Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive308

User:Jewjoo reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: Duplicate)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I don't care that your pc is disfunctioning, details on page 312 - its a RS. stop it, ur being disruptive. pls go and buy book. u are calling me a liar - stop it"
 * 2)  "pft, heres link with extra info to link to page 312. btw shes proud of, not derogatory. change text if not 100% ok, pls don't delete"
 * 3)  "heres your Rel Source - any more excuses avoiding truth of someone signing name to this??"
 * 4)  "yes her name is a signatory on that page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Meryl Dorey. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Regarding book citation"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Meryl Dorey. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Some sources for consideration"


 * Comments:

I think the diffs stand for themselves, I did try to work with the user to resolve this. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Unhappy that I pointed out that the book has a blank page (my computer isn't malfunctioning) where he says there's content to support his addition and that the other source is considered unreliable per Wikipedia guidelines. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok have ur way Chrisw80 and delete the RS, ur the only one who cant see page 312 (btw RS don't need to be no net - remember!) and use it as an excuse to get nasty, report me on this page without substance, deny a RS on a page and u have a a problem with medical theory of aids dont u?. its pathetic and abuse of power some may say. to all others heres the page 312 that Chris cant see on purpose to support his excuses https://books.google.com.au/books?id=647iSGYuEa4C&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22meryl+dorey%22+aids+theory&source=bl&ots=UIVa5oPH1O&sig=n_LX2BcDstMygSxIbGsPjwdiHGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsjd23mf7KAhXKppQKHTgcCKMQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=%22meryl%20dorey%22%20aids%20theory&f=false Jewjoo (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, as I've explained previously, my concerns are only with whether the sources are verifiable/reliable and (at this point) your behaviour surrounding the repeated addition of the content and incivility towards others here. I have been civil with you, I would appreciate it if you return the favour.  I tried to work with you to resolve the disagreement you are having with myself and several other editors.  I'd be happy to work with you, but we all need to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * per below Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Arnav19 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Currently airing 2016 */"
 * 1)  "/* Currently airing 2016 */"
 * 1)  "/* Currently airing 2016 */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

He keeps creating articles on dubbed TV serials, not original ones, even though it is discouraged here. He does not respond to warnings, and reverts edits by those who oppose him. Examples: En Anbu Thangaikku, Priyamana Thozhi (TV series), Poomagal and Moondru Mudichu (TV series). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with the above. Dubbed serials are usually simply redirected to the original serial's page or hould have a small section referring to the dubbed version on the original version's page. Most of the time, the actors and technicians are unaware of the dubbed serial being screen else where - and it is usually hastily put together by a distributor with local dubbing artistes to make quick bucks. The same goes with dubbed films. The editor in question has blindly reverted some of my edits too, without discussion. Editor 2050 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

203.158.49.44 reported by User:Wcp07 (Result: )
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:

203.158.49.44 and other related IPs continue to make POV edits to the article without discussing them on the talk page, despite being advised to do so. The user appears to be disgruntled by the planned conversion of the Bankstown railway line to the Sydney Metro and wants to advertise that on the article page. The user's edits involve using POV language ("downgrade", "unfit for purpose") and not using references to back up his/her assertions (e.g., that the Sydney Metro will be a "low capacity" service). Despite warnings on the article talk page and user talk, the user continues to make these edits. It seems like a block might be the only way to curb his/her behaviour. Wcp07 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the page, but it seems that the IP changes too much for a block to be likely. If I see anymore edits, I'll take it to WP:RPP -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

User:209.66.197.28 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: 31h)

 * Page:, , , many others
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "enough bullshit with the wrong characters.nobody in taiwan uses the wrong tai anyways. stop reverting wtf."
 * 2)  "wrong.nobody uses that tai in traditional. the taiwan on taiwan beer is there because it was founded under japanese ruler. nobody uses that taiwan."
 * 3)  "wrong characters removed"
 * 4)  "stop reverting to completely wrong chinese characters!"
 * 5) Many more, see user contribs


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  on Talk:Chinese Taipei
 * 2)  on Talk:Puzi


 * Comments:

Can administrators please take action already? This disruptive IP has been edit warring for weeks across a number of articles against multiple editors. An ANI complaint was filed last week, in which at least five users complained about the IP, but it was neglected by admins and became archived before action was taken, leaving the IP free to make disruptive edits again. Zanhe (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take action. Note that this user was reported last week on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I have put a lot of effort into attempts to engage him in dialog on several talk pages since February 9th, most recently on Talk:Taipei, but he has steadfastly refused to discuss, apparently preferring to edit war. Phlar (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Put an end to these abuses. This user has been distracting lots of serious editors from their work far too long. I wanted to explain them why all their edits are against the manual of style for China related articles and why their use of the  parameter of template  for Tongyong Pinyin is incorrect but they don't show any interest in discussion or cooperation. Instead they keep doing the same thing that seems ideologically motivated over and over again. Do something now. LiliCharlie (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aricialam reported by User:Reiuji (Result: protected)
Page: Calvin Cheng

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #1[diff] Comments:
 * 1) 2[diff]

Editor Aricialam has been previously reported and warned by several editors for edit warring. The result of that was the page being frozen. Notwithstanding this, for the past few months now,User:Aricialam has reverted more than 20 edits in an attempt to keep the Calvin Cheng page as a piece of puffery. Myself, User:Lemongirl942, User:Khairulash, User:JQTriple7, several anonymous editors around have all tried to improve the page but are all getting reverted by Aricialam. My previous attempt to raise the issue on the talk page was met with the section on the talk page being deleted wholesale by Aricialam. Clearly this user has not shown any intention of engaging in any serious discussion and is merely using reverts and delaying tactics to wear out other editors in an attempt to keep the current state of puffery.

Reiuji (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have now engaged with Aricialam and some progress has been made. I do not feel any action is necessary at the moment. Reiuji (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Fez120 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See talk page! Sourced content is wrongly interpreted."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 705489621 by FkpCascais (talk) No reasons were given for last revertion."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 705469498 by 23 editor (talk) The text in the source is presented as accusations, not as facts. Also why did you revert my changes?"
 * 4)  "/* Aftermath (post-1999) */  FRY accusation to gather support for their case are not facts. If y2000 incidents happened surely there must be better sources."

The user was blocked for 31h for edit-warring on another article (also covered by discretionary sanctions for Balkan-related subjects; diff for DS-alert) 10 days ago so they know the routines.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

POV edit-warring, repeatedly deleting sourced content they disagree with. Thomas.W talk 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that he also commented in article space.--Z oupan 21:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days by User:Slakr. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * also WP:ACDSed to 1RR for 3 months, too. Twice in one month isn't a good sign. :P -- slakr  \ talk / 04:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon self-reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: warned/troutted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

I am self-reporting myself for edit warring. I have no excuse, but as an explanation, I simply forgot about the first revert (in the body of the article) and thought that I was at 3RR for my reverts of the infobox -- and I really should have stopped at 1RR or 2RR. I am well-aware of our policy, and clearly violated it. For what it is worth, I apologize and I won't do it again. Please note my record: over 30,000 edits and ten years as an editor with zero blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rainbow trout transparent.png Troutted &mdash; And here. Take an . Now just chill, take a deep breath, and either use the talk page or get some fresh air. Just don't do it again, because it's a WP:ACDS area and self-reporting what appears to be an honest mistake will only ever work once, if that. Be a cool voluntary 1RR-er like many of us. -- slakr \ talk / 03:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, and thanks. 1RR it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bonadea reported by User:Spidermanandsuperman (Result: Reporter blocked)
<!Article name :List of records of India

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

<!Please take necessary action <!Bonadea is sock puppet of nsmutte.Bonadea name entered in to the list of Nsmutte sock puppet list <!Please take necessary action(1000mnb (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) Please verify the primary and secondays sources of this matter .This is indian record created by a doctor,can see in primary source. .←So kept in the "list of records of india"page.I cant understand what is the mistake in this.Bonadea and releted socks wantedly try to delete this above matter from the page many many times.It is purely personal attack on the doctor(1000mnb (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Obvious block evasion. is an obvious sock of Sockpuppet investigations/Nsmutte, continuing a long-term pattern of harassing Bonadea, including by making frivolous edit-warring reports. The OP is a blocked sock, as is, who filed another frivolous AN3-report against Bonadea yesterday. Thomas.W talk 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious block evasion by Spidermanandsuperman/Nsmutte.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:71.17.185.31 reported by User:Jess (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Comments:
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   01:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W and User:Sapphorain and User:LouisAragon reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result:filer blocked 24h)
These user work as a cartel - a tricks to show that a single user is against multiple users. - Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported: and  and
 * Comments:


 * Baseless nonsensical allegations against three users. Hmmm... what's that thing flying over there... - LouisAragon (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A totally frivolous report in retaliation for the report above. Thomas.W talk 15:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sure, always I prefer to discuss so I explained my "logical" reason, but apparently you along with your friend are doing "Edit-War". Perhaps some editors here think that Wikipedia belongs to them and their friends!"
 * 2)  "As mentioned in Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti article it was ruled by Iran ["...from bringing it fully back within the Iranian domains."]whereas Iran was NOT ruled by Russia, but also it lost "ONLY A PART OF" its territories which means totally different."
 * 3)  "As mentioned in the article Qajar is "AN IRANIAN DYNASTY" So, the next dynasty must belong to Iran not other country such as Russia or any other county."
 * 4)  "losing a part of a country by another country is a usual matter in history. It is not an exception."
 * 5)  "Russia is unrelated to this article that is about history of Iran"


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


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


 * Comments:

POV edit-warring against multiple editors. Thomas.W talk 14:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

edit-warring against "multiple editors" or a "cartel!" ? Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC), clear 3RR violation and I see no discussion at the talk page Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Satesclop reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Catalonia protected)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multi-user edit-war among no less than three articles and probably more than those. A current flare-up of nationalist vs. separatist sentiment among Spaniards. Page protection has been declined. Elizium23 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It is absolutely false. I am not nationalist. The user Elizium23 is clearly separatist and supports that the articles of three regions of Spain include maps as if it they were countries or Europa's nations, and they only are regions. It is unacceptable that these maps appear and it has been discussed in the corresponding pages. Satesclop 03:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

