave. Various IPs have tried to create the article since that time which is probably what led to add Talk:The Land Before Time: Journey of the Brave to the article's talk page. This latest IP seems to be a WP:SPA who just started editing today for the sole purpose of trying to recreate this article without making any significant improvements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 16:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gap9551 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Seems convenient to revert twice stating basically "not needed" and then claim cited source on the third. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 01:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A few notes to the investigating admin:


 * 1) The 'warning' cited above was given after I made my 3rd revert, so it had little value as a warning. I was reported exactly 14 minutes later, before I had time to respond to it.
 * 2) I made the 3rd revert without realizing I made a mistake at that moment. I would not deliberately break such a rule, and I have since self-reverted that 3rd revert.
 * 3) On my talk page, in User talk:Gap9551 and User talk:Gap9551, I have explained my actions in more detail. You don't have to be concerned about further edit warring. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:100D:B000:B7B3:BD56:EB6A:4DC0:BFC3 reported by User:Newbiepedian (Result: semi )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Shaune is LYING about her age! I went to high school with her and she IS 49 years old!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Shaune Bagwell. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Different IP made same edit with same summary several times yesterday; unresponsive to talkpage engagement. Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 01:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 17:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gen Fed reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=697098924&oldid=695762822

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698952399&oldid=698951835
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698951508&oldid=698937810
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&type=revision&diff=698935380&oldid=698906694
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equipment_of_the_Royal_Malaysian_Navy&diff=698906539&oldid=698851052

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698953578&oldid=698942039

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698642043&oldid=698586991 also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gen_Fed&diff=698657544&oldid=698656301

Comments:

See also the histories of Equipment of the Malaysian Army, Royal Malaysian Air Force, Royal Malaysian Navy, SME Ordnance and DefTech. This is a fully committed PoV warrior who is wholly closed to discussion. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 11:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Samak reported by User:Bruskom (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Hi, please look carefully reverts by Samak. Urmia lake is located in historical geographical Kurdistan region, Iran and this user delete all of articles.. Please block it Bruskom  talk to me 22:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 11:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bruskom reported by User:Samak (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Hi, Please see in my opinion the talk page's Bruskom. Urmia lake is located in West Azerbaijan in Iranian Azerbaijan region, Iran and this user write this lake for region of Kurdistan..please consider itSaməkTalk 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 11:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF reported by User:166.171.185.208 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kamen_Rider_Drive_characters&diff=698920855&oldid=698814136

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:140:8200:DE:8873:CF68:1C56:27AF&oldid=698959603

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note: I am the IP editor 166.* - the following edits are mine:   166.171.185.208 (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:24.24.152.100 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Affluent was there several months ago...not sure why it's been removed?"
 * 2)  "Stop changing!"
 * 1)  "Stop changing!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles."


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


 * Comments:

IP edit-warring to add "affluent" to the lead as a description of a neighbourhood that judging by all official statistics isn't affluent... Thomas.W talk 18:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 19:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (removal of the same content including reference to CNN)

3RR warning:

I was not involved in the dispute. Axxion conducted edit war with other users without any talking.

Comments:

Axxion continued edit warring (5th revert) even after receiving a 3RR warning from me.

There are community sanctions in this subject area. They tell: "reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." This is a clear 3RR violation, "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The situation is partly misrepresented by the disguised editor (administrator) above: my deletion (twice such as this) of my own text (it had been me who had put it there in the first place) sourced by CNN article (should I cross myself while typing it?) was due to a sheer duplication of this bit: it was still there, at the top of the section. Other sources are referencing Twitter. Is it RS now? So what is written above is part misrepresentation (through overlooking, i suppose), part misinterpretation. The real problem is that the article continues to be vandalised by IPs as evidenced by the latest blankings, etc. It should be semi-protected, like all other Syria-related ones.Axxxion (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What "disguised (administrator) above"? My very best wishes is not an administrator. For the moment, all I've done is place a sanctions notice on the Talk page and notify TheWikiManRules, a new user, of the sanctions. Axxxion was notified in December 2015, although the notification wasn't done with the proper template or recorded at WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Still, I don't think they can reasonably say they were unaware of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I find the whole discussion misguided, if not farcical: Is our purpose to create good articles, or be continuously engaged in meaningless squabbles? It is quite clear that for the sake of the former, the article needs protection. As for " My very best wishes", I honestly do not know what this creature is. Another feature of meaningless overzealous policing of the WP: it has become too complicated to navigate: one needs to hire a specialised lawyer to suss things out.Axxxion (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't call another editor a "creature"; it's absolutely offensive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The revert war was being continued by IPs, so I've imposed semiprotection. Will leave this report open for more comments. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Axxxion and User:TheWikiManRules are both warned for 1RR violation. This should not continue. See WP:GS/SCW. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jaccy Jaydy reported by User:William Avery (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You can "support" the 4-th International via some other method (not rollback, new materials). Note: If Trotsky was very clever man - he could understand ideas of Marx on high level (not interpritation)."
 * 2)  "You have no other arguments, only vandalism against relevant materials. And war of edits. Reminder: Wikipedia is not the Fourth International under mass murderer Leon Trotsky. Read article about this man. Rivers of blood."
 * 3)  "Vandalism. One vandal uses support of other (nothing more). "This user is a Socialist." (supporter). Nobody will block me. Because I have no blame. Even id.ot understands aims of vandals (defend Marxism instead facts and high opinion).  & the 4-th Inter.."


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


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


 * Comments:


 * They violate the rules of Wikipedia. My main reply: "Wikipedia is not the Fourth International under Leon Trotsky !" I ask you use the common sense. I have no blame. Their aim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR :

"This user identifies as a Marxist." "This user is a supporter of the Fourth International" (under sadly known marxist Leon Trotsky). RonaldR has very great right be blocked. Is not about me. Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Jaccy Jaydy (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

User:108.26.39.208 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not really much to discuss on the talkpage, POV warrior complaining about a tangential topic, no response on their talkpage to my warning on NPOV (previous edit, since the diff link works for the second edit).

