Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive309

User:GoodDay reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Everyone had a nice cup of tea and a sit down )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 01:57, 1 March 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:37, 1 March 2016
 * 2) 04:49, 1 March 2016
 * 3) 04:53, 1 March 2016
 * 4) 05:02, 1 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: On article talk page. Notice of AN/3RR posting.

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

Comments:

User is not a new editor. As can be seen at the talk page, he deflects from explaining or justifying his actions by attacking his own irrelevant bad faith accusations and repetitiously enforcing an expectation that others will do so for him. He has made a technical breach of 3RR, but, the most disruptive aspect of this is the obstructionism. It is not a newly developed habit. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  05:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor having self-reverted the fourth revert neither rectifies nor excuses the continuing stonewalling. Indeed, the he admits he self-reverted only to avoid a block, rather than as an act of cooperation. It appears to be at least a matter of an editor "refus[ing] to work collaboratively or heed[ing] the information given to them..." (from WP:EW). -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  05:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want any animosity to grow between us. Therefore, I've restored an earlier edit of yours, which began our little disagreement. Now, let's continue to discuss your changes, keeping in mind that you & I shall allow others to weigh in :) GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've reversed my 'last' revert (which wasn't a breach, btw) & restored the reporter's preferred version. I hope he'll attempt to get a consensus there (via talkpage), for what he wants :) GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: I hereby request that Miesianiacal withdraw his report :) GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

PPS: Again, I'm requesting that Miesianiacal withdraw his report, with a promise that I will remain away from the discussion-in-question at Monarchy of Canada. -- :) GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think an admin should examine Miesianical'a behavior for incivility and bullying. 209.171.88.32 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 209.171.88.32 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Having thought it over further. I think it's best that I stay away from Monarchy of Canada, all together :( GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * GoodDay reversed his 4th edit before the report was filed, so it is best forgotten. Best if we discuss the differences on the talk page and come to a consensus.  TFD (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * GoodDay has self-reverted and apologised, so I am happy to close the matter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ritchie333 :) GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hengistmate reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: blocked)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

This has been running since December Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents, without any effective intervention.

Hengistmate has past blocks for socking and trolling in a similar manner Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate/Archive and there's a current SPI open too: Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate.

Today Hengistmate decided to switch to simple edit-warring at the talk page, hitting 4RR against two other editors. This was the blanking of already-hatted content on a talk: page for being off-topic. Now that's maybe an arguable point, but WP:TPO is against such blanking, the content was already hatted and this is simple EW regardless. His edits over here (look at the article authors) are also far more about trolling a particular editor than about content.


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


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This is exhaustively discussed at the ANI report linked above. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Any discussion of this belongs at the overall ANI thread.


 * And Hengistmate has the cheek to accuse me of edit warring with this edit summary in spite of the fact that I have only reverted the deleted discussion once. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This "Using Wikipedia rules as weapon. Removed troll" is pretty unimpressive too, as an edit summary when blanking a legit 3RR warning from an uninvolved editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

His edit-warring has now moved back to an old favourite article of his, Mark V tank, and a tactic he has been using on Plasticine, that of simply denying sources that disagree with his truth (Same edits in 2014) Last time this came up at the article talk: page Talk:Mark_V_tank he took to editing my comments there to ridicule me. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Close as Stale Hengistmate hasn't edited since. Complainant hasn't done any of the WP:DR as required at the WP:ANI thread. 82.132.247.172 (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Stale is irrelevant. 4RR within 24 hours is a bright line offence, which should result in an automatic block (at least that is what it says at WP:3RR).  The point about WP:DR also makes no sense as the issue has been exhaustively discussed on the article talk page.  However, it is impossible to hold any form of meaningful discussion or dispute resolution when the principle protagonists resort to misrepresenting the sources that they are attempting to use to support their position against a clear consensus for the correct version.