. I have full-protected Catalonia for three days, as that has had the most back-and-forth on it. In his defence, Statesclop has stated his position on the talk page, and while Basque nationalism can exhibit some of the most contentious politics in Western Europe, I have to assume good faith he is trying to get a consensus for his changes, so a block is not appropriate. If the other two articles exhibit similar levels of edit warring, consider filing a request at WP:RPP. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since we can't edit the Catalonia article anymore, I request to recover the text and the maps that most users agreed to display — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 16:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In my opinion Satesclop's behaviour is not good as he's constantly edit warring and he's done canvassing — Jɑuмe (dis-me) 16:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * With all respect,, you may have overlooked data, Satesclop's attitude is nothing short of "my way or highway", breaching the basics of WP at all levels, consensus and trust of the editors. The disruption of Satesclop on other pages may continue for the boredom of other editors. Please do read the talk pages, there is no consensus attempt at all, only rant. I do not understand the comment on Basque nationalism (irrelevant), we could go through details on Spanish nationalism or mafioso policies of some political agents if you want, which I do not thing applies here anyway. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read the talk page. I don't see much discussion before January, and following that I would say that Statesclop has generally responded in kind. All I see is a few editors complaining that somebody has a strong POV they don't like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Well, that is not what I am seeing with my own eyes and what other contributors are seing. Check out this and this, and this, plus the following WP:JDLI tantrum of the editor in question. You know, good editors are leaving the EN WP because of this kind of Satesclop interventions with no consequences. Plus the editor has engaged in canvassing, plus... (sigh). Iñaki LL (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's funny that a user that just puts his point of view in edit summaries and talk pages, does not dialogue with other users, and has no problem to break any rule to impose his POV — including canvassing (see, , , , , , , etc.) and sockpuppetry (see ) — can go through an edit-warring inquiry with no consequences. No wonder that good editors are discouraged. (Yes, Satesclop has finally been blocked indefinitely for using a sockpuppet, but that doesn't wash the stain of this inquiry.) --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 14:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Aelimian21 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 705868049 by Qed237 (talk) Please, inform me why you are repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 705863724 by Qed237 (talk) It is adding more detail."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 705857428 by Qed237 (talk) Why?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 705847574 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 705846570 by Joseph2302 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring against multiple users at 2015–16 Norwich City F.C. season, 2015–16 West Ham United F.C. season and 2015–16 Southampton F.C. season. Editors User:Joseph2302 and User:Andre666 have opened discussions at User talk:Aelimian21 and User talk:Aelimian21 respectively, but despite that and warnings for edit warring the editor has continued their disruption. Qed237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 02:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, I've made clear at their talkpage that the WikiProject Football consensus is to only list a player's primary position, not all of them. They've made no attempt to communicate or try and gain a new consensus on the matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have simply tried to put more detail onto the page, I don't see the consensus. You are the one Edit warring because you were the one that was repeatedly reverting or undoing to protect your preferred version.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to receive a explanation on User:Joseph2302, as I have opened a discussion on his page.Aelimian21 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It was posted on my userpage, not my talkpage, so it was deleted.
 * Also, my talkpage comment and the other one clearly explain that no other Wikipedia football article does it- the reason is it clutters the page, has little value, and is unsourced.
 * Also, I made 2 reverts with clear edit summaries and attempted to talk to the user- they have made 5 reverts, and so unless they self-revert, they should be blocked for violating WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor has continued doing the same thing on other articles and show now sign of listening and following community consensus. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree a block is overdue, their editing is disruptive, edit warring, and in some cases just plain incorrect (Graham Dorrans has not played much or at all at RM or LM for Norwich this season, so listing him as either is just plain wrong). And their "discussion" on my userpage was just telling me not to revert them, which is not a discussion at all.
 * Possibly a good-faith editor, but needs to learn to cooperate with other members of the community. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't personally see how it "clutters the page" because at most maybe 3 positions more will not be a inconvenience. I should listen a bit more to others, but as should you as I just want to see were it says that only the primary positions should be shown. In 2015–16 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season some of the extra positions were there already, I simply added more. Graham Dorrans has not played much at RM or LM for Norwich this season, but he has played there before. Aelimian21 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So Dorrans shouldn't be listed as playing there in this season's article, since that's entirely misleading (he hasn't played there this season). Same for about half the positions added on the Norwich season article, they haven't played there.
 * And as explained at your talkpage, more information isn't always necessary, per WP:INFO. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dorrans has played there in the past, which allows people to see the positions he can play. In this case it is necessary to provide info. Aelimian21 (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user has continued with the war even while this report was open. If this continues a longer block is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexander's Hood reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:30, 19 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:55, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 20:30, 19 February 2016‎)
 * 2) 17:51, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
 * 3) 17:54, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 17:26, 20 February 2016‎‎
 * 4) 18:49, 20 February 2016‎ (reverts to 18:39, 20 February 2016‎
 * 5) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (reverts to 18:49, 20 February 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (also warning earlier in edit summary here)

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

Comments:

FWIW, I think 'more eyes' are needed on the article-in-question, concerning the content being disputed. Dare I say it, an Rfc might be required. BTW - such an Rfc, won't be started by me. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Alexander's Hood is not as new a user as the account's edit history might suggest. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe SPI, is the proper place for that. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

In fact, User:Miesianiacal is conflating separate issues and also overlooks his own edit warring. For example:


 * 1) 17:53, 20 February 2016
 * 2) 17:35, 20 February 2016
 * 3) 17:01, 20 February 2016
 * 4) 22:49, 19 February 2016

In any case, the issue seems to have been resolved. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's evident at least one of those could in no way be classified as a revert. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Similarly, you class as reverts this edit and this edit which do not touch upon the content of the article at all but in which I removed your tag with an edit note explaining how, in fact, your tag was unwarranted -and you do this despite the fact that your subsequent edits appear to accept the source as legitimate. These last two edits are quite separate from the other three and conflating them in order to create the impression of a 3RR violation is unwarranted, particularly as, again, your subsequent edits accept the validity of the sources.Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what a revert is. But, it's not me you have to prove anything to. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't occur to me that the last two edits counted as reverts and I have accordingly self-reverted the last two edits and will be more careful in future. However, I think you should attempt to be more collegial in your editing and less belligerent and perhaps this tagging dispute could have been handled better by raising it on the Talk page. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your "self-revert" restored the tag but reverted my additions and changes to the third paragraph. So, your tally still stands at five.
 * I suggest you not be hypocritical about other people's attitudes. You won't win hearts and minds that way. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried to be accommodating but since you're after a pound of flesh I am voluntarily ceasing editing for several days. Alexander&#39;s Hood (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a WP:RETENTION member & this type of reason to go on a wiki-break, isn't nice to see :( PS - Return soon, Alexander's Hood. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, in view of User:Alexander's Hood's agreement to stop editing the article for several days. It would be helpful if people will try editing more slowly on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

User:WrestlingPS456 reported by User:Krj373 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Seems to be edit warring on wresting based pages. Not quite sure what is going. May be a sock puppet of banned user. I am not familiar with the subject matter to understand what is going on. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 15:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Appears to be an ongoing ANI report about the same user. See WP:ANI. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – as a sock by User:Materialscientist. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Martimc123. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 2)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 3)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 4)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 5)  "/* Jack Ruby */"
 * 6)  "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
 * 7)  "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
 * 8)  "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
 * 9)  "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
 * 10)  "/* Mafia Boss Carlos Marcello */"
 * 11)  "/* Santos Trafficante */"
 * 12)  "/* Santos Trafficante */"
 * 13)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 14)  "added materials re Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello and findings of House Select Committee on Assassinations"
 * 1)  "/* Allegations of other conspirators */"
 * 2)  "added materials re Jack Ruby, Carlos Marcello and findings of House Select Committee on Assassinations"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Assassination of John F. Kennedy. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Adding unsourced, poorly formatted, content with fake references and POV wording. Will not stop despite multiple warnings. Account makes similar edits across several articles dealing with American politics. Disruptive editing, rapid-fire edit-warring. Dr.  K.  23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Blocked by for 48 hours.  Dr.   K.  23:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Acroterion, as noted. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:100.43.29.68 reported by User:Jess (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 706228630 by Jess (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 706197407 by Jess (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 706081604 by Theroadislong (talk)"
 * 4)  "Craig is as much of a philosopher as Plantinga or Dennett. Go look at Dennett's article and notice how he isn't referred to as an "Atheist Philosopher". Look at Plantinga's article and notice how he isn't referred to as a "Christian Philosopher"."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* What's an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* What's an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? */ Reply"


 * Comments:

Note the first edit is a revert of content that has been extensively discussed over the last several years. See, for example, this edit and the talk page. Given the ip is at 4 reverts, I'm not sure if a block or temporary page protection would be most appropriate. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As an IPv6 joined in the war, a block may just lead to them IP hopping. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Opdire657 reported by User:104.162.193.17 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

User has been blocked before for edit warring and continues to persistently push POV and edit war, despite being warned numerous times.

104.162.193.17 (talk) 05:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP is not allowed to edit or file reports because of the WP:ARBPIA3 restriction. Blocked them along with the coordinated IP Special:Contributions/2604:2000:F20E:2800:7135:8C2:C554:2169 might help. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 reported by User:2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 13:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 13:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Comments: The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4. In spite of being blocked many times for breaking 1RR, he continues to edit war & broke 1RR again. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Those were size changes, not really anything related to content. In any case, I fail to see any good reason why you reported me, other than to get me thrown off of Wikipedia. In any case, the vast majority of your written arguments are biased and inaccurate; they sound like personal attacks to me. By the way, you can't report someone just some users are complaining or have personal issues with another. Also, the way you wrote about me sounds like you might be a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of a former user who was blocked from Wikpedia (though I could be wrong); there were multiple users blocked, some of whom are now socking, due to violating Wikipedia policy in that topic. BTW, I did not turn every single user against me, and I was not "blocked many times for edit warring", and I do not "continue to edit war" (the last time that happened was in November 2015), at least not intentionally. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But if what happened constituted edit warring in any manner, I deeply apologize. It was not my intent, and I will take more steps in the future to prevent or mitigate future conflicts like this one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The reported user found nothing better than to edit himself the "Result" of this report as "No action". This is highly unethical and deserves a sanction in of itself. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:C453:D029:C2B6:89C2 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that anyone could close off cases (esp. if it got stale). However, you cannot call down punitive measures on other users, not only is that bad faith, it is also a violation of Wikipedia conduct. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . S warm   ♠  00:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: All parties warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was a dispute over some sections of the article which led to edit war between FreeatlastChitchat. Thanks to Toddy1 and HyperGaruda, we were trying to build a consensus. Suddenly, FreeatlastChitchat jumped in and started reverting without paying attention to the ongoing discussion on the article talk page (which he himself had started but had not led to consensus yet). Anyway, after his jump I reverted his edit and asked him not to be disruptive and pay attention to the current discussion. To my surprise he reverted me once again and claimed that there was a consensus over what he alleges (which was clearly not true!). Note: The reported user has been blocked five times till now (three times for edit warring). Moreover, he were unblocked by slakr provided that he attempts to self adhere to WP:1RR (his contributions shows that he has shown zero effort to respect WP:1RR). Mhhossein (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Explanation for EdJohnston who was kind enough to ask about this on my TP. So here goes. The simple fact is that three editors agree with me that the text I removed falls under WP:COATRACK, one of them is the longtime editor and admin Drmies, the other two are also editors in good standing. However IF the nom can PROVE to anyone that the text is not WP:COATRACK I will accept any sanction given. On the other hand if the nom cannot give even a single argument for his editing, then the question should be "why did he revert me?" and he should be blocked for 24 hours as per his disruption. This is wikipedia, not a playground. A revert should be made only when you can argue for something. If you do not have rationale you should not revert simply based on the fact that someone has agreed to 1PR; for in this case you are just harassing that editor. As far as the ongoing discussion on TP is concerned, it is about other things, not about coatrack. The issue about coatrack has already been decided. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rationale aka defence
 * First, there's no consensus on removing all the sections regarding the events (as you did). Second, I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP, ignoring which you did what you wanted. Two of us were mentioning that the article needs some information on "on the holiday as it is celebrated nowadays", and "how are their actions related to the historical events from 1979". Anyway, it's not a matter of WP:COATRACK or other things, you're edit war is discussed here. Third, At EdJohnston's request I can provide some other violation of WP:1RR by the reported user. Mhhossein (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein Firstly I hang my head in shame when I see that your sole reason for reverting me is "I simply reverted you as there were an ongoing discussion on the TP". Discussions are ongoing on TP All the Time, you should first see if the discussion is about a certain topic or not. The discussion about coatrack had been concluded, hence my removal. Secondly please stop this foolish forum style posting. You made a report. I made my defence. Let admins decide. If you want to make additional comments, fine with me, make then in the comments section. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, there were no conclusion over that! before you started your second round of reverts, you asked me and HyperGaruda if we were agreeing that they were coatrack, and I told you what my concern were (HyperGaruda did not make any comments). BTW, I see that multiple warnings and blocks has not made you refrain from calling other's edits "foolish". FYI, this is how we usually discuss in Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with "forum". Mhhossein (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein as per your own words your "concern is on the fact that the article lacks information on "how the holiday is revered in Iran" nowadays." How can you address WP:COATRACK concerns with a comment saying that the article "lacks information"? Seriously dude? Did you even read the coatrack essay? Just for once, read the guideline and policy. To be frank this is just a mockery of editing! Someone says there are coatrack concerns in their edit summary and a guy reverts them by saying "Yeah dude the essay lacks information" and then lodges an edit warring complaint. Really? I mean Seriously? I think WP:BOOMERANG of a 24 hour block and a reprimand should be served now, seeing that he himself gave the diff which brought to light his "grave concerns" which he had about the article, and perhaps the next time we won't have to go through this waste of time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a clear "No" in my comment. Are you trying to see it? Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein for that "NO" you should be blocked for 24 hours and given a stern warning. Saying "NO" is not enough, you must give a reason. As I said before this is not a playground. Why are you digging yourself deeper into this hole btw? Furthermore I will not be replying here anymore. Perhaps User:Drmies will be kind enough to take a look at this thread and close it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I had clearly explained why I was not in agreement. You're again uncivil enough to call my attempt to gather more views "ridiculous" (however it's more polite than using the "F" word (and it's derivatives such as "what the f**k and Shut the F**k up), "[you have] mental disease", "you are a liar" and etc). Stop block block block please. Mhhossein (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