Comments:

Straight-up edit-warring over a couple of days to insert editorial commentary on a topic tangential to the main topic. At least in the form its been inserted, it wouldn't stand up in the main Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge either. I've reverted twice, so I'll take no administrative action.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:SupernovaeIA and User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: 1 (maybe wrong)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts (Suitcivil133):
 * 1) Diff 1
 * 2) Diff 2
 * 3) Diff 3
 * 4) Diff 4

These are just some of the most recent diffs. The dispute seems to go back at least three weeks.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: SupernovaeIA & Suitcivil133

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

Comments:

The personal dispute between these two editors dates back at least a year, see this rather distasteful comment from December 2014. With comments like this one, or this AIV report, to say nothing of edit summaries of the edits linked above, it's clear that neither of these editors is capable of engaging in discussion without accusing the other of misconduct. As such, I propose that the page be protected and both users blocked so that calmer heads may sort this mess out. Its worth noting that both editors have previous warnings for edit warring in other incidents. SupernovaeIA has a previous block for edit warring. Finally, a third editor involved in this dispute User:Alexiulian25 has been blocked indefinitely, mostly for behaviours unrelated to this. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the very lengthy statement. However you seem to fail to see what the consensus was for that particular article. I was simply restoring it to the accepted consensus version. If you trace back the archives of this article's talk, you will easily find what went on. SupernovaeIA (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

This user is with all due respect a Nepali sock puppet who is using several usernames and a IP originating from Nepal. He is identical to the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323". At least his disruptive edits are that. This individual is removing sourced material at will due to his bias. It obvious that he is a biased Real Madrid fan hellbent on disrupting data/information about FC Barcelona.

He is disrupting the consensus in the "Football records in Spain" page which has been upheld for years. Now he is removing sourced material and the reference that I have added directly from FIFA.com (highest football authority in the world) which confirms that the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup is recognized by FIFA as a major football honor. Moreover UEFA themselves recognizes it as the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA cup. In order for a trophy to be recognized as official in the "football records in Spain" page, RFEF, UEFA or FIFA has to recognize the trophy as official. In the case of the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup FIFA recognizes this trophy thus it must be included. Organizations such as the RSSSF and Association of Football Statisticians also recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup.

http://es.fifa.com/news/y=2009/m=3/news=-1040575.html

If FIFA did not recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup, why have they recognized the trophy as such? It's worth noticing that the key people behind the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup were members of FIFA. This dispute has prompted me to contact FIFA about this issue and I am 100% sure that they will confirm my stance, namely that FIFA does recognize the Inter-Cities-Fairs Cup as an official major honor just as the same UEFA recognizes it to be the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup. The only difference being that UEFA did not organize the trophy. If they had done so it would have been recognized by UEFA too.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This user is no doubt a sockpuppet of many other Spanish catalonia based users. She has been trolling the article for months now and reverting the consensus version. The way she talks is a complete WP:Attack on other users. The references provided have been in the article for a long time and supports the consensus version bot a pro barca vandals version.SupernovaeIA (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I semi-protected the article yesterday and today I discovered the edit-warring with over five reverts from each side. Now I fully protected the article (for a week, down from two weeks semi), and I recommend that both users be blocked for edit-warring and 3RR violation since both of them believe edit-warring to be a legitimate means of resolution of this content dispute.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kanbei85 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:Blocked 60 h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring inappropriately removed resource link. Undid revision 699173006 by Farsight001 (talk)"
 * 2)  "This reference was censored by a biased editor-- restored. Why they would allow ARN but disallow CMI is unknown."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 699057980 by Pepperbeast (talk)"
 * 4)  "Added relevant reference, one word changed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Blocked before for edit warring (hm, hadn't noticed that was by me), also edit warring at. Calling editors "dishonest" in edit summaries. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently freedom of speech doesn't apply to editor's summaries of why they make changes here on Wikipedia. Editors who censor people and apply double standards to what types of citations are allowed in articles are most certainly dishonest. Accusing someone of edit warring for simply attempting to keep a legitimate edit from being overrun by a mob of trolls who can give no good/truthful reasons for why they are reverting my edits is ALSO dishonest. In short, if you wish to exert the power of censorship to maintain the status quo of massively biased articles here on Wikipedia (at least when it pertains to creationism and other similarly-controversial topics), then obviously there's nothing I can do to stop you. But that won't change the facts, nor will it change the fact that you are assuming personal responsibility for part of why Wikipedia is giving such a twisted and unbalanced perspective in so many places. My edits have all been legitimate.

Kanbei85 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Kanbei85


 * Result: They were previously blocked for edit warring and do not seem to acknowledge that their five reverts is not an optimal way of operation.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Backwaters reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: before anything happened

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, but I had warned him to stop per WP:COI and WP:BLPN, no single attempt to discuss

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Requests_for_page_protection; User talk:Backwaters; and WP:BLPN

Comments:

It's enough. I'm quite sure Backwaters is Pitman himself, or at least he knows him personally. But this Wikipedia article doesn't belong to him. The article is greatly unsourced, but replace it with even more unsourced content is not OK, as is edit-warring rather than to discuss it. <font color="#000000">© <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555"> ™ (en-2.5). 20:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This will do for now. Further disruption may warrant a block &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  20:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Backwaters was only correcting a long unverified and unreliable source used: http://www.mygnr.com/members/chris.html This is not edit warring, but edit correcting with proper and verified information. Wikipedia:Reasons for deletion states: 6.Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) 3.Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish 14.Any other content not suitable for an encyclopediaBackwaters (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Backwaters (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zippy268 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User reported:


 * Version reverted to: 3 January: someone removed "particularly from diet" from the first sentence.
 * 1st revert: 03:18, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
 * 2nd revert: 03:25, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
 * 3rd revert: 03:35, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"


 * Edit: 05:01, 7 January: added citation tag after "particularly in diet"
 * 4th revert: 05:26, 7 January: restored citation tag after "particularly in diet"


 * Edit: 07:45, 7 January: added NPOV tag
 * 5th revert: 12:16, 8 January: restored NPOV tag

is a new account and has said he is a returning user. He may also be, who began this series of edits in December to prioritize the definition of veganism adopted by the British Vegan Society.
 * Comments

The issue is that lots of vegans (probably most) are dietary vegans only. They don't eat animal products, but they may still wear leather shoes, and so on. Ethical vegans go further and oppose all animal use. Ethical vegans often argue that dietary vegans aren't really vegans, and they arrive occasionally at the article to force their definition into the lead. That's what's happening here.