 * I have been watching this pan out with interest observing complete inaction toward the problem. I have to assume from the failure to take action over this incident that the administrators are condoning edit warring exceeding 3RR in 24 hours; using sockpuppetry to support the incorrect version against consensus and introducing incorrect material into an article by altering quoted references to support their preferred version.  212.183.128.158 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw this report yesterday and was thinking of closing it as "stale". As Hengistmate hasn't touched the talk page in nearly 2 days, a 48 hour block sounds awfully punitive. The three revert rule does not say an administrator must block anyone the minute they are caught doing 4 reverts within 24 hours; I didn't block anyone for this, for example. As for why I was procrastinating, it was simply because I wanted to take half an hour or so to sit down and digest what the actual dispute was about, rather than wading in with a size-9 banhammer, and I didn't get time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The violation is clear, although I agree it would have been better if we had acted more quickly. My only hesitation was about whether Hengistmate had been sufficiently warned. I decided that an editor of several years' experience could not help but be aware of the 3RR rule. Anyway I have no problem to reducing the block to time served if he/she makes a request which shows awareness of the problem. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See also ANI and Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out that the IP editor who tried to close this down as 'stale' comes rom the same ISP and the same IP range as the Hengistmate sock currently reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Hengistmate. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Matthewjoule reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . The edits look like good faith to me, and there is no talk page discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:100.43.29.68 reported by User:Jess (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See talkpage. Stop edit warring."
 * 2)  "See talkpage. Stop edit warring."
 * 3)  "See talkpage. Stop edit warring."
 * 4)  "See talk. Do not edit war."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 707273685 by Jess (talk)"
 * 6)  "see talk"
 * 7)  "Please see Talkpage. Two people in favor of this edit. One against. Many sources were posted in favor of this edit. Stop edit waring and place discuss the issue at the Talkpage. Thank you."
 * 8)  "This has been discussed on the Talkpage. I see two people are who are for this edit and one against. There are also numerous citations in favor of Craig being labeled a Philosopher first and foremost"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 706228630 by Jess (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 706197407 by Jess (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 706081604 by Theroadislong (talk)"
 * 12)  "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)"
 * 2)  "+violation of WP:3RR warning"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* What's a " Christian Analytic philosopher"? & The Ordering of The Lead Revisited */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* What's an "analytic Christian Philosopher"? */ Reply"


 * Comments:

Editor will not stop edit warring. IP appears to be static. He broke 3rr on Feb 22, but the page was protected instead of issuing a block. As soon as page came off protection, he began edit warring again. Page was protected again for 2 days. As soon as it came off protection, he's at it again. We either need a longer semi protection, or a block to show the ip that he is not allowed to edit war.

Incidentally, note the content being reverted has been extensively discussed over the last several years. See, for example, this edit and the talk page. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note, ip is now at 5 reverts in 24 hours. He has been edit warring on this nonstop since Feb 22nd. Either a block, or longer-term semi protection will be necessary to stop the disruption.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also they have reverted three different editors. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Repel All Boarders  ‖ 21:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 6 actually. Jess, Ebyabe, Anaxial, Epipelagic, Boomer Vial, Theroadislong.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:71.174.127.111 reported by User:RolandR (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "As previosly pointed out it is hard to get consensus when the material on the talk page gets deleted. and one more time - The new Churchill material is from the same source as the Churchill material already in the article."
 * 2)  "As previosly pointed out it is hard to get consensus when the material on the talk page gets deleted."
 * 3)  "New Churchill material is from the same source as the previously included Churchill material - I'd be a bit more receptive to your complaint if so much material was not being deleted from the talk pagel"
 * 4)  "New Churchill material is from the same source a previously included Churchill material"
 * 5)  "New Churchill material is from the same source a previously included Churchill material"
 * 6)  "Then YOU link it to the wiki duplicate already used as a cite."
 * 7)  "Now sourced with a link to the actual article - not to some wiki duplicate which can be vandalized"
 * 8)  "Not unsourced - its from the same source as the already existing Churchill material"

Here
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP edit-warring with at least four established editors to add antisemitic material sourced to utterly unreliable fringe and Nazi sources RolandR (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 04:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Felony Conviction */"
 * 2)  "/* Felony Conviction */ information already put on before. This woman is suicidal, her husband is a lawyer, he will need to contact you if anything happens to her has reports from Dr's, her lawyer. She worked 18 years helping cancer patients volunteering"
 * 3)  "Chicago Sun Times is a political hack for Chicago Politics and damaged Ms McMann on person. This is not a joke! She is suicidal. Her husband is a attorney and this press is effecting her mental and physical status.psychiatrist evalue says she was suicidal"
 * 4)  "/* Felony Conviction */ the sources not reliable. Her attorney put a press release saying she was politically targeted if it was held where she lives no charges would have been filed. She has mental - physical health issues and was suicidal cause of this"
 * 5)  "The sources are not reliable and there was a press release from attorney stating she was politically targeted and if it held in her county twould not be any charges filed and would have been dismissed. He said she is mentally and physically to"
 * 6)  "reputation destruction. Woman is under mental and physical stress which can cause hareful results to her health. Her lawyer had a press release saying she was politically targeted the county were she lives would be no charges filed dismissed"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit war seems to be over mentioning a criminal conviction in the article. Mariasfixing has not replied on talk page to post their concerns(aside from a few edit summaries) 331dot (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked for 12 hours. -- John Reaves 19:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The person has returned and has resumed edit warring. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * has protected the article for 1 week. I have removed the content in contention as I believe our protection policy suggests to err on the side of exclusion in a BLP dispute. (Note: I have no particular opinion on whether the content should stay or go; I am simply doing what I believe policy should say I ought to do). I am extremely concerned about this edit summary and have emailed emergency about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aniseseed reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Katietalk 16:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dean1997 reported by User:Rebbing (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 707646391
 * 2) 706000510
 * 3) 705030925
 * 4) 705029804
 * 5) 705027252


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 706028706
 * 2) 705483553


 * Comments:

This user has been persistently disruptive in adding a specific piece of information to this article against consensus and refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page despite repeated, specific warnings on his page. (He's also abused the minor edit flag in an apparent attempt to evade scrutiny.)  Rebbing    talk   02:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, he left me an apology on my talk page this morning. Rebbing   talk   14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Dean1997 is warned to get consensus on the talk page before trying yet again to add 'partner' information to Cara Delevingne's article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC reported by User:忍者ポップ (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Undid revision 708025006 by 忍者ポップ (talk) These terms aren't needed on this page anymore. Please stop reverting me.