He also reversed me 4 times over the last few hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC) And before you claim anything, correcting an obvious mistake is not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked the case. Both of you had clearly violated WP:3RR, as I explained below. Mhhossein (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: All parties are warned against further edits that don't have consensus support on the talk page. There is now an open RfC on the talk page; please use that to resolve the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston I would not open this topic (and a RFC), if I were to make further edits. Did you just notice that I was talking about an edit warring trend? The user is clearly accused on another case. Anyway ... . Mhhossein (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein TP discussion shows that 5 editors disagree with you with no one agreeing to you coatrack, your RFC shows that no one agrees with you. Show some good grace and let it be. Bottom line. The text you want to insert remains deleted unless you can address WP:COATRACK concerns. What you call a "trend" on my part is something normal wikipedians do all day long. i.e remove policy violations. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See the the other topic reporting you. You are already guilty of violating 3RR. Mhhossein (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SethAdam99 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:SethAdam99 has also had several warnings for disruptive editing. Nikki ♥  311   02:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As well as a final warning for pretending to be an admin on his user page. B. Mastino (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 14:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreddyNietzche reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked indefinitely as not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I'll say it again: "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. Please look up the definition. Also, this article states Graf is currently in Russia where he works as a translator. THAT is his occupation. A real occupation."
 * 2)  ""Holocaust Denier" is NOT an occupation. Please look up the definition of occupation! How can this page state he is a translator working in Russian and at the same time list his occupation as "holocaust denier"?"
 * 3)  "I've changed Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist. The word denier is used as an ad hominem because of its negative connotations. Moreover it is not accurate as Graf does not deny the events but instead revises them. "Denier" is an ideological word."
 * 4)  "I changed Holocaust denier in occupation to historian. "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. It is also a ridiculous ad hominem to name a revisionist historian a denier. The occupation historian is more accurate description in this case."
 * 1)  "I've changed Holocaust denier to Holocaust revisionist. The word denier is used as an ad hominem because of its negative connotations. Moreover it is not accurate as Graf does not deny the events but instead revises them. "Denier" is an ideological word."
 * 2)  "I changed Holocaust denier in occupation to historian. "Holocaust denier" is not an occupation. It is also a ridiculous ad hominem to name a revisionist historian a denier. The occupation historian is more accurate description in this case."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Our sourcing policy */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on David Irving. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jürgen Graf. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

pov editor edit-warring removing "holocaust denier", material sourced to a high court judge, etc. Doug Weller  talk 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 18:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:79.44.13.105 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:58, 20 February
 * 2) 11:56, 20 February
 * 3) 12:46, 20 February
 * 4) 14:33, 20 February

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Uninvolved myself FreeatlastChitchat must know 3RR - there is an ongoing discussion above about FreeatlastChitchat violating 3RR on an other article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Uninvolved myself None of the users involved discuss, all just edit war one with the other

Comments:

I am not involved but saw this. Everybody has done wrong. Two IPs have changed the template arguing "sufi isn't a school of divinity". Uncorrect behavior but not vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat reverts 4X in 4 hours. Having the right version is not an excuse for 3RR violations. As I'm not involved and all have erred, I restored the version FreeatlastChitchat prefers, but must also report FreeatlastChitchat - an established user should know better. Particularly when the user is already involved in ongoing report for 3RR violations on different article. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverting an IP hopper whose edits are pure troll behavior with religious bias is allowed. I had requested page protection but there seems to be shortage of admins on RFPP I presume. This is not a matter of "whose version is better" this is simply a vandal abusing multiple IP's. He has been trying it at another page as well, but that too is being reverted. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. You have the right version but the others are not vandals. They explain why they change, they argue "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is not right, but is not vandalism. You do not have the right to revert them 4X even if you have the right version. Template is now protected. If the other changes IP, they are also guilty of 4RR but still not vandalism. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * btw this report smells to be frank. MR anon IP guy just how exactly did you find this "template"? Templates are not normally read by "readers", and without a watchlist it is impossible to check them for changes. So just how DID you find out that this edit war was going on? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked history. So what? It would not matter if I said 'divine inspiration', both you and the others edit war no matter what I saw. And do remark that I support your version and I restored your version. Why talk about me? What does it matter for your edit war? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh but how did you "chance" upon this template page? Templates are not for our readers, they are usually not even known to most readers. How did you come to visit this page which is tucked away. Just asking FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My interestes are Zoroastrianism and Islam. What does it matter? You edit war 4X and you make it sound that I am the one who did wrong. Did you edit war? Yes, four times. Can anyone do a report when they see edit war? Yes, I think so. If you edit war 4X, why discuss me? Is the issue my interests in Wikipedia or is the issue your edit war? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Everytime you post a report. Your own actions are scrutinized. It is quite amazing that a person who has not edited a template till now is able to first of all "find" that template and then edit it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. Now you have scrutinized my actions. I have explained them. Now I scrutinize your actions. Why do you edit war? An user did a report on you few days ago. Now you edit war again. Perhaps you did edit war also earlier. If you know the rules, why you break them so many times? 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * removing vandalism of IP hoppers is not "edit warring". You will have to explain how you "just by accident" chanced upon a "template" . "Just" when this was going on. A hell of a coincidence, don't you think. If you say you wanted to edit the template, then "where is your edit"? You did not put in any text or take away any text. So what where you doing at the template page? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is my edit . My first edit. You see I answer when you ask, you never answer. Why you edit war so much? You say "vandalism" but that is not vandalism. The IP did wrong, but did not do vandalism. The IP thinks "sufi isn't a school of divinity". That is wrong, but thinking that is not vandalism. You behave in way like you are the judge here when you are person who did edit war. 79.44.13.105 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You press the E button to edit the template. Sufi is not a school of divinity. Why does this keep getting added when there is no proof that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.201 (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * that is a revert not an edit. Where is the "edit" you came to this article to do. You see only editors with accounts have watchlists, so if you are claiming that you do not have any account and did not see the "changes" made to the template. Just what were you going to do "had we not ben warring as you say". The non suspicious pattern is that if an IP editor goes to an article they may red it or edit it. Templates are not usually "read". So what were you doing at that template MR IP guy who seems to be quite well versed in wikipedia policies for first time user. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion on the template's talk page per WP:BRD. I see that there's been a protected edit request by IP 213.205.198.201 stating that "Sufi is not a school of divinity." (rightly rejected by an editor other that FreeatlastChitchat as the WP:BURDEN is on those making the declaration to bring WP:RS demonstrating this to be the case), and a comment by IP 84.13.168.43 also stating the same. This does not make the reversions by FreeatlastChitchat 'edit warring', but standard procedure in the case of vandalism, POV removals of content, etc. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:BURDEN? It says that the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with be editor who adds or restores material. It is not my duty to prove that something is false it is your duty to prove that something is true. I am trying to fix an obvious error and somebody keeps reversing. Sufi is not a school of theology. Prove that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not the duty of Wikipedia to prove that something that you perceive to be untrue, is indeed so. Erasing content that is rightly sourced is POV vandalism, and will not be tolerated. Also, I've read through the talk page for Template:Sunni Islam, and no where do you specify what is incorrect, and how it is incorrect compared to Sufism, or the many references that counter your point. This would also mean the burden to prove that it is untrue would be on you. Otherwise your edits are WP:POV, and also WP:OR seeing as you have brought zero references to back your claims. Boomer VialHolla 03:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that WP:BURDEN is relevant in the context of its inclusion being the long standing version of the template, meaning that it is the WP:CONSENSUS template by default. If you wish to change a consensus template/article/list, the onus falls on the editor/s wishing to remove the consensus content to demonstrate that the redaction is not a POV and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy: You said that FreeatlastChitchat's reverts were not edit warring rather it was a stansard way of dealing with vandalisms and removing POV. Your argument is basically wrong per WP:3RRNO. Although 3RR rule has some definite exemptions, non of them justify FreeatlastChitchat's edit warring! Was he fighting an obvious vandalism (page blanking and adding offensive language) ? Not actually! was it removal of clear copyright violations and such things? was it violating WP:BLP? No! He should not have engaged that war and he should have avoided violating WP:3RR. The reported user were blocked 3 times for edit warring so he clearly knows what "edit warring" is! I'm not endorsing the IP's persistent edit warring. In fact both of them did the wrong thing! Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read Template vandalism. Did you also not note that IP 84.13.168.43 (see here) and IP 213.205.251.204 (see here) are one and the same person? In other words, that user was attempting to change a widely used template (and the template has been placed under pp now). The policy you are invoking is not as absolute as you seem to be reading it as being, and the issue of where editors are overstepping the bright line and where they are not has been discussed over and over at the Village pump and the AN. Please don't invoke policies as if they were cut and dried with no room for leverage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole flipping point is that it isn't "rightly sourced". In fact it has never been sourced. There is absolutely no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. No proof has ever been given. Where are the references? There isn't one. So stop claiming that there are "many references". This is not vandalism but fixing a clear error given that there are zero proofs to back up your claim. As for your claim to consensus, then this has never been discussed in the first place. It was added a few months ago by a banned user so should have been reversed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC) If anything, I am the one reversing to the consensus version!!! You are the one reversing back to a version by a banned user!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The location is identical. But one of the IPs is dynamic while the other one is static. One is provided by "Talk Talk" while the other is provided by "Orange mobile". Even if we assume they're the same, so what? It's not the case here because a bright line (3RR) is violated. Sorry, but your argument is again not sensible to me. How (why?) should we ignore the violation of WP:3RR by both of them? The policy is clear and I think those exemptions certainly provide enough "room for leverage." The case is even more clear if the disputed content had was added by a banned user as "213.205.251.204" claims. Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well,, I went through the history to see when it was introduced earlier on in the piece (which is why I previously noted that this seemed to be a long standing consensus version). None of the editors with accounts or IP editors were banned, and it was not eliminated by other editors active on that template since being introduced in June 2015. Perhaps IP 213.205.251.204 can edify us as to who this 'banned' editor is... and include the relevant diff? I know that you have another dispute going here, having reported FreeatlastChitchat above, but the editor is a newbie and is entitled to a little leniency when slip-ups occur in good faith. Personally, I see a reprimand and warning to be adequate, but I am not going to look into or involve myself in your report against the user. I do think it best that an admin step in and evaluate the situation. I hope that you understand that I've involved myself in good faith and bear no animosity towards you. I sincerely hope you get this sorted out to everyone's satisfaction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that both parties User:FreeatlastChitchat, and User:213.205.251.204 are in violation here. However, User:Mhhossein, FALCC was reverting because the IP editor was removing information under the basis of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also, FALCC might of been blocked previously for edit warring, but that does not allow you the HYPOCRISY to remind ATONED editors of past misdeeds. I'm pinging a few administrators (mainly those who have previously dealt with FALCC) so this problem can be resolved. Boomer VialHolla 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't introduced in June 2015. That's just not true. The editor who introduced it is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheDestroyer10 and he added it on the 17th dec 2015 at 19.28pm. Before then it did not exist. It was never discussed. No proof was ever given for this claim. Even now no proof has been given. I was right to remove this unsourced, unreferenced false information that was never discussed and was added by a banned user. You are wrong to accuse me of vandalism. I was reverting to a consensus version. You guys are reverting to a version by a banned user. Says it all really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.204 (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please proide an actual diff to when the content was added to the article? Boomer VialHolla 06:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Boomer Vial this edit was the one which introduced the text. The editor in question did a huge amount of work on the template and all watchers were happy with his work. He is not a banned user, rather he has done quite a good job of cleaning up and organizing the template. Furthermore, we never source anything in the template itself. The sources aka rationale for inclusion is found in the article itself. So anyone who wants this out is welcome to argue at the Sufism page, where he may encounter some laughter, but then, that's what happens when you argue against such obvious things. I'd like to point out that trash talking about another editors hard work is a mightily low blow, especially when the editor in question has done such a good job on the template. To be frank, not every single thing on wikipedia needs a TP discussion, the editor who inserted this was being watched by quite a lot of uninvolved guys, and our lack or reverting should be considered our consensus. I am kinda surprised that someone who is jumping IP's in order to insert a highly POV edit is not being considered a vandal. It is basic IP abuse to be frank, and POV edits on templates from such users are blatant vandalism, hence fall out of 3PR. Had the said user opened up any TP discussion giving any rationale, I would have engaged them on TP. But seeing that that they are jumping IP's to vandalise, I reverted them as a vandal, which thier edits show them to be. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't 'talking trash' about you at all. I'm sorry if my edits were perceived that way. Also, the edit the IP editor is quoting is one of theseedits from December 2015. This would be incorrect, seeing as you just provided an earlier diff from April 2015 where Safi is included in the article. Again, I just want to convey that I'm absolutely assuming good faith here, and I want to apologize for saying you were in the wrong. I was going to quote the fact that you are under WP:1RR, but I decided against it, seeing as this is a case of IGNORE. I've also strikeout my above statement. I do stand by my statement towards User:Mhhossein about reminding ATONED editors about past misdeeds. Boomer VialHolla 07:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Well that's just a bare faced lie. It was NOT introduced in the April edit you provided. In fact that edit actually agrees with my one. How ironic!!! The actual edit that added Sufi was. It was added by a banned user a few months ago and was never discussed. So it is not vandalism to remove unsourced, unreferenced content added by a banned user that was never discussed. It is vandalism however to keep adding this unsourced content 4 times in a few hours as you did. You really ought to be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See this edit no Sufi in the template, See the second edit big fat Sufi in the template. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you on about? Both edits give the same list for Schools of Theology. They are: Athari, ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. There is no mention of Sufi as a school of divinity/theology in either edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please go to this, press control + f, and type in sufi. You'll see it right on the page. If you can't see it, I don't know what to tell you. Boomer VialHolla 07:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of Sufi in either edit. It does not exist. Do a search for Sunni schools of divinity. You will only see Athari, Ilm al-Kalam, Ashari and Maturidi. Look at the source for both edits and you will not see Sufi at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, all, for typing in June when I meant April of 2015. IP 213.205.251.63, I don't know what you're looking at, but it seems strange that at least 3 other editors can see it as such: "Sunni schools of theology" - Ash'ari, Maturidi, Sufi, Ahl al-Hadith or Athari". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Iryna Harpy for your civil response. I see your good faith here, just like what Boomer Vial is doing here. But I think we're missing the point, the reason I recalled FreeatlastChitchat's block log was to say that he had been well aware of what he was doing and I can't accept that he's a newbie. Anyway, even if we suppose that the IP was a vandal (which is not a case here till now!) the policy (WP:3RR) emphasizes on "obvious vandalism", i.e. edits such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Did the IP blanked the page or did he used an offensive language really? Btw, I have a question for Boomer Vial: Are you endorsing FreeatlastChitchat's multiple reverts? even if we suppose that the "sufi" term is right...nothing changes, we're discussing a repetitive disruptive behavior? Mhhossein (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:3RRNO (point #4). The IP editor was removing content on a purely POV basis. Boomer VialHolla 09:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are looking in the wrong place. The source for the April edit does not include Sufi as a school of theology/divinity. This was added on the 17th Dec as per my previous note. In mobile view you can see this clearer. This is the April edit . There is no mention of Sufi. This is the Dec edit . You can see that Sufi is added. In desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi. E.g . If you check the source, you will see that Sufi isn't there despite it being visible in the main panel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not removing content on a POV basis. I was removing it because it wasn't sourced and no evidence has been provided. We also know that it was added by a banned user so it should have been reversed straight away. You claimed that there were "many references" that Sufi is a school of divinity/theology. Not one source has been given. Go ahead and provide the evidence if you are so sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all, any diff that I click on from before this one, has no mention of sufi anywhere. Not only that, but any diff from before content is added will not have content that was added at a later diff from the one you are viewing. So I'm sure where you're getting "n desktop mode the template itself always displays Sufi for all historic edits even for edits where I explicitly removed Sufi" from, especially since three other editor are saying that they see "Sufi" in this diff. Also, it is not on me to prove the consensus founded version, seeing as you keep arguing the content was added by a "blocked editor", yet you have yet to provide one diff that proves so. Boomer VialHolla 10:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, do you see Sufi in this edit where I explicitely removed it . Yes or no. That is my point, Sufi is listed even for historic edits where it was definitely removed. If you check mobile view or the source you will see that Sufi is not there.
 * I'll list the diff once again for Sufi being added by a blocked user as you ignored it the last time. Here it is it was added on the 17th Dec. The burden of proof is on you to show why an unsourced, unreferenced edit by a banned user should be added. To date you have provided zero sources for your claim that Sufi is a school of divinity despite making the claim earlier that there were "many references". This link here explains why historic versions of the template are not displayed when you look at the edit history. This would explain why Sufi is displayed in the history even when it was not in the source. If you check the source of the historic version of the article you will see for sure that Sufi was added by the banned user on Dec 17th. It did not exist before then.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, if was added on December 17th by a supposedly blocked editor, why has been confirmed by 3 different editors to be on this|this revision dated from April 15, as well as any diff I pull up from after April 15 (excluding diff where the content in question was removed)? Such as this diff from June 21, 2015, or this diff from May 19, 2015, or this diff from August 10. Here is the diff immediately proceeding the diff you keep quoting where the edit was supposedly added by blocked editor User:TheDestroyer10, with 'sufi' included in the template. I'm pinging back a few unrelated editors to confirm 'sufi' is on all the diffs I just provided. Also, can you please follow the spacing sequence when adding responses. Those are the colons  before every comment. Boomer VialHolla 12:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All the diffs you provided are historic versions of the template. As I mentioned in my last note historic versions of templates are permanent links. Permanent links do not necessarily maintain historic versions of templates. Read this for an explanation. If you want to see what was included in a historic version of the template then you need to click "view source" for that historic version. Eg gives you the source for the one I edited. Note that the source doesn't have Sufi in it despite the fact that the display of the historic version does. As I mentioned before Sufi was added in this edit by the banned user Destroyer10. It was unsourced, unreferenced and no discussion took place regarding it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you are trying to say now. I'm really sorry, and you're absolutely one hundred percent correct. I also do not see 'sufi' in the source for the template before the December 17th edit. Boomer VialHolla 13:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see how these reverts should be exempt from 3R. However, if Freeatlast is guilty of edit warring, so is the IP, even setting aside the actual 3R count. Moreover, I think it is particularly deceitful of the IP to edit from these different addresses, practically baiting Freeatlast into edit warring. I mean, 213.205.198.201, 213.205.251.204, 84.13.168.43 saw the same person editing, and I frown on that kind of behavior. Now, which edit came first, which version was the "original" version, that's exciting but not the only thing that matter: there's BRD as well. Oh, it's breakfast time. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – by User:KrakatoaKatie for four days. Please use the talk page to resolve the disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I use my mobile phone to edit. IP addresses change all the time on a phone. If you are unaware about that then perhaps you should read up on it before you accuse others of being deceitful. I don't give a toss about blocking others. I didn't request that. I do care about the fact that this template has plainly wrong information which was never sourced or discussed and was added by a banned user. I have added a comment on the talk page stating that there is no proof that Sufi is a school of theology. I'll wait 5 days for others to provide evidence. I can tell you now that nothing worthwhile will be provided and then we can all make the change that I made in the first place. 5 minutes of work has become 5 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, thank you very much, and I still think it's deceitful to not even acknowledge that. Even when editing via a mobile phone--I do this all the time--one can leave edit summaries, in which you could have explained what is now taking days and involves a half a dozen editors and three administrators. Clearly you are capable of filing a report here from your mobile phone, typing reams of text. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't file the report here - somebody else did. I have never even been on an admin page before. I did supply edit summaries (albeit brief) but the only response I got was that it was vandalism. In fact it took me numerous messages to convince others that I was not a vandal. Editors should be given the benefit of the doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.63 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that--sorry. But listen, that benefit of the doubt cuts both ways, which is why edit warring is such a difficult infraction to deal with. As far as I'm concerned you're both guilty of edit warring; Freeatlast should have known better (KNOWN WHAT??? easy: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right) and you should have...well, I outlined that above. Both of you should have stopped and sought the talk page. I believe you are not a vandal, but I do not like this unacknowledged IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies: I said what you already said multiple times! Thanks for repeating that. Moreover, WP:3RR is clearly violated by both of them as you see. Mhhossein (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know,, I know... But what to do about it? The article is now protected from their disruption, and we're not supposed to make punitive blocks. Cases like these, one wonders: should one block just to try and get the point across? It's like spanking--does it work? I don't know, and I will leave it to a real admin, like . In the meantime, I believe it's time for some tea. Thank you for your comment, Drmies (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drmies for your attention. I also noticed your tips here and thank you again for that. Editors involved in this thread were probably lucky enough to have their case investigated by you. Anyway, my concern is about a "trend" not a "mistake" and I know you are well aware what I mean. Mhhossein (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Capitals00 reported by User:Xtremedood (Result:No action)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

List of converts:


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

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971:

- Here is a survey that was discussed in depth.

- Here is also a lengthy discussion that concluded Bangladesh should be included.

- Attempt at Mediation, which did not receive any response.

List of converts:

- Extremely lengthy discussion spanning for literally months.

- Once again, an other long attempt to try and resolve the issue.