Zippy268 was warned at 03:28, 7 January about the edit-warring policy and about 3RR, and again at 20:42, 7 January. SarahSV (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The idea that I may be is completely unfounded. The issue in question is also being misrepresented by SarahSV  Zippy268 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sarah has described the problem accurately and without bias. I support a block on Zippy268 because he has not only edit warred after being warned multiple times, he has also engaged in IDHT behavior in every user and article talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Zippy268 is warned. They may be blocked if they restore the NPOV tag again, or revert the lead again, before getting a clear consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:L435534l reported by User:Noq (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 699157131 by Noq (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 699155726 by B m d (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 699154331 by B m d (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 699145107 by B m d (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 699144879 by B m d (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 699144597 by B m d (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 699144443 by B m d (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 699144233 by B m d (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 699144034 by B m d (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 699143536 by B m d (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 699142937 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 699140096 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 699138485 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 699101840 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 699101144 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 698986842 by 120.62.194.191 (talk) ... Hindi and Bhojpuri language and culture did not do anything for Jamshedpur. Bengalis and Bengali culture established Jamshedpur."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698986842 by 120.62.194.191 (talk) ... Hindi and Bhojpuri language and culture did not do anything for Jamshedpur. Bengalis and Bengali culture established Jamshedpur."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by Materialscientist. 198.108.244.62 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Skyring (Result:Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 18:06, 7 January 2016
 * 19:38, 7 January 2016
 * 19:42, 7 January 2016
 * 19:43, 7 January 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This really deserves an entry on WP:LAME (being an attempt by Dennis to preserve the nonsense word "winningest") but on researching Dennis's contributions to harassment of other editors for the ANI discussion here, I noticed that he had violated 3RRR, the last three reversions in five minutes. The article is now protected, but I think this pattern of hot-tempered behaviour needs some examination. --Pete (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is just re-litigating Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304. The same arguments above were given consideration, and rejected. The admin gave Spacecowboy420 a 24 hour block and it was resolved. So this report is just an attempt to try, try again? It's obvious Skyring is forum shopping, since he isn't making much headway over at AN/I, where these same editors are locked in another dispute, and where Skyring/Pete is likely to get a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, Today (UTC+0)
 * I have looked at the 3RRN report you link to above, and note that it was claimed your four reverts did not breach the rule because one concerned different material. Here is the rule from WP:3RR:
 * The three-revert rule states:
 * I think if one party to the edit war receives a block for breaching 3RR, the other party also breaching the rule deserves the same. Especially when the edit war is over a hot-tempered effort to preserve some nonsense word in an owned article. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You could have contacted the closing admin with your objections back when it happened, instead of waiting until you had other reasons to get angry with me and picking this issue as your latest ploy to attack me. Please stop Wikihounding me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been off on a week-long Sanskrit course, and have only just returned to the real world, as it were. Can't do everything at once and, trust me on this, Sanskrit is a topic that requires full attention. Rich that you accuse others of Wikihounding, when you devote your single-minded attention to anyone who disagres with you, including leaving repeated unwanted messages on their talk pages, when you have been repeatedly asked not to. It is clear that you broke the rules regarding edit-warring, and I'd like you to stand up and admit it, fairly and squarely. It was some days ago, the page was protected, and I dare say if you give evidence that you acknowledge the error and will not repeat it, you will not be blocked this time. --Pete (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what happens if I reply to you. You think you can out-talk anybody. Now you're rambling on about your weekend. Nobody has time to read all this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I see what happens if I reply to you. You think you can out-talk anybody. Now you're rambling on about your weekend. Nobody has time to read all this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do here, any block would be punitive not preventative. Close as stale.  -- GB fan 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Labattblueboy reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: no violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

Here's a brief overview of what I found so far, and I only went back as far as June before I quit. Yowza. Well, if this helps anyone, here you go. Sorry it's not formatted properly. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 05:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Actually, you didn't provide any diffs or links at all. Please follow the instructions if/when you make future reports. Katietalk 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Katie, I can actually read, there is absolutely NO requirement for a violation of 3rr to report or take action. as it says at the top of this page: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute", it is quite clear to me that User:Labattblueboy is doing just that. Please read *all* documentation if/when you reply. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What documentation? You didn't follow the instructions, didn't provide a single diff, didn't show any evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute, didn't show that you'd warned the other editor. Here is your only previous edit to this page, and it should have been turned down flat as a malformed report. This is the last I'll have to say on the matter, so hear it: Follow the directions next time, and don't snark at the admins when you don't get your way. Katietalk 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I was exactly as snarky as you were, so please take your own advice. It says NO WHERE that any of the things are *required* only recommended, so the report was valid, and if you took two seconds to look at the edit history of the page by that user you would realize that there is potential edit warring, but it's fine, just sit up there on your pedestal and go by the rules you think are written not the actual rules, that's what all the good admins do. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2.25.11.248 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked for 24h by SQL )
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:


 * A bit of a slow burn here (see edit history) which has speeded up today with four reverts from the IP, despite a warning and requests to go to the talk page. The IP has not responded either on his own talk page or the articles page. – SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another outbreak with another reversion from a different IP address (although again based in Scotland) despite the block still being in place. I've reverted per WP:Block evasion, but I suspect that the IP will return once again
 * Due to the block evasion by a second 2.25.* IP, I've semiprotected Potiskum Emirate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:184.100.184.73, User:184.100.252.129 reported by User:MaxBrowne (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP editor just reverts without discussing. Semi-protection requested. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. There is a dispute about the branding to be used for this organization: 'US Chess' versus 'USCF'. This needs to be resolved on the talk page or through the steps of WP:DR. See WP:OFFICIAL for the usual considerations on whether the organization's preference should be followed. There is a set of IPs who seem to be here to promote the organization's own position. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: /