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

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

Comments:

Pages. --忍者ポップ (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 忍者ポップ was reverting me without explaining why. I kept trying to talk to him but he removed all of my messages and would not leave a reason why he was reverting.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Japanese user not block, IP block. --忍者ポップ (talk) 04:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You started it. You did not explain why you reverted me when I have left multiple explanations for my edits.--2601:140:8200:DE:CC43:A3F3:6D4A:5BDC (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:忍者ポップ speaks in sentence fragments that make little sense, though he identifies with the en-3 user box ('advanced knowledge of English'). He should reflect on how effective he can be here, especially in negotiating contested matters. EdJohnston (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Both blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 707941008 by Spirit Ethanol (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3


 * Comments:

Highly destructive editor. Continuously removing U.S. election news on several pages such as here here (January 28) here (March 1) here (March 2), and then reverting re-additions (Much more than three...). Refusing to communicate. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * my defence is as follows - how many stupid admins exist at wiki? - one after another after another - the above user is a sockpuppet created just last Nov 2015 - I am almost certain it is just more of this sockpuppet in one of all his hundreds of block evasion activities creating endless accounts to war at wiki - he is as follows: ((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)) - as usual he expects that some idiot admin will fall for it again and again and again - and guess what?, it works every time!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * - Spirit Ethanol for 24 hours, IP for 1 month. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 19:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 04:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. After a 1 week block for edit warring by admin EdJohnston, this user found nothing better than to come back and edit war some more on the module, breaking 1RR. Moreover, you can notice that one day before he engaged in the 1RR violation, an edit warring template was left on his talk page by admin Lectonar concerning a different article. Tradedia talk 09:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: He did break 3RR (or 1RR)? but his edits were based on sources, so I wouldn't call it unconstructive, though it is disruptive. He's a relatively new user and is doing some good stuff keeping Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map (where he has actually been quite neutral despite frequent Turkish POV vandalism) in order. Anyway, I firmly believe he's here to build an encylopedia, and I'd attribute the rule-breaking to inexperience or impulsiveness (though I guess I'm a bit biased towards sympathy in that respect considering my own foibles). --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  12:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Electricburst1996 reported by User:Cebr1979

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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

Though it started before that with these other reverts as well:


 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user feels strongly about an image but, regardless of having been shown/told why the image is there, they are resorting to edit warring to get their way... despite knowing full well that edit warring is wrong: 1, 2, 3, 4.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * A notice was placed on their talk page but, immediately removed so am pinging them here now.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and now they have removed this whole notice from this very board!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This case involves more than two editors. Four editors were involved, actually. Oh, and may I mention that Cebr1979 has a long-term history of personal attacks against other users? <font color="000FF">Electric <font color="00FFFF">Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The number of editors has nothing to do with anything. We're talking about the number of editors who have broken the very serious 3RR rule... and that's only you. I have never issued a personal attack towards you so I'm not sure why you brought that up, it has nothing to do with anything either. However, you deleting posts by others in order to suit your needs does have something to do with something because... you've done that before and have been told it's wrong: 1, 2.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the diff provided for dispute resolution doesn't tell the entire story. The current diff for resolution could also be considered as this under the RfC heading. Electricburst1996 has agreed to consider a compromise, which is showing a willingness to work with other editors. He's also agreed to leave the existing image and article alone in good faith while I look for a more suitable image. Any punishment from this seems like it would just be punitive, since discussion appears to have yielded positive results. Note: This comment is saying nothing about his removal of this report or behavior outside of the article and associated talk page, but I believe those issues are better handled elsewhere. -- Lithorien <font color="0000FF">Talk • Changes 01:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Your diff for resolution didn't even exist when I filed this report (and there's no way you couldn't have known that when you came here since you had only made it 11 minutes prior). "He's also agreed to leave the existing image and article alone in good faith" is not good faith since he only agreed to that after being notified on his talk page of this very notice (and responded with a personal attack, I might add... an accusation he is quick to constantly throw at others). In regards to everything else, none of that happened until after this was filed either! As for the deleting, that can/maybe will go to ANI later, ya. It wasn't part of the case (nor did I imply it was), I was merely pointing it out/reminding the user of it so as to prevent him attempting it again. While it's great you notified this board of the outcome, your post really is bizarre.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and I hadn't even noticed until now that Bjelleklang just recently blocked the reported user for edit warring as well. Cebr1979 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just an outside comment: "just recently" = over 13 months ago. only (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, right! Didn't notice the year. Have stricken, thank you!Cebr1979 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:79.27.106.92 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  – 19:13, 3 March. Restoring Nikka Costa after being reverted.
 * 2)  – 06:52, 4 March. Restoring Nikka Costa.
 * 3)  – 07:37, 4 March. Restoring Nikka Costa.
 * 4)  – 08:41, 4 March. Restoring Nikka Costa.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None.