- And finally, another very long attempt to try and resolve the issue.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

user:Capitals00 has engaged in extremely disruptive editing behavior. He fails to respond to requests for his justifications for his edits, however has a history of POV revisions and edits. He fails to heed to consensus, but rather, after consensus is established, he often brings about a whole new set of sources, which are often not reliable and engages in disruptive editing practices which are not helpful. He was requested to try and solve the dispute for Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 through mediation, however, he did not respond to attempts to try and get this resolved. He reverted a strong consensus established by users user:Rhododendrites, user:FreeatlastChitchat, myself and others in the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam. Xtremedood (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the Most disruptive users I have run across in the said genre. He refuses any form of third party resolution initiatives and then edit wars to keep his POV in the text. I wanted to report him a while ago but I thought that with enough WP:ROPE he will be hanging himself soon enough, or perhaps changing his ways. It is kinda sad that he has chosen the former. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have warned Capitals00 that he is risking a block for his recent reverts at Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. There was a previous RfC. He was also offered mediation but he didn't accept it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Xtremedood has no sources to prove his wording. Current consensus is not to mention "bangladeshi" victory, because Bangladesh had no victories in any of the battles that they fought, it is not supported by any sources. There was a "truce" from Kautilya3, so that Xtremedood could stop edit warring with . But once I proved that there was no Bangladeshi victory, no one happened to revert me or argue against it, except Xtremedood and it took him over 45 days to return to edit warring. Very soon disagreed with Xtremedood as well. Can Xtremedood find some editor other than himself who has opposed my edits? There can be no mediation if you don't even have sources to support your thought that you made up yourself. That's why I disregarded his forum shopping because everyone else on this article has been opposed to Xtremedood. Capitals00 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Capitals00 if your blatant untruth (what is one supposed to call a lie btw, without offending someone) that Current consensus is not to mention "bangladeshi" victory seems to be contradicted by an RFC, which is not even stall enough to be archived. So I hang my head in shame at this kind of vandalism. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * RFC was already superseded by consensus and sources at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971. Something that you really don't have to offer. Why there was resumption of edit warring by Xtremedood who can't find any sources? We don't put opinions of a selected user, but what really source say. Capitals00 (talk) 08:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 the compromise at Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971 is "decisive victory of India and Bangladesh" . I am not sure why you are being so ignorant. Did you even read the TP? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see Ghatus agreeing with the edits of Xtremedood or anyone opposing my explanation which is backed with sources except Xtremedood. That's how, all I see is that there was a temporary compromise in order to stop the disruptive edit warring of Xtremedood. Now situation is getting worse because you are wikihounding for fun and violating WP:VERIFY. Capitals00 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @Capitals00 that is because the majority agrees on the edits. Human3015, Kautliya and Xtreme agree on the edit. And so do I now. You seem to be fixated on this issue and have made it into a personal battle. If you want to change consensus try mediation or another RFC. Otherwise learn to accept consensus this is not a WP:HOLYWAR FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one agrees with the edits of Xtremedood, if they do, then why they don't revert me or show any opposition, why they only revert Xtremedood and oppose him on talk page? All I see is him forumshopping everywhere for pov pushing, where as you are just disruptively wikihounding on numerous articles, you don't have sources either. Capitals00 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - :::Xtremedood is by far the only one on this article who has been edit warring and trying to push his pseudohistorical thoughts that are not confirmed by facts. I also agree that Freeatlastchitchat is only wikihounding, he don't know what the subjects or articles are actually about, he just go on anywhere his opponents have edited, he just want to take up battles with them. Furthermore, see this link, it is obvious that Xtremedood is edit warring on this article for about a year, and his sole aim is to disrupt the infobox. There was no Bangladeshi victory, look at the sources and tons of other sources, NO one say that it was any victory for Bangladesh. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see disruption and team-tagging reverts in the article. No signle editor overstepped 3RR strictly speaking. This means arbitration enforcement is your next stop, not here.Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Prefetch (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

this is not strictly a WP:3RR, but this single editor refuses to enter a dialog with 5 other editors that are of the same mind. i don't know what else to do but attempt to get an admin to intervene.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah&diff=706513659&oldid=706511939]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah&diff=706476443&oldid=706476108]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utah&diff=706298139&oldid=706298061]

we've tried to resolve via talk page, but warring editor refuses to discuss the dispute in the talk page, and is at odds with 5 other editors and counting..not sure what else to do:

Talk:Utah

Comments:

please help! :-)

Prefetch (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR, and frankly, the controversial edit is properly sourced, and no editors have given a policy based reason to remove it. That's not to say that we should report that Utahians are the largest consumers of paid internet porn in the USA. -Roxy the dog™ woof 20:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Completely frivolous claim; only two of those reverts (restoring sourced content) were within a 24 hour period. Even if all three were within a 24 hour period, it would not breach WP:3RR. OP was unilaterally removing long standing, sourced content, without either starting a requested RfC or 3O request. A consensus is being formed against its inclusion, and I will abide by that - as I abide by all consensus decisions. OP should be warned what constitutes edit warring. I gave no additional input, because the user kept making the same WP:OR claims and asking the same questions, over and again, after I had already responded.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * this is not a 3RR issue, it's an edit war issue: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." scrapiron won't discuss the issue, and clearly is in the minority against a consensus of editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talk • contribs) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Every edit I made was policy based, as opposed to a bunch of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT excuses. Unilaterally removing sourced content could easily be construed as vandalism. It's not about "winning" to me, it's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia and its processes. And, please, learn how to sign your comments, as you have been told by others.  Scr ★ pIron IV 20:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * sorry - i'm obviously new to wikipedia and don't know all the rules. this page had an obvious mistake in my mind (and it's now obvious to 5 other editors) and so i made a change, and i additionally posted in the talk page to see if everyone was okay with the change.  we had an extremely unsatisfying brief discussion that simply made no sense to me, and so i sued for further discussion.  you ignored my posts and so i hoped a 3rd opinion would appear, and it did.  i mistakenly thought this was the same as the 3O rule, but i was wrong.  i then did a formal 3O, and then several more editors chimed in all supporting the edit.  at that stage you still wouldn't engage in the talk page, and i just wasn't sure what else to do except appeal to this board.  again, i apologize for my clumsy navigation of the processes, but i'm trying to learn and contribute.  Prefetch (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I will only interject to note that it's very hard to construct this as "unilateral removal of sourced content" and consequently vandalism: there is a debate in progress with several opinions (now including mine) bringing forth a somewhat compelling WP:UNDUEness objection to the material. Just because something has a "ref" tag on it doesn't make it immune from scrutiny and possible redaction. LjL (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The "debate" didn't start until today, those opinions are after my communication and restoration of the content. When this started, it was just the OP, and me, and I suggested that they start an RfC or a 3O request - rather than the OP and I just disagreeing back and forth. I also told them at that time that it stays at the status quo until a new consensus is reached. It's as simple as that. Clearly they are an inexperienced editor. I don't mind getting rid of the content, I don't care what Utah does with its spare time. What it needed was scrutiny and consensus - not just a new editor coming in and deleting it. 21:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScrapIronIV (talk • contribs)


 * Well, it's getting scrutiny now, so it worked. It's just that vandalism accusations about removing something that smelled so strongly of WP:UNDUE seemed a tad far-fetched, and I thought it worthwhile to point it out. LjL (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

While both users could have handled this a bit better (more talking, and less reverting), I think that nothing is really going to happen here (on this noticeboard anyway). A discussion with no real (serious) edit warring makes this report moot. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ymblanter reported by User:Curro2 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The user does not appear to contest the claim he is removing (that Kobyakov served as Deputy PM from 2003 to 2010). Instead he is removing content because he thinks this is funny. Given the impression that he is not editing in good faith and is instead just engaged in petty vandalism, I'm asking for a longer than usual block here. Curro2 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not exactly adhering to WP:CIVIL. Curro2 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the user erased my warning from their talk page, may be some other administrator would repeat that they should drastically improve their communications skills. Stopping to revert good edits and finally reading the fucking manual would also help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I need to provide a diff of the above comment or does it speak for itself? Curro2 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're an administrator? How did I miss that? You're an administrator and you're cursing at me? Curro2 (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:ADMINACCT - "Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring, privacy, etc.)".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * . By my count, Ymblanter has made 3 reverts (your diff n:o 3 isn't a revert) and so have you, Curro2. I don't see a single contribution from either of you on the talkpage. I've protected the article for two days to encourage discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
 * You're correct about #3, so he's only reverted three times but I have the right not to be cursed at. I'm also not sure what is in dispute. He has effectively conceded he was wrong on the substance. Curro2 (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps it's your turn to concede you communicated badly? And nobody has cursed "at" you. As far as cursing in your presence, you might as well get used to that if you want to edit the English Wikipedia. It's not an attack. If you seriously want to make something of that (personally I think you'd regret it), ANI is the place, not AN3. It's altogether a rather poor idea to file complaints at this board when you're just as guilty of edit warring as the other party. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC).


 * I forgot, administrators are allowed to break all the rules and there's no expectation of basic civility. Maybe that's why Wikipedia's yearly edit count goes down and down. Maybe that's why a sitting head of government had a stub page. Curro2 (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

, you're definitely not imagining what you just described. Ymblanter has a history of talking down on other editors because he is an administrator and he thinks that he can get away with whatever arbitrary reverts he makes, including in cases where there is nothing at fault stylistically or procedurally. It is a clear case of following WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which he obviously denies and refuses to discuss, instead issuing threats of administrative sanctions. If he does it, its considered administration, if we do it, its "disruptive". We're powerless and he knows it.--Damianmx (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Blocked)
Pages:


 * and

User being reported:


 * Breaking 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Breaking 1RR on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 12:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments: The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 2 days before he engaged in 1RR violations. This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Before being notified of the sanctions, he had engaged in edit warring. However, his being notified of the sanctions, did not change his attitude. Also, you can see that in the last 4 days, he has received messages from 2 other users complaining about his attitude. In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. Tradedia talk 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * – One week for edit warring on Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map on 23 February. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Programsyt reported by User:Voceditenore (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:,. Reverts 5 and 6 were after 3RR warning. User began edit-warring again after 24 hours.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: et sequelae. Three of the four editors whom the reported user has reverted are participating. The reported user has not participated despite requests to do so. See also Conflict of interest/Noticeboard here.

Comments: There may also be socking involved. The previous edit-warring was by Bojdufa, a paid editor, who had changed their name from the very similar . Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * They have been blocked for 31 hours by Drmies following a report to AIV after blanking the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Programsyt is now just blanking the article:
 * dif
 * dif
 * and was blocked by Drmies for 31 hours for Disruptive editing. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours by User:Drmies. If this behavior continues a longer block is possible. The new editor User:Programsyt doesn't seem to be taking any advice. A similar account, User:Ytprograms, has been renamed to User:Bojdufa, who is not currently blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * More accounts related to Youth Time are now blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Zhitelew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Websoftnew reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocks, Protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  - note, done via a sock account
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was approaching 3RR the other day and, having been warned, created a sock for the next attempt, and was blocked for socking. Returned to edit warring for same material less than half a day after sock block had run out. At least four users have undone his reversions, and his most recent edit comment, "(i am not going to leave it for sure .... will fight for this information because this is genuine and explained in a better way)" makes it clear that he intends to continue in this manner. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Page fully protected, and user blocked 72 hrs by . -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks by User:Courcelles. Two accounts blocked as described in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Websoftnew. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IP hopper (see below for user IPs) reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Rangeblock)
Page:

User being reported:



All the above IPs are registered to the same address and edit summaries support this being the same person.