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:34, 8 January 2016 by 94.159.177.65 (Undid revision 698738846 by Неполканов (talk) vandalism)
 * 2) 11:00, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698961396 by Неполканов (talk) restoring sourced citations)
 * 3) 12:05, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698970785 by Неполканов (talk) please do not make this into an edit war. Discuss the citations in Talk if you have a problem with them.)
 * 4) 06:30, 10 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 699057357 by Toddy1 (talk) a lot of work went into that please take your issue to discussion)

YuHuw admits to being the same editor as 94.159.177.65 here:
 * edit by 94.159.177.65 comment on talk page
 * edit by YuHuw signing the above comment with edit summary "I made myself an account"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karait -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * has only linked to the entire talk page, rather than give a specific diff. This diff is their only edit to that page as of now. Edit summary: "This is just another one of Kaz's POV forks". See WP:Casting aspersions. You have no evidence that this is the blocked user, and have not attempted to resolve the dispute on that talk page. I find accusations that this new editor is engaging in "vandalism" another distasteful casting of aspersions. Difference in point-of-view, sure, vandalism, no. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * . I have not accused YuHuw of vandalism.  In the list of diffs, I listed one for [14:34, 8 January 2016 with its time, the account that wrote it, and the edit summary.  As regards settling differences, the link to the talk page shows evidence of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page.  The reason no evidence of sockpuppetry has been presented on this page, is that this is the wrong venue.  (PS it helps a lot if you post your comments at the bottom of the page.)-- [[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Not having ever encountered the user before, I thought that the blanking of that article was simply an act of vandalism which needed reverting but I did explain my mis-assumption in the relevant talk page after that and the misunderstanding was overcome. (see my new para 3 here ) Although that User with a non-English Username (who originally blanked that page) is not here now, I would apologize to the User a second time for my mis-assumption if he wanted it, it was an honest mistake as I did not think he was a real editor at that time. YuHuw (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * He/she was not blanking the page. The page was originally a redirect.  On 31 December 2015 the redirect was turned into an article by 31.154.167.98.  Some people had/have a concern that the article was/is a WP:Content fork.  This view has been expressed both in edit summaries, and on the talk page.  The revert by  that YuHuw called "blanking" had an edit summary that explained the reasons for the revert, and that the revert was back to the version of 2008.--  Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyway I believe the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding between us and was resolved amicably on the talk page as has been demonstrated. YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask anyone who knows, are my comments below in the wrong place? YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I also ask if anyone here recognizes this IP address? 202.9.41.173 It looks like a WP:DUCK from User:Ancientsteppe and User:Toghuchar. YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I can see I have been named here although it seems a bit jargonistic to me. I will try to understand what is going on as until recently I have not really done much more than read and make spelling corrections on wikipedia. I come in peace! :) YuHuw (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I think there is a bit of bad faith about me being assumed by the User:Toddy1 here. First of all I was very polite to Неполканов both in the edit history and on the Talk:Karait page,. Although I perceived some disruptive editing and called for mediation and I have to confess I didn't understand every point he made  and as it seems English is not his first language although he does very well and things were resolved. I made sure each point he made was acted upon as you can see, , and  and also expressed my respect for his knowledge on Jewish topics and hoped we could work together in future projects.

As soon as we had reached a consensus and resolved all issues, along came the user who has posted this complaint, and reverted everything perhaps overlooking by accident our discussions. Instead he has assumed bad faith about me and called me "Kaz" or "Kazimir" over and again, , , , , , despite my requests for him to stop doing so , ,. Looking through his history, it seems I am not the only person he does this to, but apparently to everyone who presents a different view to his own on the Crimean Karaites (in this case I think i upset him by distinguishing Crimea from Ukraine ).

I have asked for discussion with the user but I was ignored and mocked instead.

I really have done the best I could think of to avoid conflict and resolve issues through discussion, but the User sees simply prejudiced against me. I would very much welcome any kind of mediation to resolve things between us so that we can both enjoy editing wikipedia in peace. YuHuw (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

70% of article deleted by Yuhuw. It is obvious vandalism: . Yuhuw is sockpuppet of hongirid and kaz. Their edits are very similar:, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25  (talk)  07:10, 11 January 2016


 * Please stop calling me Kaz every time you edit   , I have asked many times. Is this your IP Toddy1? Even if not, I see in the info provided above that you seem to have made the equation of Kaz and Hongirid first here-> is that right? May I ask why do you support the sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ancientsteppe) and how many times have you tried to scare people by calling them Kaz rather than discuss your issues? Don't you think it would be better to discuss your problems with Douglas Morton Dunlop's work on Karaits than hide from it by scaring people away? YuHuw (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The disruptive edits of Toddy1 and his IPs have been surpassed by User:DBachmann's work today which I hope will not be mutilated or reverted. I would hope User:Toddy1 regrets his support for the work of User:Ancientsteppe's spockpuppets and also regrets calling me a scokpuppet over and again so that we can put all thisbehind us.