Comments:

With this edit on 1 March, Catania IP 82.53.45.90 began inserting Nikka Costa into this article. The Catania person changed to IP 79.27.106.92 on 3 March. Both IPs are promoting Nikka Costa, and the more recent one has inserted hoax material at the Nikka Costa biography, saying that her father was shot to death by a famous killer (rather than dying of chronic heart problems.) The hoaxing, the excessive promotion and the edit warring make this person disruptive to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mambojazz1 reported by User:Mscuthbert (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again. Please READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLES!!!! Isaiah Richardson Jr's music has absolutely no relation to tourists. He has studied languages his entire life and grew up in Asia part of his life. He has been playing Jewish music since age 13 at Juilliard!"
 * 2)  "missing information as well as false information"
 * 3)  "added pertinate information. Still much missing"
 * 4)  "Lies"
 * 5)  "Lies"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"


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


 * Comments:

Reversion after User:Voceditenore gave final warning on user page. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to punt on this right now thanks to Voceditenore's fixes that have made a nice, readable stub. I'll leave the report open and if Mambojazz1 reverts it all back before the end of the day, I think a block could be considered. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Jayron32. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:103.27.235.22, 103.27.235.24, 103.27.235.25 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:, ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - add of the pseudoscientific theory Sun Language Theory, IP 103.27.235.22
 * 2)  - same, but now IP 103.27.235.24
 * 3)  - same, but now IP 103.27.235.25
 * 4)  - 4th revert by IP 103.27.235.24
 * 5)  - placed speedy deletion template IP 103.27.235.24
 * 6)  - reverted template IP 103.27.235.25
 * 7)  - reverted template IP 103.27.235.22
 * 8)  - extended template IP 103.27.235.22
 * 9)  - 4th revert by IP 103.27.235.22
 * 10)  - 17th edit overall by IPs

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, only through edit summary, due to resemblance to a previous sockpuppets

Comments: There are used intentionally three different IPs so could evade block because of 3RR, and continue doing disruptive edits, like Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov. The connections with a pseudoscientific theory, although are a real branch of Turkic languages, are based on OR and that Hunnic wasn't Turkic (similar POV like PavelStaykov socks).


 * Result: Semiprotected Oghur languages six months, due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. Let me know if he moves on to other articles. For background see Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov. The IPs come from RackBank Data Centers in India. You might consider reporting them at WP:OP to see if a webhostblock may be justified. There is a chance that all the PavelStaykov socks come from webhosts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Spirot67 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Crystal clear case of 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Macaque123 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

This article is under a 1RR restriction. When you click "edit this page" a big warning shows up which explicitly states "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. When in doubt, assume it is related, and don't revert." So the user is well aware of the restriction. They are also well aware of it because they've been notified.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and. Five days, two threads, no response on talk.

Comments:

I'm also having trouble understanding the user's edit summaries which are close to being incomprehensible. In addition, the actual text changes and reverts, also mangle the grammar in the process.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for WP:1RR violation. This editor seems to be limited in their use of English, and this can make it hard for others to understand them. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

User:71.174.132.60 reported by User:81.88.60.72 (Result: Blocked)
'''Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Editing talk pages. 81.88.60.72 (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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:


 * – 3 days. I've also semiprotected Jewish Bolshevism and its talk page. Since this editor is hopping IPs in the range 71.174.0.0/16, a rangeblock may be needed. See discussion of a rangeblock at ANI. Some people have referred to this IP as an antisemitic troll, so whenever he reappears my guess is that most admins would consider his edits revertable on sight. (He has used the website of the holocaust-denier David Irving as a source for references). Besides the IP address reported here, he has also used 71.174.130.100 and 71.174.127.111. Let me know if you think the problem is continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Driplivia reported by User:Uncle Milty (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 708438620 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 2)  "Revert vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 708438159 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 708438620 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 2)  "Revert vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 708438159 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User:Ashur4ever reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

SPA POV edits on Kirkuk. Blanking, apparent vandalism, removal of sources. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  04:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – by User:Coffee per WP:NOTHERE. Unfortunately this verdict seems correct. The account seems to have been created for the purpose of ethnic edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Apriestofgix (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 708143556 by Apriestofgix (talk) birth name usually mentioned in first line of early life."
 * 2)  "/* Early life */ Correct punctuation"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */ birth name Trumpf"
 * 1)  "/* Early life */ birth name Trumpf"


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


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


 * Comments:

User continues to make edits that have been discussed on the Talk page and not adopted due to a lack of sources, or conflicting sources that have resulted in not adding that content to the main article. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:VanEman is warned for edit warring on Frederick Trump. This user made several reverts on March 3 and 4 and has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Apriestofgix has deleted referenced information about Trump when there was no agreement at all on the talk page. He has deleted information from the "career" section that was referenced and had to do with Trump's career. VanEman (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:152.208.64.38 reported by User:FA9295 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 3)  "/* Music and recording */"
 * 4)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 5)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 6)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 7)  "/* Notes */"
 * 8)  "/* Notes */"
 * 9)  "/* Notes */"
 * 10)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 11)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 12)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Notes */"
 * 2)  "/* Notes */"
 * 3)  "/* Notes */"
 * 4)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 5)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 6)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Notes */"
 * 2)  "/* Notes */"
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 4)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 5)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Long list of edit warring/edit reverting that is currently sparking an edit war at Untitled Unmastered. Persistent addition of poorly sourced or unsourced content. Please note that the editor (IP) has been notified, but the warnings are not selected because they were warned by another user (so I can't select them). <font color="(#000080)" size="2px">FA9295 (talk)<font color="(#000080)" size="1px">  (contributions)<font color="(#000080)" size="1px">  19:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: as the other editor involved, I've also reported the IP editor at WP:AIV. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  19:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bangla1234 reported by User:Barek (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Undid revision 708486195 by JJMC89
 * 2)  - Undid revision 708484240 by Barek
 * 3)  - Undid revision 708385473 by Oshwah
 * 4)  - Undid revision 708350942 by Yamaguchi先生
 * 1)  - Undid revision 708350942 by Yamaguchi先生

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * (→‎Warning re: edit warring on Brahmanbaria District: new section)

Comments:

User engaged in edit warring over poorly sourced content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bleckter reported by User:Chueco23456 (Result: Both blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=690247843]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=690248121]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=690248279]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=690528257]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=White_Latin_Americans&diff=prev&oldid=690528617]
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bleckter&diff=708685404&oldid=708682491]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:



Comments: the user is not only changing this but everything remotly related to white people in latin america

I did edit more than three times but because this guy is doing whatever he want, if i was wrong please ban me too


 * Comment: The diffs are from 2015 and the user was a sockpuppet. I put two warnings in his talk page and he ignored the first one. --Bleckter (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: whatever you wanna say. you didnt aswer any of my concerns in the talk section or your talk section, but you still have time to warn me, anyhow the fists diffs are from 2015 those are the first ones you did, the last one are from this day, you change every article, " white argentine, white colombian, white mexican, argentine of european descent,..." remotly related to a white person living in latin america and you do not explain anything in the talk section, and the 3 reference that you use are from the same study, that is doubtfully serious because it say:"56% amerindian or european and amerindian, 44% completely european, where are the blacks? where are the asians?. and he or she deletes every other reference that prove him/her wrong --Chueco23456 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer me in the talk page. --Bleckter (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . I see no evidence that either user is a sock puppet. All I see is an edit war. Although some of the listed diffs are from 2015, there are many from now. The Talk page comments by both users were unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jrotismyhero reported by User:忍者ポップ (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Vandalism edits. --忍者ポップ (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Jrotismyhero has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild reported by User:Wikidemon (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (7RR in a couple days on the talk page)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708479396&oldid=708479327
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708486335&oldid=708485886
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=708602773
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708605096&oldid=708603344
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708700806&oldid=708696335
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708716156&oldid=708715735
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&type=revision&diff=708769618&oldid=708768901

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewolfchild&type=revision&diff=708102410&oldid=708094477
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewolfchild&type=revision&diff=708721248&oldid=708719746
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThewolfchild&type=revision&diff=708768716&oldid=708721866

Comments:


 * A difficult editor with a troubled history with the project — numerous recent blocks for edit warring and personal attacks (see their block log). No doubt this report will trigger a bunch of reflexive accusations. Along with some other users, they edit warred the Barak Obama article to the point of page protection, twice. Seems to have a mistaken impression of my attempt to mediate in the form of a compromise edit, and is now edit warring with several editors over maintaining a talk page heading accusing my conduct as "unbelievable". If it looks like I'm part of the edit war, I'm not — I've hit 1RR once on the talk page trying to clean up and maintain some order, but the discussion is now archived and I will back off this particular issue. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems to be some tag-teaming against User:Thewolfchild on this talk page, reverting edits which could be seen as provocative. Thewolfchild has exceeded 3RR obut I am not convinced it would be fair to punish one party in this dispute. Wikidemon, your actions have been far from ideal: to edit war over the title of a section is incredibly petty. I suggest that your strategy has been to get this editor blocked so you can get your own way on the article. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, please don't make baseless accusations of bad faith motives about getting editors blocked or "tag teaming". If you're going to jump into a dispute I would appreciate a little more care than that. I am not edit warring, and have not. My interaction on the page has been fine — if there is a single place where you think otherwise I would appreciate your pointing that out specifically so we can discuss. I have thought and acted very carefully in dealing with a problematic editor. The reason I have reported this editor is that they made made clear they intend to edit war the already-archived discussion to include a personal attack even after announcing that they had left the discussion, and have a long history of doing this sort of thing that will continue unless corrected. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Response from User Thewolfchild
 * 1) - not a revert, just a edit after  changed my talk page comment.
 * 2) - Wikidemon changed my comment again.
 * 3) - I added an  template to a blatant personal attack by
 * 4) - I had to re-add the template after it was reverted out and the personal attack put back in on behalf of scjessey by, who also added a personal attack in edit summary. This was again reverted by scjessey.
 * 5) - Wikidemon changed my comment again.
 * 6) - Wikidemon changed my comment again, along with personal attack in his edit summary.
 * 7) - scjessey changed my comment again on behalf of Wikidemon, also added personal attack to edit summary.