Comments:
 * Edits/reverts: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - mainly linked to reverts of the IP's additions in order to show user's reasons for reverting as well as IP's comments
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 & 2 3
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1
 * See also: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

I've reported this here instead of Administrator intervention against vandalism in attempt to maintain the assumption of good faith.

This anon repeatedly adds content that has multiple issues to the same page - but the issue isn't so much the edit as the complete refusal to engage in any kind of communication about the changes. Their edit summaries show that they understand what an edit summary is for, and their comment on the BLP noticeboard shows that they've read other users' edit summaries (which include requests to discuss on the talk page), but their continued refusal to communicate indicates that they either don't understand the messages or are just ignoring them.

In short, this anon may be trying to edit the article in good faith, but instead is just causing endless disruption. They made the same edit again while I was creating this report, which I haven't reverted because that would take me over 3RR, and I'm trying really hard to keep assuming good faith even though part of me thinks this has stepped over the line into straight-out vandalism.

At present, there's no way to resolve the edit war because this anon won't communicate. I'm going to notify them of this discussion on every single IP talk page in another attempt to get their attention, but given past precedent, I highly doubt they'll respond. <b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b><b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b> 21:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Set a rangeblock for two weeks on 2605:a601:510:fc01::/64. This should cover all IPs except the first one listed. A person should not use a fluctuating IP to conduct edit wars. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 reported by User:137.147.26.69 (Result: yeah, no. IP reverted.)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

There's no evidence of edit warring; this is stuff covered under ARBPIA, as the IP knows. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , help me out--I forgot the editor's name. There was one, wasn't there? with an LTA? Drmies (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No name that I know of, but that is a Telstra, Australia IP, ...and Telstra IPs have done a lot of the same sorts of edits, + some rather nasty stuff (see here), Huldra (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * , I know; as you know I was in that thread. I don't think the last suggestion, by, was acted on. Here's what I suggest: give the editor a name and write up an WP:LTA case; that makes it much easier for me and other admins to revert and point to something. It might also help in getting something done. Let me know, on my talk page for instance or via email. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will probably first just start a sub-page, in my user-space("Telstra-socks"). There have been quite a few since that AN/I-thread (here is another) (and no, I don´t know if Lankiveil´s suggestion was acted upon.) Huldra (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here it is: User:Huldra/Telstra-socks. And since the reporting IP is already blocked, can someone please close this report? Huldra (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While the editor may not have violated 3RR, they most certainly have violated any edit-warring protocols. They also believe themselves to be above needing warnings via templates such as uw-editwar, per their posts on my talk page. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Alex tells part of the story. I'll skip the content discussion that he refuses to take part in and focus just on this matter. Yes, Alex did put a template on my page, at 23:41, 3 minutes after I had already self-reverted . Alex was even aware of my self revert at 23:47 but continued pretending that it didn't happen. 2 responses later, he was still ignoring it . Claiming that he's tried to resolve it is kind of amusing. Alex hasn't tried to resolve anything at all, despite attempts to get him to discuss the issue.  To summarize, I self-reverted before the warning was placed. I informed Alex that I had self-reverted. No edits to the page have taken place since then. I'm disappointed that an experienced user like Alex has refused to engage in any discussion, instead choosing to communicate via passive-aggressive edit summaries. BTW, I didn't say I was above warnings (there's that penchant for fabrication), I told him not to template something that could have been done with, you know, words....and probably not after the edit had been self-revertedNiteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just noting that in no way was the edit warring template in regards to the editor's most recent edit; rather, it was for their actions as a whole, though they see keen to reject this. I do not need to participate in a discussion to note that an editor has a serious warring-personality issue. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, when a discussion is already underway over the material you are reverting, you should be participating in the discussion, not making reverts based on faulty applications of essays. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Niteshift has managed to stay juuuuuust this side of 3RR, but has taken the stance that he has no obligation to gain consensus, despite having made the bold edit, which has been reverted by three editors. I do agree with Alex that he still is engaging in slow edit warring, trying to justify his attempts to force his edit by claiming editors supporting the long-standing status quo have not provided a justification to retain the edit, and thus continues to revert.  He refuses to abide by WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, as will as misapplying policies related to character articles and film cast.  His edit is arbitrary, and seems to be an effort to do nothing more than remove three actors who do not have articles.  --Drmargi (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The magic "3 editors" again. One who made a revert and stopped discussing, you and Alex, who has refused to participate in the discussion. What you and Alex fail to mention is that there is an other editor supporting the removal. Both of you keep waving around essays (BRD and Statusquo) as if they are policies. Saying that I refuse to abide by an essay shows that you don't realize that an essay isn't a requirement. You at least participated for a while, then you stopped when you didn't get your way from us. To this day, you still haven't cited a policy, MOS or even an essay that supported including the material. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I stopped when the discussion turned into an insult match and I was called a liar by an editor who didn't check his facts. And your other editor acknowledged he'd only seen a couple episodes of the show.  He's there for an agenda all his own, that has nothing to do with improving the article.  Regardless, do you have consensus for your edit?  No.  --Drmargi (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you have consensus to leave the material? No. It doesn't matter if that editor had seen all the episodes. The principal applies to any movie or show, not just this one. I don't know about his alleged agenda, but I do know he supported removal. 2 editors in the discussion supported it, 2 did not. But you left, the other editor left and then claim that the material stays by default. None of this, however, is what this noticeboard is for. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Jkaradell reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 706748761 by A guy saved by Jesus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 706749986 by Jkaradell (talk)"
 * 3)  "I don't care what the metadata is it's a lousy picture of him. I've been maintaining this page every day for 10 years. I've practically written the entire page. Go through the history to see. Then you drop in one day and decide you're in charge."
 * 4)  "It's s a "fact" that it's better quality. I don't see any better quality in that picture. The picture sucks and I'm not the only one that thinks so. I wasnt the one that changed it back months ago  you really sound like you've been saved. Go fuck yourself"
 * 5)  "Bro, Sorry but that 2014 picture sucks. The picture of him pointing to his mother in heaven after a HR is better. That's Papi's signature. The picture doesn't have to be recent. A lot of player pages have pictures of their younger days in their infobox."
 * 1)  "Bro, Sorry but that 2014 picture sucks. The picture of him pointing to his mother in heaven after a HR is better. That's Papi's signature. The picture doesn't have to be recent. A lot of player pages have pictures of their younger days in their infobox."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* David Ortiz */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on David Ortiz. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has made a total of five reverts regarding the infobox image on David Ortiz's page, and also made a personal attack against me by telling me to "go fuck" myself. I explained my rationale to them about why I would prefer to use the image I have reverted to, and I stopped reverting after the third time. On the other hand, this user's only rationale behind the image they keep reverting to is their personal opinion that the other image "sucks." They need to understand that Wikipedia is built on consensus, not edit warring, but they have also been unwilling to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. Also, their most recent revert is assuming ownership of the article. A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Issues of civility and such should probably go to WP:ANI. That said,, I strongly recommend, at the very least, engaging with  on the article's talk page and/or seeking a third opinion or other forms of dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 06:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:108.250.37.230 reported by User:BlaccCrab (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:    

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * Edit warring is shown in reverts.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * I've told him several times to stop edit warring and that JayFrance co-produced the song. It's just some random ip address who does nothing but vandalize that song's page and it's accompanying EP page. Update: He's likely using an alternate IP to do the exact same thing. Undoing my edit is this IP's first edit...107.72.96.84 Update 2 Both IP addresses are from Los Angeles California according to iptracker.com. Obvious sockpuppetry BlaccCrab (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Cleaned up report -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 21:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Justfollowingtherules reported by User:Only (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:57 2/24
 * 2) 23:02 2/24
 * 3) 18:55 2/25
 * 4) 00:00 2/26
 * 5) 1:29 2/26
 * 6) 07:10 2/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:07 2/26

Comments:

Conversation was attempted at the user's talk page, but nothing has come from it as the user has not edited anywhere but the article. Presumably this is the same user as User:Foresttheaterguild who I blocked 5 hours prior. only (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Since the previous account was only blocked for having a promotional username, this one isn't a sock. They still have to follow policy, though. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds and User:DantODB reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported: &

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

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

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

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

Comments:

These two are going back and forth on the page and there's too many to list.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. I got a sore head from reading the edit summaries from the pair, but they need to thrash out their differences on a talk page somewhere, which they can't do when blocked. If the edit warring starts up again after the protection expires, ping me and I'll bring my naughty step along. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Paintball331 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ReInstated Last Revision Made By Paintball331 Due To It Being Removed For UnReasonable Reasons"
 * 2)  "(Note) [STOP REMOVING THIS FACT] ReAdded Previous Revision By Paintball331"
 * 3)  "Marianna251 Has Been Removing True Information From This Article"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Marianna251 (talk) to revision by Paintball331 (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Marianna251 to previous edit by Paintball331 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit made by Marianna15 (talk) to previous edit"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring over the role of Canadians */ new section"


 * Comments:

Repeated edit warring and no response to warnings. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:86.178.225.162 reported by User:Keri (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk) picture"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 698087519 by Cordless Larry (talk)"