In light of all these facts, may I respectfully request that this empty complaint be struck from my record please? YuHuw (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Closed as stale)
Page:

User being reported:


 * All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:40, 4 January 2016 "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited."
 * 2) 02:08, 4 January 2016 "You can't just say that. You have to WP:CITE it. If you can't be bothered to properly footnote, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia."
 * 3) 14:57, 4 January 2016 "per Template:Infobox television: "Reliable source required""
 * 4) 15:41, 4 January 2016 "Don't threaten me on my talk page. You're violating the outcome of the RfC, and I quoted directly from what the ADMIN directed be put into the template. I'll ask that same admin to speak with you"

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, 4 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on:
 * 1) article talk page: 15:53, 4 January 2016
 * 2) my talk page: 15:48, 4 January 2016

Comments:

In March 2015 Tenebrae opened an RfC at WT:TV about runtimes (archived here). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by Tenebrae in the RfC question, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for Infobox television, so that it supported his position. Recently Tenebrae has been removing runtimes from multiple articles, edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes. At New Girl he reverted an IP who had changed the runtime from "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", by removing the content entirely. After he did this a second time I reverted him as he has been misrepresenting the RfC outcome. (see below for further comment) He reverted that, after which I left a 3RR warning on his talk page. He then made his 4th revert at New Girl 4 minutes later, and only then did he start to discuss. Regarding the RfC, Tenebrae's question was essentially "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves". The RfC close was This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy. In a subsequent post as the result of questions, the RfC closer wrote The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time Unfortunately, Tenebrae refuses to accept this and insists that the outcome of the RfC was that citations are needed in the infobox in all cases. However, this is tangential to this report, which provides evidence that Tenebrae has reverted 4 times in 14 hours at New Girl, despite a warning, and that he has therefore violated WP:3RR. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As we know, 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of vandalism. Not abiding by an RfC is vandalism and deliberately inserting uncited OR in defiance of it is vandalism.


 * Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.


 * In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".


 * He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."


 * User:AussieLegend advocates for putting uncited running times and having us take his word for it. That's against Wikipedia policy, and between that and defying the RfC, he is committing vandalism.


 * He also deliberately misrepresents me. I never said running time has to be cited in the infobox; only that it has to be cited. I even stated this at Talk:New Girl here!: "Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox." So I have to question an editor who would deliberately tell an untruth that way.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And now I see that he himself has made the very edit I was requesting, giving a cite at . So he could have done this at any time, solving the issue between us &mdash; but instead chose to bait me? I think WP:BOOMERANG might be considered here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As I've already indicated on Tenebrae's talk page, per Vandalism, Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The RfC did not close with a consensus and RfCs are not binding. There is nothing in any of the multiple reversions of Tenebrae's edits by 3 different editors that identify them as vandalism. Therefore, Tenebrae can't claim to be reverting vandalism.
 * he himself has made the very edit I was requesting - I was too busy dealing with your edit-warring at multiple articles. As I indicated to you on my talk page, you could have just challenged the content with citation needed and left it at that, which would have simplified the situation. There was no need to edit war after I warned you.
 * I don't intend commenting further, except to note the incivility here when he berated the IP for not including a citation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Arguing that "RfCs are not binding" seems an argument of truly last resort. The RfC ended with the consensus that you can't just guesstimate running time and have us take your word for it &mdash; as the closing admin said, the entire question was moot since we can't have original research, which you were advocating. The admin made very clear, in his own words, that "a reliable third party source is required." Choosing to deliberately ignore this cornerstone policy after being reminded of it isn't "bold" &mdash; editing against a cornerstone policy isn't "bold". It's the definition of vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And I am truly getting tired of User:AussieLegend's half-truths and misstatements. As for his claim of incivility, he notably fails to point out that the edit-summary came after this polite first one which the edit-warring anon-IP chose to ignore.


 * One additional note: He hypocritically doesn't seem to care, or to note here, when his friend is uncivil toward me. AussieLegend was involved in the discussion where user:Davey2010 said, "you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy" &mdash; in violation, I might add, of the dictum that the burden of citation falls on the editor who adds claims to an article. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just one observation - Me and AL have very rarely contributed together - Infact I can't remember the last time we even spoke so you can drop that card for a start! - I simply saw the runtime removal and disagreed with it, I stand 100% by that comment - AL never added the runtimes in the first place so you should've added a source instead of being lazy which could've prevented all of this mess!, All that aside you did edit war repeatedly, After AL reverted you you should've stopped and had a discussion but you instead edit warred repeatedly and I guarantee had I not reverted you would've carried on anyway .... – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In this seemingly never-ending array of picking and choosing which Wikipedia policies and guidelines some editors choose to follow, I must point out &mdash; for the third time, since this is one User talk:Davey2010 chooses to ignore &mdash; that WP:BURDEN says (boldface from the page itself): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So who is the "lazy" one, sir? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And incidentally, I was the one who did start a talk-page discussion, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Which you did only after you'd violated 3RR, here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was never any outcome from the RfC that said runtimes must be cited. You said that yourself when you said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. The concern here is that Tenebrae is arbitrarily removing runtimes, sometimes even removing the entire parameter, without even giving editors the incentive to provide a citation by adding citation needed. More relevant to this discussion is that he has demonstrated that he is willing to edit-war instead of collaborating with other editors to provide an outcome that actually improves the encyclopaedia. You even suggested I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. Tenebrae never even did that, which would have solved the problem once and for all. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not an outcome from the RfC, that's canonical policy. WP:V. Runtimes, like everything else, must be verifiable by reference to reliable independent sources. That doesn't prejudge where it's sourced (you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body, referenced back to a source), but you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include challenged material, to justify and source its inclusion. That is absolutely core tot he whole ethos of Wikipedia. It's not specific to runtimes. I am not going to explain this again. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, film and television plots aren't usually referenced by anything verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That may very well be true, and if so, the figures should be removed per WP:V. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the plots should be removed? Because if you do, there are a fair few FAs that will need to be delisted... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:V requires that all content be attributable to reliable sources, it doesn't require that everything be cited. As I've explained below, the runtimes don't fall under "likely to be challenged", so there is no normal requirement to cite every one. If Tenebrae adds citation needed instead of deleting runtimes that encourages editors to add citations and eventually it will encourage them to add citations without prompting. However, it was explained at the RfC and prior to that at at Template talk:Infobox television why TV episode runtimes are difficult to cite. Runtimes can vary significantly throughout the history of a series, so the time in the infobox is only an approximation, usually a close one. Even reliable sources can be confusing on this. For example, this one shows episode lengths of 22 minutes for most episodes, but one is 24 minutes. Season 1 though had several 22 minute episodes and several 21 minute episodes. Other programs, like Top Gear can have episodes that vary in length from around 50-65 minutes. To cite Top Gear properly you'd need 22 citations, one for each series. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged - That's not correct at all. The only person challenging runtimes is Tenebrae. Runtimes don't seem to be challenged by anyone else so they don't fall under "likely to be challenged". Tenebrae's method of dealing with runtimes is counter-productive. He deletes the runtimes instead of challenging them with citation needed and, from what I've seen, does very little else in TV articles. In a few days, weeks or months somebody comes along, doesn't know the runtime has been deleted and adds it again, putting the article back to where it was before Tenebrae came along.
 * you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body - I guess you don't edit many TV articles. This is something that is almost never seen in TV articles. Generally, the only mention of runtimes is in the infobox. However, this is all tangential to the issue, which again is that Tenebrae, rather than editing collaboratively, violated 3RR at New Girl after he was warned. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:V:
 * All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.
 * It does not say how many people have to be likely to challenge it. You cannot possibly claim that you are unaware it is likely to be challenged. Now stop playing silly buggers and get on with adding properly sourced content. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How is runtime different from plot content? And those FAs also have uncited runtimes... So should we start tagging those?  The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Using Guy's argument everything on Wikipedia is likely to be challenged and therefore everything should be cited. Infobox television is used in over 36,500 articles and runtime is only ever challenged by Tenebrae in a handful of articles. On this occasion it was because he was following an IP who was making good faith edits, so he hit more articles than usual. Using a bit of common sense tells you that runtime is unlikely to be challenged. A single editor with an agenda doesn't make it likely. But again, this is supposed to be about Tenebrae's violation of 3RR. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's a precedent to be set here. If User:JzG is happy to overlook the 3RR based on a need to provide a verifiable source for the run time of a television episode, yet we have featured articles which don't even do this, and massive sections of FAs which have not one single verifiable secondary source for the plot section, there's a fundamental problem with JzG's "absolute" claim.  I would like to see JzG comment back here with regard to the fact that he is clearly unaware that many FAs don't do what he expects, as a minimum, and therefore re-appraise this notice in that context.  Or else I'd like to see  doing the right thing and start tagging all those issues on all the FAs because, after all, those items appear on the main page from to time, so heaven forbid one does without a run time that is verified by a reliable secondary source.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, the closing admin of the RfC, isn't ignoring 3RR at all. Once again: 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Deliberately inserting a clearly disallowed, OR edit after being told that it violates both core policy and an RfC closing is both vandalism and pointy disruption.