Basically, if anyone should be filing a complaint, it's me. There is clear edit-warring here on behalf of Wikidemon, working in close concert with scjessey and Dave Dial. Their editing history shows they are frequent and close collaborators and will tag-team to game the system, effectively edit-warring POV content. The "comment" in edits #1, #2, #5, #6 & #7 was the actually sub-heading I added above my comment. After the first 2 reverts, I changed the sub-heading to something that is commonly used by the community ("Arbitrary break"), yet they kept changing it anyway. This neutral non-offensive heading is part of my talk page comment and per WP:TPO should not have been altered, and certainly not repeatedly. There is no edit-warring on my part. I had effectively left the discussion last night, only to find this morning more unwelcome posts to my talk page by these users after they were explicitly and repeatedly asked to stay off my page. This, along with repeated improper use of warning templates, all in an effort to get the last word, and to deliberately provoke more (benign) reverts to generate a 3RR complaint. This is simply an abuse of the system and waste of the community's time. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, I see Wikidemon has now accused me of socking and disrupting political articles to push POV agenda. I will let my contribs speak for themselves. I have rarely, if ever, edited any political articles and anytime I have those edits were minor and/or non-controversial. It's just not my area. Wikidemon on the other hand spends a great deal of time and energy controlling articles related mainly to Hilary Clinton. See; Editing history speaks for itself.
 * If anything, this report and accusation is an attempt at distraction, as Wikidemon is clearly hoping he won't get hit by his own boomerang. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional note; edits #1 and #2 were made on March 5th, before 5:00pm. Edits #3 and #4 shouldn't count as I was addressing a personal attack. Edit #5 didn't occur until March 6th, after 9:30pm... more than 24 hours later. Edits #6 and #7 also shouldn't count as I was reverting changes made to my own talk page comments per WP:TPO. I'm not seeing a clear violation of 3RR here. But I will acknowledge that multiple back-and-forth edits between users is something that should be avoided. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's not let this editor throw smoke around repeated, ongoing edit warring, insults, and disruption of this and apparently other articles. Thewolfchild's expected counter-accusations are gross and uncalled for, the kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND game-playing that makes editing high-traffic articles so difficult. I stand by each and every one of my edits, and if anybody has an issue with any of them I can explain each one if asked. I reached 1RR twice on the talk page, for BRD reasons that were proper and appropriate. Among Thewolfchild's deliberate misstatements here, I have not altered a single one of their talk page comments, and after my initial caution and warning that an editor does not WP:OWN talk page headings and should not use them to insult other editors, I did not further revert until after they made clear they were leaving the discussion and it would be archived, at which point I consolidated and organized a number of sections for the record that were about this same proposed edit. I'm trying to keep the article editing process here orderly and collegial. I have not accused this editor of socking — another deliberate misstatement — but I am indeed concerned about socking, as there have been hundreds of sock accounts on this article over the years, including two known socks in the past month or so.


 * Here's a suggestion. If this editor doesn't want to be blocked for yet another week, why not warn them to cut it out and ask if they will promise not to edit war further on the Obama article or talk page, regardless of what other editors decide to name the talk page headers — not by me, as I said, I've had enough of that. Assuming they agree, problem solved for now, this page won't be disrupted, and they're on notice (along with their block history) to be more collaborative in the future. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Some wonderful doublespeak going on here. Agree with MSGJ. Arkon (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is really, really frustrating. Can you point, specifically, to one thing I have done incorrectly as an editor here in trying to deal with this disruption? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that we close this with no action. Wolf has disengaged, and I think doing nothing would be preferred to the alternative which I think would be based on the fact that neither party comes out smelling like roses here. It really does not matter what the section heading is, and I think it was more of a bone to fight over than anything else. <b style="color:Indigo">HighInBC</b> 17:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not picking a bone, and as far as I can tell my editing here has been fine. But yes, thanks for noting that — I'll withdraw the request given the promise to disengage. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. Let's hope the war on the talk page does not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:C3MC2 reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as well as

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

Comments: A number of editors prefer the version this user continues to denigrate because it does not approach the subject's supernatural claims credulously. The version this user keeps reverting to violates a number of WP policies and guidelines by assuming the supernatural claims of the subject are accurate and describing them as such in wikivoice.