diff diff
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Keri (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. The IP has been reverting against the recent RfC decision about portrait galleries for ethnic groups. See also WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Rabenkind (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I might want to add that Monochrome Monitor at first argued that the sources are not understandable since in German while later on even translating from German to English and adding German literature to the article. Argumentation seems constantly changing. Keeps removing the entire section while only criticizing one aspect of two relevant. --Rabenkind (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean we shouldn't use German sources for readability. I said we generally shouldn't use german sources without a good justification. It's appropriate to use german sources in cases of German literature about traditional Germanic law. It's much less appropriate in cases of Middle Eastern politics. Also, I gave up on convincing you. Right now I'm trying to better the article by talking about Germanic/Celtic and Chinese traditional law. I'm trying to find a chinese character in unicode but it's really difficult.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, those weren't all in the same day I don't think. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyways, you kept on removing the section after I added articles from the New York Times and ABC News. The last four reverts were during the last 20h. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I am seeing no evidence by the OP to resolve the dispute on T/P apart from one very WP:SOAPBOX posting which does not appear to attempt to discuss compromise. Both parties are equally at fault at this stage. Suggest withdrawal of complaint and further discussion at article T/P before this escalates further. Irondome (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not going to remove that section again without a firm discussion. I was impulsive and I barely read your edits. But I still want to edit the page, the stuff about china needs more coverage. Anyway, next time warning me would be sufficient, I thought we were going to discuss it until it was reinstated. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  19:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussion as long as people can wait with the article until an agreement. Edit where ever you want if you can leave out the subjects disputed. But what happened was a classic edit war. --Rabenkind (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to admins I am MM's mentor, as some of you already know.
 * @Rabenkind Then I suggest this is withdrawn and conversation taken up. As an observer, there appears to be a large amount to be discussed on this. I've been watching but missed the escalation. The bottom line is, as always, is that it takes two to edit war. Irondome (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It does feel a little awkward that you take part in this as a mentor of Monochrome Monitor and while your WP activities cover the same field as the discussed article. --Rabenkind (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is what mentoring is about. A mentor keeps an eye on their mentoree. My interests on wikipedia are vast and diverse, and I actually very rarely edit the same articles as MM. Your point such as it is seems somewhat opaque. Irondome (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NONENG, use of non-English language sources are allowed. There is no mention of a need for a "justification" to use a foreign language source, only that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones. Foreign language sources are therefore not only suitable for usage in occasions where they are relevant to the article (like you mentioned with German literature about Germanic law), but outside of them as well regardless of relevance to the article topic, as long as they are supported/replaced by equal quality and relevance English-language sources when they become available. Not that this is relevant to this case any more, since English-language sources have since been cited. Alcherin (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Irondome very rarely edits I/P. Thanks simon! --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The best thanks you could give me, MM is to stop being so impulsive and to communicate me weekly updates as to what articles you are editing. Mentoring you is like trying to herd cats sometimes. That being said, this is purely a content dispute aggravated by a lack of prior discussion. Looking at the material I am seeing WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and would better off being in Collective punishment. To use a Germanic terminology based on an ancient Northern European law article to drag in Israel seems perverse at best. But as I have said, this is a content dispute. There seems plenty to discuss. The refusal of the OR to return to discussion and to continue this here is concerning. I am sure you are prepared to continue discussion MM, but the question is, is Rabenkind? There has been no substantive attempts by the OP to engage in dialogue, but rather an unseemly rush to the boards. The closing admin should take account of this I believe, and <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  useful work here. Irondome (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten better, no? I haven't been involved in an I/P dispute in nearly a year. Well, over six months at least. I agree about the term sippenhaft... in Germanic law it is something very different than nazi law, even. In Germanic law it's a payment given to the family of the injured party in severe crimes such as murder by the offender's kin in place or in addition to the offender's blood money, the wyregild. This was one kind of punishment in germanic law, the other being blood revenge. Sippenhaft is just the principle that the kin of an offender can be made to pay the wergild instead of the offender. This was found all over pre-christian europe.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  02:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for sustained discussion on content MM, which adds to my point that none of this has been discussed at the appropriate place in any length. There is much interesting material to be hashed out. This should end and dialogue resumed. It takes two to edit war, as I have said. Irondome (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your wisdom is truly boundless. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  03:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks. The inclusion of Israeli examples of 'Sippenhaft' in the article is not clearly supported by the New York Times article. That article states that the relatives were expelled, not as relatives, but because they were participants in the militants' activities even if they didn't actually set off a bomb. Whether Israeli house demolitions may be contrary to the Geneva convention is already discussed in House demolition in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That article is well-sourced but never uses the term 'Sippenhaft.' Even if editors conclude that 'collective punishment' is occurring, associating this with the term Sippenhaft may be original research. I'm alerting User:Rabenkind of the discretionary sanctions under ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While the New York Times article does not mention 'sippenhaft' explicitly, the article in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung about the same event does. As well as the German article from Süddeutsche Zeitung about house demolition. I don't see why the inclusion of those two subjects in the article would touch WP:OR in any way. Rather the contrary. --Rabenkind (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And an addition: That you excluded me form editing the article by ARBPIA feels like you made a decision on the content rather than on the dispute. It was me who asked Monochrome Monitor to use the talk page and me (after Monochrome Monitor ignored my request) used it first and after every edit in the matter. --Rabenkind (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When I closed the 3RR case I had not yet noticed that you are below the 500-edit requirement for ARBPIA topics. So far as I know admins don't have discretion to relax the 500-edit requirement. Though the wording from Arbcom does allow you to participate on ARBPIA talk pages, just not edit the articles. The final answer about Sippenhaft is up to whatever consensus is reached by editors. The FA Zeitung link appears (from its tone) to be an editorial, not a factual report. The NY Times article about the same Israeli Supreme Court decision does not see the closure as a case of 'collective guilt', which is what FAZ seems to think. Of course Wikipedia can report that Amnesty International sees this as a 'war crime' if editors agree that it's relevant. Attributed as the opinion of Amnesty, of course. When admins close 3RRs they sometimes look at the content issue to see whether one side or the other might be pushing a POV, especially in a controversial area. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Though the wording from Arbcom does allow you to participate on ARBPIA talk pages, just not edit the articles. Maybe you can take a look at the article history again - does that give you the impression that your suggestion is realistic? I didn't come to this noticeboard for fun. It feels a little kafkaesque... --Rabenkind (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Renameduser024 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707249971
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250583
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250340
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250266
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrfrobinson&oldid=707250094

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=707250768

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&oldid=707250768

Comments: This user has been on a witch hunt accusing various IP addresses of being me. I decided to have my account renamed to leave Wikipedia however did not want my old username redirecting to the renamed one. Since I have now exposed my IP address (he had the wrong country) they were clearly wrong. They keep reverting my old talk page to reestablish this link. This user has a LONG block log and a history of disruption. Renameduser024 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirects are not allowed to be deleted for no reason. This is disruption. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is userspace, redirects ARE allowed to be deleted. Renameduser024 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * According to who? The redirect was created when the account was renamed. Renameduser024 was stalking me with the previous account. This is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. An IP was initially removing the redirect. This is like vandalism. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I recommend this edit be reverted and the page protected. I don't see any legitimate reason for removing the link to the new account. QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:NOBAN " If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request" -  Clean start -  "To reduce the chance of misunderstandings, you should note on the user page of the old account (while logged in under that account) that it is inactive, by using the retired tag or leaving some other message......no need to redirect if the editor does not wish to do so....just a note is fine. -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "just a note is fine." User:Moxy, what type of note instead of a redirect? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vani_Hari&diff=prev&oldid=702689991

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APaleolithic_diet&type=revision&diff=703718434&oldid=703689858

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=705684241

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AWikimedia_Foundation&type=revision&diff=705684331&oldid=705658807

Renameduser024 appeared to be hounding me and has not agreed to stop. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Different IP numbers are doing the same thing.See IP 99.249.130.248. See IP 65.186.95.8. This is suspicious. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * QuackGuru if you think there is a behaviour problem that is a separate thing over the edit war of the users talk page - this is the wrong board.  must keep in mind any user in good standing who has no unexpired sanctions, and who is not being or about to be formally discussed for their conduct, may have a clean start......they can just say the account is retired,,,by  tag.  They can  simply stop using the old account and create a new one that becomes the only account you use...no need to tell the world they wish to start fresh....Yes would be best to say they have a new account....but thats up to them.-- Moxy (talk)

The IP returned. I do not know who it is. This could be a violation of Clean start when an IP made the edit. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP that made this edit reverted my edit on another page. Not sure what is going on here. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * These IP are from many different countries...we should ask what is going on here. Is there a bigger problem? not sure? -- Moxy (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This could be related to my recent edits to KE. Another IP with 99 is deleting content. See this and see this. Also see this. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend taking this to WP:ANI. clpo13(talk) 20:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments by IP 99.236.126.9 are not that of a new editor. It started with the other IP 99.236.126.9. If you look further back it started with Renameduser024. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no way these edits were covered under WP:3RRNO. As Moxy indicated, there is no law mandating such a redirect; a note is enough. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:43:0:4a27:9405:adc9:ddc5:f91f (Result: Semi, Block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:48, 27 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:53, 27 February 2016
 * 2) 21:56, 27 February 2016
 * 3) 22:00, 27 February 2016
 * 4) 22:05, 27 February 2016
 * 5) 22:06, 27 February 2016
 * 6) 22:08, 27 February 2016
 * 7) 22:09, 27 February 2016
 * 8) 22:11, 27 February 2016
 * 9) 22:12, 27 February 2016
 * 10) 22:14, 27 February 2016
 * 11) 22:16, 27 February 2016
 * 12) 22:19, 27 February 2016

After the article was semi-protected, this user made an edit of a similar nature on :
 * 1) 22:24, 27 February 2016

See also similar edits on :
 * 1) 22:44, 27 February 2016

And :
 * 1) 22:45, 27 February 2016

This user has also engaged in outright test edits or vandalism on :
 * 1) 22:56, 27 February 2016

Similar reversion on this article:
 * 1) 23:00, 27 February 2016

Similar editing on :
 * 1) 23:12, 27 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:17, 27 February 2016

Comments:

DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Rottweiler has been semiprotected one year by User:Malcolmxl5. The IP has been blocked two weeks by User:Graham87. If you notice problems at other dog breed articles consider posting at WP:RFPP and mention this report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:FB90:24A3:6364:0:31:C882:2C01 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)    22:17, 27 February 2016
 * 2)    22:42, 27 February 2016
 * 3)   22:49, 27 February 2016
 * 4)  22:57, 27 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Insistent WP:BLP vios. The anon IP is an apparent sock of blocked user Optim.usprime and his now-blocked block-evading IP 74.88.32.47, making the exact same edit as the latter after the latter was blocked. Two registered editors have reverted these edits, in which no citing whatsoever is given for the alleged names of two living individuals purportedly associated with the dead article subject. This inability to give citing suggests a possible prankster or an unsupported OR claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:58.174.70.103 reported by User:Andrewgprout (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted other users ignorance"
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=707091060

Plus several previous


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Brisbane */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

No attempt by the ip user to discuss other than rather esoteric inline edits and the final edit summary. Andrewgprout (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one month for vandalism at various articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:PerelmanMorales reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Are you not a Arsenal fan? Thus you are a biased party here. I am objective on the other hand. How about you take a look at practically every other page that deals with top clubs in England? None have included what you are insisting should be included."
 * 2)  "This is not important here. There is a well-established consensus in this regard where trophies which are not recognized by either The FA, UEFA or FIFA are NOT included on the main page. See talk."
 * 3)  "I thought that there was a well-established rule that only official honors should be included on the main pages of every club on Wikipedia, particularly the biggest/most historic clubs?"
 * 4)  "/* Honours */ None of those are official titles. No point including them."


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


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


 * Comments:

No consensus provided, he just removed what he does not like from a well established featured article, and I thought I betyter report instead of breaking 3RR. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I did not just remove "sourced" material. I just happen to uphold a consensus that is clearly well established. Namely that trophies not recognized by either The FA, UEFA or FIFA should not be included on the main page of clubs such as is the case with practically every other Wikipedia page that deals with football clubs in the Premier League and outside of it. I even started a topic on the talk page about this which you ignored.

Moreover it appears to me that you are not a objective party here as you yourself state that you are a Arsenal fan on your profile page.