Some articles don't cite running times? That doesn't set a precedent, as the editors in this discussion surely know and some choose to ignore. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes. I don't believe that is a viable or responsible argument. We can cite runtimes &mdash; even User:AussieLegend did so, albeit grudgingly. I don't know why anyone would spend so much time arguing not to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If run times now need a citation, like plots do (if that's what JzG is claiming) then we have a large issue that needs further discussion. It also renders this discussion somewhat moot until it's resolved.  I'm not sure I understand why a whole plot section can go without a single citation (presumably because someone has watched the movie and written about it) yet the run time (which is trivial in comparison) suddenly needs a citation.  It's utterly illogical and actually shows that some editors are more here to pursue inconsistent and pointed wiki-lawyering, and not to improve Wikipedia.  Please be advised that if this report closes as JzG seems to wish it closed, we'll need to start addressing all the FAs and GAs that have entirely unreferenced plot sections, and I will be using this discussion as the precedent to do so.  So let's get this right. (P.S. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes not just that, one of us is asking why plots can go citation-free and run times, according to you and JzG, can't.... Answer that please).  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I wish the waters weren't being muddied, I hope not deliberately, by this tangential foray into film plots. The pertinent MOS at WP:FILMPLOT cites Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction and for use of primary sources to state clearly that a movie itself is used as the source for the plot. Alright?


 * A quantifiable measurement, like running time, is completely different. So let's not suggest that the sky is falling, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one is making such a suggestion, I wonder why you start acting so defensively? I am simply examining the claim made by JzG that everything should be verified and of course film plots have no such verifiable secondary sources.  Of course, that is more absurd than getting highly strung about a runtime (which, of course, is as easily observable as a film plot).  The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am prepared to overlook AussieLegend's deliberate violation of WP:V, his wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like, and his transparent attempts to trap Tenebrae into a violation he could report. I'm even prepared - for now to hold off requesting a community sanction forbidding AussieLegend from adding unsourced runtimes. I'm prepared to overlook this because they are both behaving like children, and although blocking them both would be temporarily satisfying I am not convinced that it would be anything other than retaliatory by now. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @JzG: Agree. But if you close this report, please try to do so in a final way that will keep the same dispute from showing up at other articles. Warning one or both editors that they might be blocked if they continue is one option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This has become absolutely ridiculous. I made no "deliberate violation of WP:V" as claimed by Guy. That's crap. To go back to evidence that I've already presented, because people are seemingly ignoring it:
 * Tenebrae started an RfC asking effectively "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves".
 * Guy closed the RfC stating Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. This caused confusion so he clarified that in a subsequent post.
 * The clarification stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. Nowhere does the close say that citations have to be included. In fact Guy's clarification specifically states that his close only applies to the use of OR.
 * The final sentence in the closer's clarification sums up the close well: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. In other words, nothing changed. The requirement to cite runtimes was not added.
 * Despite what seems clear wording, Tenebrae was reverting changes by an IP saying in his edit summaries "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited". However, as indicated by Guy's clarification, the RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used, and the template documentation only says what it says because Tenebrae added it to the documentation. Well, actually it doesn't say that any more. The requirement to cite was removed later and the documentation now only says "Reliable source required", which Tenebrae clearly agrees with. Because somebody will no doubt fail to check the edit history I will point out that my edit immediately prior to his was a simple formatting change for consistency, which Tenebrae reverted in his edit.
 * It was because of this clear misrepresentation of the stated outcome of the RfC that I reverted Tenebrae, not as a wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like. That claim by Guy is also rubbish. We have had lengthy discussions about this, resulting in this "compromise" series of changes to the documentation: That being the case Guy has no basis on which to claim that my actions were wilful.
 * I am not sure why I am being targeted by Guy here. I wasn't the only one to revert Tenebrae. There were at least two other editors who did so. It seems a bit of a vendetta, simply because I opened this report. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * While I'm loathe to respond to this litany, with its spectacularly annoying green typeface, I need to respond to claims that an admin and I both somehow misinterpreted the admin's own conclusion and that only this editor interprets it correctly. RE: "The RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used." First, WP:VERIFY applies to all circumstances of quantitative claims. A close doesn't have to tell us to follow a core policy. We just follow core policies. Second If OR is "not ... used", then ipso facto, one is citing one's claims: If one can't or won't say where a claim is coming from, then it's coming from oneself. That's OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * So WP:V doesn't apply to qualitative claims all of a sudden? Where do you get that idea?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea I said that?? We're talking about running times. Running time are quantitative. This reads as if you're trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters by bringing in tangential, unrelated topics. We are only talking about running times.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, we're not, you are. Just above, JzG quotes from WP:V that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." which is clearly untrue for film plots, episode plots etc.  Run times can be determined as easily as plots.  Watch the film/episode.  You seem upset by the idea that it's important to consider your curious half-attempt to use WP:V in this context doesn't cut the mustard.  After all, why aren't you worried about the swathes of text in the plot sections which can be challenged?  I didn't see the part of WP:V that stated it applies to "all circumstances of quantitative claims".  Can you point me to it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Um ... no, we are only talking about running times. I think User:AussieLegend and I would agree on that.