 * Additional note: Two hours later, after being warned twice, reported (and notified) and two attempts to engage them on the talk page, they're still edit warring. Most recent diff added above. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn reported by User:75.138.187.114 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https: under Hebephilia article //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.138.187.114#March_2016

Comments: I am new to wiki editing and from what I understand anyone can edit as long as the information is legit now I have been trying to add some little more information to the Hebephilia article and Flyer22Reborn keeps reverting at first it was because I was not considered a good source which is fair but after I went and got actual reliable sources and still keeps reverting and says I need permission and is threating/harassing me and to ban me I can let go of my info not being on there but I do not like being threated and him/her saying i need to ask him/her permission first like ( You are still editing this article without discussion)when I  should not have to if my info is reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.187.114 (talk • contribs) 22:36, March 7, 2016‎

i also apologize if i did not send or write this properly i am new and not that good at wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.187.114 (talk • contribs) 22:37, March 7, 2016‎

Notifying Flyer22 Reborn. Meters (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at Hebephilia edit history, it looks like Flyer22 Reborn only reverted once in the past 24 hours and was neither edit-warring nor crossed the 3RR threshold. 75.138.187.114, this complaint is unwarranted. I recommend you use dispute resolution if you and Flyer can't come to some agreement on the article talk page. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

do not no about 3rr threshold i thought this page was for reporting like i said i am new he/she saying i can not make edit without asking first and threating to ban me for just trying to add stuff in but i will do as you say  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.138.187.114 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It appears that the IP wants to withdraw this complaint. The filer is advised to use the article talk page to explain the changes they support. Making the changes unilaterally seems to be encountering resistance. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:86.169.72.177 reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: Blocked)
Pages:
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)
 * (various others, pretty much every article this user's most recent IP has edited has been a war of some kind)

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) On, warring to introduce POV tone:     , etc
 * 2) On, warring to introduce copyvio content     , etc
 * 3) On, warring to introduce images to aircraft against CON/convention:    , etc
 * 4) On, warring to remove cited content:    , etc
 * 5) On, warring to push and persist POV that predated previous user/IP blocks and bans:         , etc
 * 6) (Other examples I'm too jaded to provide)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warning from User:Valenciano :
 * Warning from User:Murry1975 :
 * Warning from User:Guliolopez :
 * Warnings from User:BilCat :, etc
 * (Various others)

Diff of attempt to resolve issue elsewhere:
 * Given that this user has been IP hopping for the last 5 years (since the user was blocked for warring via multiple user accounts), and any block-only action would likely have just resulted in a hop to yet another IP, I opened an ANI report and advised the user. Further discussion on 20+ talkpages is futile and contrary to WP:RBI.

Comments: ANI is seemingly very busy, and the note hasn't been actioned. While it would perhaps be better to address this type of LTA with a solution of broader scope (block, page protection, etc), in the meantime this IP needs to be blocked. It's getting silly now, and wasting the time of (at last count) at least a dozen other editors. Guliolopez (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * – 1 week for edit warring. Any edits by IPs on articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict such as Beit Jala are forbidden by the general prohibition in WP:ARBPIA3. i'm also semiprotecting Irish Army, Army Reserve (Ireland), Template:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft and AgustaWestland AW139. Let me know if there are other articles that might need semiprotecting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit to lead to correct factual errors and for NPOV[], HughD edit to same material []
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) Original addition, moving of material (Contrary to edit summary, there was not no talk page discussion related to this change)
 * 5) Original addition, edits and changes immediately after ,,  This last one removed the material from the section where the other editor had added it.
 * 6) Added:  Removed:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been warned several times in the past as well as having been blocked for edit warring.

Notice of this posting:

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

Comments:

HughD needs to engage in actual discussions on the talk page rather than posting quick, dismissive comments. The shear number of edits to the page, over 185 in 5 days (!), and the lack of meaningful talk page engagement is very problematic and makes dialog difficult.
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tan Khaerr reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:08, 2 March 2016‎ (1st revert)
 * 2) 19:04, 3 March 2016‎ (2nd revert)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning:
 * 1)  02:47, 4 March 2016 (my attempt to warn him about the 1RR rule)

The editor in question (Taen Khaerr) broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. I warned him of this and asked that he revert himself. I also attempted to discuss the issue with him (on his talk page) and pointed out the source contradicting him via his talk page and edit summaries. I gave him a few days to respond, but I was simply ignored. To summarize, Taen Khaerr ignored: my warning that he broke 1RR; my request that he revert himself; the source that I presented to him (twice on his talk page) that was contradicting what he was claiming. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours for WP:1RR violation on an article related to the Syrian Civil War. See WP:GS/SCW. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Solaire the knight reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Warned user)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I WANT TO SEE THE ARGUMENTS ON PAGE DISCUSSION"
 * 2)  "I would like to see your participation in the discussion, rather than support for rollbacks"
 * 3)  "Stop War amendments, the discussion still goes , and it is dedicated to not only "anti-western""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Trolls from Olgino. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* March 2016 */"
 * 3)   "/* March 2016 */"