--PerelmanMorales (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

PerelmanMorales is not engaging constructively on this page. They are engaging in personalisation of the issue, and are overtly engaging in aggressive and unnecessary beheaviour, for example questioning an editors impartiality. A comment left on the talk page discussing this by PerelmanMorales is not focused on the content but focuses on the editor they disagree with. A discussion on this issue has previously established a consensus on this issue. If that consensus is bing challenged, meaningful discussions, and not insults through edit summaries should be undertaken. Sport and politics (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And the editor still continues (diff). I am starting to think this might be a sock of an other editor, Davefelmer, that does not agree with WikiProject Football regarding honours and has been editwarring over them. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor is engaging is personal attacks, which are preventing constructive engagement being possible with this editor as shown in this diff. Sport and politics (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:AndrewGulch reported by User:SaintAviator (Result: AG is warned, Solntsa90 is banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Lots of discussion in links below. User has a strong bent on this theme, not getting results in Talk, now involved in edit war. Received warning here after 3rd revert. Then did another revert. Is also spamming on talk page on same issue  and  same theme. Im also concerned about a possible Sock with same ideas, wording. and  Another user deleted four other threads by IP with same geolocation as IP above, mentioned here, last comment. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 04:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As a newcomer I have found the editing atmosphere at Vladimir Putin to be utterly toxic. There are insults, blind reverts, and the like being hurled from both sides of the debate (including, I must say, the complainant here). It is worth pointing out that this is the edit warring noticeboard and not merely the 3RR noticeboard. In that regard I ask (beg, plead) for the admin who acts on this complaint to look in on the situation as a whole and apply sanctions liberally. Another possibility would be to full-protect the article for a long enough period that the combatants get bored and drift away. Maybe one of those measures will change the editing atmosphere sufficiently that some of the rest of us can edit. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Recently there have been three reverts of the lede at Vladimir Putin by User:Solntsa90, who has previously been blocked for edit warring. It may be time for a ban of that editor from the Vladimir Putin page. Back in January he was banned by User:Drmies from RT (TV network) as shown at this link.  Lately there have been complaints to admins about editor behavior on the Putin article (as echoed by VM above) and it may be time to start using the ARBEE sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ed, I don't have it in me to do any more paperwork today: I agree with a topic ban for Putin. In the meantime, I have blocked him for two weeks (which I think is mild) for hounding Marek around the place;, I saw you were considering looking into that as well. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Another example of Drmies writing his own arbitrary definition of hounding and acting on it? Marek is well able to take care of himself, since he is the probably the most notorious hounder on Wikipedia ever. By that I mean real hounding, hounding as defined by Wikipedia policy, not Drmies's weird opinion of what hounding is. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Solntsa90 is banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin on both article and talk pages, under the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBEE. User:AndrewGulch is warned and is being alerted to ARBEE. If anyone believes that User:SaintAviator should be sanctioned then a specific complaint is required.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to challenge this verdict, as I was not allowed to originally speak up in my defence. I would like this case to be re-reviewed. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, for the fact that the RT page has literally nothing to do with Vladimir Putin. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bby1-psu reported by User:Wiae (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Wikipedia and copyright */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Draft:Locky. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* February 2016 */ clarify"
 * 4)   "/* February 2016 */ one last request"


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


 * Comments:

The user is continually removing the copyvio-revdel template (and an Articles for Creation decline, although I suppose that is less important) from a draft. I placed this template on the article draft after removing significant copyrighted content from the draft here, in accordance with the Articles for Creation reviewing instructions. I've warned the user via edit summaries, a standard-form Twinkle edit warring notice (see here), and via personalized messages on the user's talk page (see here and here), but they keep removing it.

I've also made more than three reversions on Draft:Locky in the past 24 hours, but I felt that this was acceptable, given that copyvio-revdel explicitly states "Note to others: Please do not remove this template before an administrator has reviewed it", and given that the template deals with copyright issues, which are protected under WP:3RRNO. Thank you, /wiae   /tlk  23:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 03:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap reported by User:CounterTime (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apostasy_in_Islam&oldid=706889982

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (04:12, 28 February 2016) 1
 * 2) (11:00, 28 February 2016) 2
 * 3) (04:07, 28 February 2016) 3
 * 4) See the edit history:  4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#On_the_recent_edits_by_.40Steeletrap

Recent one (10:43, 28 February 2016‎): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apostasy_in_Islam#Violations_of_POV.2C_PRIMARY.2C_SYNTHESIS.2C_..._policies_by_user_Steeletrap

Comments:

Despite many attempts in the talk page to cooperate, and many invitations to change the page until a consensus is reached in the talk, has been very persistent in his behavior. He has additionally been violating WP policies on mutual respecting, stating that I was "lying", and calling wiki admins "too lazy", and "incompetent". 11:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * CounterTime appears to be a Single Purpose Account and after getting to 4RR and saying on 2/24 that it would step back from further edits has failed to do so.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Involved editor here. According to these stats, has edited 217 unique pages, so I don't know what you mean by SPA. While the reporter has broken 3RR once (based on a subsequently clarified misunderstanding of the policy, according to the comment you linked to), he also has WP:BRD on his side and has taken the initiative to discuss the matter on the TP, which should have been properly done by the reportee. Eperoton (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Eperoton, please have a look at the edit history. All related to a single topic and with an apparent POV pattern.   SPECIFICO  talk  16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your judgment that I'm an SPA, and that my edits are POV, following examples will provide conclusive evidence to the contrary:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Color_of_water&diff=prev&oldid=684886812
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poisson_random_measure&diff=prev&oldid=684883716
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infimum_and_supremum&diff=703589069&oldid=703588870
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poisson_process&diff=prev&oldid=685570042
 * But the fact remains that my last interests were confined to a particular set of topics as my contributions history makes clear (and not only one topic), this does not mean that I'm an SPA.
 * I also disagree with your judgment that my edits contain a POV pattern, and any Wikipedian who interacted with me long enough would attest to that.
 * Finally I would want to rectify something, I said that I "stopped editing at that page until a consensus is built in the talk page", and that's what I did. However for things like WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTHESIS... I had clearly the right to intervene, in fact, it's my obligation to rectify things like that. As for the rest I have been very willing to participate in the talk, see the two links given above.
 * Thanks for your comprehension,
 * Cheers! 16:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * It's a cross-section of topics in Islamic studies. Sounds too broad for a "single purpose". I've debated with CounterTime on a number of these edits myself. While I have disagreed with some of them, I can vouchsafe for CounterTime's good faith efforts to abide by WP policies. Eperoton (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I know nothing about this topic. This matter just happened to pop up on my watchlist of a user talk page.  But I think it's fair to say that with a recent acknowledged 3RR violation, cited above, we can hope at the least that CounterTime would not become involved in a similar situation only a few days later. I'll have nothing further to say here.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't violate 3RR lately with only 2 edits made lately, as anyone can check. And as I said, previous 3RR viol. can be objected since I made edits fitting in the exception, such as revert of material violating WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY. 18:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Comment: This would normally call for blocking both editors. Each party has reverted at least six times in the past week. This is a pattern of long-term edit warring. CounterTime should be aware that WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:PRIMARY are not among the exceptions to enforcement listed in WP:3RRNO. Either party can avoid a block if they will promise to stay away from the article for the next two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I promise to not touch the article for the next two weeks. 21:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
 * Result: User:Steeletrap blocked 24 hours per the above reasoning, and their lack of any response at all on this page. It is confusing that Steeletrap is removing posts by others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:KalgidharDashmeshGuru reported by User:Riley Huntley (Result:Indefblocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on KalgidharDashmeshGuru."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Bhai Nirmal Singh Noor."


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


 * Comments:

Article was previously tagged and deleted for promotional content and lack of notability; user has recreated without promotional content, however, lack of notability is still a concern. '''<span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers,   Ri l ey  ''' 07:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Moot point, the account should have been blocked on username violation grounds since the site and the username are one and the same. Incidentally, I've just indefblocked KalgidharDashmeshGuru for that very reason. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You know you're tired when.. I looked straight past the username, cheers TomStar81! <span title="Shoot!" style="font-family: Mono; Cursor: crosshair;">-- Cheers,   Ri l ey   07:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It happens to us all :) Least I got it right this time though. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:25A5:8C19:587D:59F0:639A:CD0F reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 707526272 by Oripaypaykim (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 707526144 by Oripaypaykim (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 707526064 by Oripaypaykim (talk)"
 * 4)  "2016"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Nickelodeon Saturday programming block. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

also block evaded 98.90.88.193 of test edit with added the specific date. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Zacharie Grossen reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 707546605 by ZH8000 (talk), please stop edit warring"
 * 2)  "please stop"
 * 3)  "rv factual mistakes, please use the discussion page"
 * 4)  "/* top */ typo"
 * 1)  "/* top */ typo"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "a 7 year old error"
 * 2)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 3)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 4)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 5)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 6)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 7)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif */"
 * 8)   "/* Dunantspitze */"
 * 9)   "/* Dunantspitze */"
 * 10)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */"
 * 11)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */"
 * 12)   "Stop Ignoring your fundamental http://www.srf.ch/sendungen/diskothek/w-a-mozart-die-zauberfloete"
 * 13)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */  in order to make it more clear, and collect all statements at the same place"
 * 14)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */"
 * 15)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */"
 * 16)   "/* Dunantspitze */"
 * 17)   "/* Monte Rosa vs Dufourspitze vs Monte Rosa Massif (an example of a 7 years old error on WP) */"


 * Comments:
 * A series of individual edits to an article only counts as one "strike" for this purpose. The dispute is nearing, but not quite at, the level of requiring administrator intervention. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:24.185.84.80 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a BLP and the user in question is just simply refusing to listen (I think 6 reverts in 24 hours, against multiple editors, is pretty clear indication of that).


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Neve-selbert reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Spirit Ethanol (talk): And you should also feel free to discuss your concerns on the talk page. Wait until an agreement is reached. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Spirit Ethanol (talk): Reverted pointy edits; discussion is still ongoing. Wait. (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * — Note to closing admin: Dispute resolved, edit in question reverted. I would like to request this report be withdrawn. Thank you. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reason for removing footnote, falls under WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR. Reason already provided here, edit comment, and talk page several times. User refused to undo edit. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 05:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If I may, the footnote that was in place before the opening of the current Rfc there, should remain. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Footnote is not subject of RfC, sufficient arguments for removal given in discussion. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing the footnote, could arguably have an effect on the ongoing Rfc. Best to be patient. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR are addressed or edit undone, I am fine with withdrawing report. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm, if I may enquire, has ArbCom even imposed WP:1RR at the article-in-question? Somewhat hypocritically, funnily enough, you reverted me twice too. Look, I did not create the footnote. did. Would you care to ask him why he supposedly breached WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR?--Neve–selbert 07:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you defending an edit you din't write? According to Sean.hoyland's comment here, violations of WP:OR need to be removed immediately. As for 1RR, as explained in EdJohnston's comment in, link already posted on your talkpage, sanctions apply broadly to all article space. I reverted just once after sufficient reason for violation of WP:CIRCULAR, WP:OR given on talk page. Kindly undo your edit for me to withdraw this report. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did it, for now at least. If you are happy to reciprocate, could you please ask why he decided to add the footnote in the first place?--Neve–selbert 08:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OR violation concerns, which need to be removed immediately. Looking forward to working out new footnote version on talk page. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: I'm accepting Spirit Ethanol's withdrawal of this report. Which is just as well, because both parties could have been blocked for 1RR violation. Further reverts by either party may lead to a block. There is no clause in WP:3RRNO that exempts removal of WP:OR from the counting of reverts, so that's a poor idea. Need to get consensus for any change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:StAnselm (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (reverted this edit)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (friendly note);  (formal warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user and I have generally worked well over the years, but over the last day or so he has been reverting my edits on several others without wanting to discuss. This, however, is the only article on which he has broken 3RR. His addition is POV, and unsubstantiated by any sources. I started a discussion on the talk page, and has replied once, but reverted again after that, and has not responding to my latest post. I have also made three reverts on the page, and the current version has PiCo's preferred text because I don't want to break 3RR. But really I want PiCo to discuss and work together to get a consensus rather than just reverting. StAnselm (talk) 04:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:PiCo has now broken 3RR at Census of Quirinius making FIVE (partial) reverts in a 24-hour period, adding previously disputed text about inerrancy, etc. This really needs to stop. StAnselm (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume I put my comment in reply in this space? [User:StAnselm]] has been adopting a totally uncooperative, hostile attitude on these articles, refusing to allow my edits to stand and putting forward arguments which are frankly ridiculous. Actually just one argument: that he should be the sole arbiter on which sources can be used. I'm on the point of calling for him to be banned. PiCo (talk) 08:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. If you want a third opinion, I would prefer to err on the side of "according to Michael Coogan" which clearly shows the reader this is opinion rather than a hard-cold fact. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the time is yet ripe for a third opinion, though no doubt it will come to that in some form; but my feeling is that StAnselm wil insist that this is the personal opinion of one person,while I'll be saying that only the most extreme religiously-based sources feel that the Book of Daniel, with its angels and visions, is cold sober history.PiCo (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)