 * All of WP:VERIFY itself supports that we cite quantitative claims. We can't just make numerical claims and say "take my word for it." That's so basic.


 * If you were familiar with WP:FILMPLOT, you'd know that movies themselves are allowed as the primary source for a plot, since a movie can be viewed for verification.


 * "Run times can be determined as easily as plots." How? With a stopwatch? As the closing admin noted, that's original research. We can't measure a TV show's running time any more than we're allowed to measure a car and give its length without citation. You're arguing against core Wikipedia policies. I'm not sure what the point of that is. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You're clearly misleading yourself, which is a little odd. Let's look at what you've just said: "a movie can be viewed for verification" yet it can't be viewed for run times?  How inconsistent.  You claim "All of WP:VERIFY itself supports that we cite quantitative claims" yet V doesn't mention the word "quantitative" once.  How odd.  I am commensurate with WP:FILMPLOT (as apparently you are not) but this flies in the face of the admin's claim that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." (per V).  Since when did MOS guidelines supersede Wikipedia policy?  You are clearly advocating that we argue against core Wikipedia policy.  "I'm not sure what the point of that is [sic]".   The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

. This discussion has wandered quite far from the topic of edit warring. The reported reverts occurred 11 days ago, and no further evidence of impropriety has been submitted. If participants would like to continue the fun, please do so elsewhere. larryv (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gorin1245 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It was wrong action who is targeted against the University of Toronto also (1). You need respect the victims of Communism instead very strange motivations."
 * 2)  "I think he was right when made the suggestion continue discussion here: User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ypu need respect the rules of English Wikipedia instead Marxism or Leon Trotsky."
 * 3)  "Your possibility in many times more (vandalism and etc)"
 * 4)  "sockpuppet of Marx (RonaldR). VANDALISM and etc. And I can call friends. They wish know Jimbo Wales better"
 * 5)  "You can be blocked in any second (war of edits). And vandalism for the good of offender Trotsky. Bloody offender."
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Suspected sock of editor already blocked for the same edit-warring. RolandR (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

by Barek as a sockpuppet of Jaccy Jaydy. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaccy Jaydy and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521/Archive. All these editors (possibly one person?) are concerned about the Russian Orthodox Church and have strong political beliefs which are hard to understand.  According to this editor, we should remember that Wikipedia is not the fourth International under Leon Trotsky. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Maunus (Result: 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I get:


 * 1)  "/* Provenance */ RELIABLE changes made to show part of the message on the KRS is valid, making the stone itself valid, also."
 * 2)  "/* Provenance */ Yes, verifiable provenance is continued."
 * 3)  "/* Provenance */ KRS Inscription Verification"
 * 4)  "/* Provenance */ This information is verifiable.  I will file a complaint against you for needless tampering, if the situation warrants it."
 * 5)  "/* Provenance */ Vital information"
 * 6)  "/* Provenance */ I include a PDF showing proof of locating the lake with 2 skerries.  If it's good enough for the MN Historical Society, it is good enough for Wiki."
 * 7)  "/* Provenance */ Valid information."
 * 8)  "/* Provenance */ Change showing part of the message of the KRS is true.  This is important to the issue."
 * 1)  "/* Provenance */ Valid information."
 * 2)  "/* Provenance */ Change showing part of the message of the KRS is true.  This is important to the issue."

There's also an ill-informed(wrong nationality for a start) attack on me at my talk page. Doug Weller talk 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: I weep for the future of the project)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 699461283 by Legacypac (talk) It is disruptive to remove AfD templates while discussions are open. The discussion cannot be closed as speedy keep because an outstanding delete !vot"
 * 2)  "Restored AfD template. Discussion still open at: Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 699364094 by Legacypac (talk) Article is at AfD, and the blanking removed the AfD template."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Harassment of other users on List of classic rock songs. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* January 2016 */"


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


 * Comments:

Plus reverting my close of my own AfD as a withdraw. and harassment on my talk page. User appears to be annoyed at some of my other editing activity and is acting like a complete troll here. I see no reason they will not continue reverting indefinitely. Legacypac (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * continues to remove the AfD template from List of classic rock songs (diff, diff, diff) and has repeatedly closed the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs (diff, diff). Such closure is not allowed per WP:SK, because an outstanding delete !vote is present the discussion. The user also removed my comment from the deletion discussion in the second instance, which I had to add back. My actions have been entirely guideline-based. North America1000 13:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The withdraw was before the delete vote and my actions are entirely within SK#1. NorthAmerican is just harassing me because a pageant articles. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this notion is mistaken; there's no stipulation at WP:SK that said closure is allowed if the nomination was withdrawn before anyone !voted. The exact wording in the header of WP:SK is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." North America1000 13:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for quoting and making my point. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because creation of this discussion has made me involved in matters regarding the deletion discussion, I will leave it to another administrator to re-open the AfD discussion if they deem this to be fit. North America1000 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As far as I know you can always withdraw your own nomination and perform a non-admin closure, regardless of outstanding votes. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * From my experience, such withdrawals are not allowed when outstanding delete !votes are present. In this case, the closure disregards the delete !vote by another user in favor of their own view, which is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. The early closure resembles a speedy keep one, because the discussion was closed before the seven day period has occurred. North America1000 14:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So you say people are prohibited to change their mind due to some essay? That sounds a bit strange... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The close resembles a speedy one. See WP:SK and WP:SK. The essay link above is provided as advice. Essay's are not policies or guidelines, of course. North America1000 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See also WP:WITHDRAWN, part of the Deletion process guideline page, where it states, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." (Bold emphasis not mine). North America1000 15:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What a lame edit war. If Legacypac had closed the AFD instead of just putting the withdrawn statement we wouldn't be here but since he didn't we are going to invoke bureaucracy and say he can't close it.  -- GB fan 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with GB fan and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG at the most/WP:TROUT at the least for Legacypac. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)::Nice misunderstanding of GB fan's comment and why the heck are you deleting my comments  ? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just my 2¢ - The nominator can't withdraw if there's a delete !vote present ... (I ended up at ANI over closing one of my AFDs as withdrawn as there was a delete !vote present and was told I shouldn't close if there's a delete !vote.... So we can't have one rule for one and one for another), All that aside I see alot of sourcing by NA1K and alot of removing and warring by LP .... WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * the withdraw was before the delete vote in this case. NorthAmerican was reinserting unsourced junk until forced into providing sources. That got their tail in a knot I suspect. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never known that you could not withdraw your nomination and close it yourself after somebody had voted. I doubt that the warriors knew that upfront of this drama. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another Support for boomerang following this revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't usually remove other user's comments as Wikielvi did here and then when an editor puts their own comment back call that a revert. Some competence is required to comment at 3RR. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Noting that Legacypac has now taken to harassment on my talk page for commenting here and for reverting his removal of NorthAmerica's comments at the AfD. He's been told to stay off my talk page, yet, he keeps posting bogus warnings on my talk page. ;   This is obvious retaliation; I can't support more strongly that a boomerang is appropriate here. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikielvi is dead wrong. They removed my comments, and I restored my comments. Warning them for their inappropriate actions is appropriate, and if it continues I will take it further. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Take it furher? What like this example? Let me know when tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing Leave the AFD open, nobody reverts anybody any more, nobody reports anybody at AIV/AN3 anymore, nobody drops a template on anybody's talk page anymore, people participate in the AFD if they want to, and move on with their lives if they don't. In short, everybody pretends that they're all grown up, and that everyone around them is a grown up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * – Since this report was brought against me, it is fair to mention that this was a boomerang situation, whereby the creator of this discussion was blocked for edit warring in relation to this matter (diff). My edits were simply following proper procedure in re the AfD matters, as per WP:WITHDRAWN, and did not constitute edit warring. North America1000 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually it was edit warring and you are getting off easy. None of the edit warring exceptions are for being right. <b style="color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> 05:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DudeImNotBobby reported by User:Widr (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "These nice boys make good rocking tunes, have you ever listened to any of their music?"
 * 2)  "False positive by ClueBot, everyone in the band is nice and capable of playing good rock and roll music."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 699620056 by 209.166.98.97 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Cited information on their official twitter regarding their musical style and nature."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 699755601 by Widr (talk) Verification needed on these nice boys not making the good rocking tunes. Reverting Widr's vandalism in the meantime."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Warning: Editing while logged out. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Apparently also editing while logged out. Widr (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC) 67.185.39.32 is my IP address, the edit you are referring to is from 104.34.188.177, ergo you are incorrect on the matter of logged out edits. DudeImNotBobby (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what you are saying on my talk page. Trolling perhaps? Widr (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP on your Talk page is my IPv6. This is my IPv4 address. You can feel free to WHOis search all the IPs and verify locations. You should refrain from accusing other users of "trolling" unless you have a valid backing to the claim.DudeImNotBobby (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DudeImNotBobby has been indef'd, so this can be closed now. Widr (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * by Bongwarrior. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Snappy and User:Gob Lofa reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported: and


 * Previous version reverted to:

(Snappy's reverts)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 699424709 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 699527847 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop edit warring. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 699591009 by Snappy (talk): Restore reliable references, stop vandalising. (TW)"

(Gob Lofa's reverts)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 699424709 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 699527847 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 699591009 by Snappy (talk) Stop"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 699751176 by Snappy (talk) Restore reliable reference (see talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Since at least 18 December. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Aren't you leaving someone out? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Slow-running edit war beginning late last year and involving two editors reverting each other slowly enough to avoid an explicit breach of 3RR. Recommend a block for both: edit-warring is lame. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is actually a shocking edit war that is clearly out of control. Both editors are highly experienced and should know better. Both editors have also had plenty of time to take the initiative to stop edit warring and seek dispute resolution. Neither has done so. I will also note that this is not the only page this users have disrupted with edit warring. Blocks are clearly in order but will not be applied evenly:, with nearly 100k edits and 11 years of experience has only received two minor blocks for edit warring, none since 2013. Snappy is . on the other hand, has amassed a significant block log over the past two years, clearly has a history of serious disruption, and was blocked for edit warring as recently as last August. Gob Lofa, being on much thinner ice as far as disruption goes, really has no excuse as they have clearly been given more than enough rope up until now. Gob Lofa is . Regards,  S warm   ♠  21:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)