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


 * Comments:

User is disruptively pushing his POV over 5 times: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolls_from_Olgino&oldid=prev&diff=708962925 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolls_from_Olgino&diff=prev&oldid=708957427 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolls_from_Olgino&diff=prev&oldid=708406859 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolls_from_Olgino&diff=prev&oldid=708780980 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trolls_from_Olgino&diff=prev&oldid=708213173

User is also being disrespectful to other editors: "What a sweet agitation of Ukrainian activists" UCaetano (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You should be glad that edits a provocation of war in my address was successful. That's when I have 2-3 days waiting for an answer to my question about some sources, who allegedly referred participant rolled back my edits also "accidentally " every time demolishing template " neutrality ". And of course, you do not mind , as a party to the request of neutral secondary sources began to make speeches I read about the " lie of the Russian authorities " ? Solaire the knight (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And now in general it appears that the party did not even looked into the discussion of the article, openly admitting that he led me edits war only on the grounds that the commentary on my first revision seemed to him weak Solaire the knight (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how the talk page discussion is going. You should NOT engage in edit wars and should NOT attack other editors. I'll let the admins deal with you. UCaetano (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * " It does not matter what you write on the talk page " - you definitely experienced the participant ? You have supported someone else edits the war, while not even looking at the discussion page to learn the essence of the conflict and try to understand it . Given that you're obviously not a beginner, you can only conclude that you , or did not know the rules ,or ( more likely) just trying to make me the scapegoat on the stretched reasons. What seems even more outrageous is the fact that the commentary to the revision was a call to stop kickbacks and go into the discussion . Solaire the knight (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . I'm sorry, I find Solaire the knight's comments difficult to understand. (Google Translate?) They have not violated 3RR, but are definitely edit warring to insert the POV tag on the article. Stop putting it back, Solaire the knight or you will be blocked. Just discuss on talk, please. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm very difficult to maintain a long conversation in English , although some knowledge of the language . But then tell me how I can continue to participate in the discussion , if opponents delay time, and patrolling blindly roll back my changes , even without going into the discussion ? Moreover , you can see for yourself that the template has been removed is not directly based on any argument , but by first rollback without any arguments , and then the quiet after the removal of the text "anti-western" Solaire the knight (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:67.83.143.151 reported by User:Woovee(Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * Page:


 * User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:28, 15 February 2016
 * 2) 16:30, 15 February 2016
 * 3) 21:49, 26 February 2016
 * 4) 08:45, 7 March 2016


 * 1) 05:40, 27 January 2016
 * 2) 07:17, 30 January 2016
 * 3) 05:41, 6 March 2016
 * 4) 05:25, 7 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All the users of these two articles disagree with this genre warrior. This has been going on for months. After reporting this at WP:ANI, I have been advised by to report this ip here as the troubles keep on day after day. This user doesn't understand what is a consensus. Woovee (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . As they've been arguing over multiple articles, it has to be a block. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Redheylin reported by User:Dan56 (Result: Advice)
After being warned on their talk page not to revert again and engage in an edit war and that there was an RfC opened at the talk page to discuss the contentious material they continue to add to the article, Redheylin reintroduced their material, for a fourth time, knowing the warnings, policies, implications, etc. They did not engage the RfC or the talk page of the article in question AT ALL. Dan56 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of Redheylin edit warring:
 * 02:58, 5 March 2016
 * 03:40, 5 March 2016
 * 04:09, 5 March 2016
 * 04:48, 5 March 2016

Diffs of my attempt to discuss with Redheylin at their talk page:
 * 03:11, 5 March 2016
 * 03:50, 5 March 2016
 * 03:59, 5 March 2016
 * 04:12, 5 March 2016 (warning)

Diffs of my attempt to discuss at the article's talk page:
 * 04:08, 5 March 2016 (opening an RfC)
 * 05:08, 5 March 2016

The subject of this page is a linguist and spare-time web-reviewer of music whose reviews are often quoted as Wikipedia sources. User:Dan56, whose main interest as an editor is also in pop music albums, watches this page and removes/reverts any mention of Starostin's reviews. He has done this many times, the history shows. He claims that (a) there is no source on the web that meets his standards of reliability that states that Starostin reviews albums, (b) that the title of Starostin's website, entitled "George Starostin's Album Reviews" does not constitute a statement from Starostin that he reviews records and (c) that it is in his opinion of no importance that he does so. He has therefore reverted inclusion of this statement three times today. He has issued an edit-warring notice on my page, but does not appear to have reported this, so I am doing so. He has been informed by a 3rd party that such a statement is acceptable. He refuses to accept any citation. This appears to me to be contentious, single-issue editing. I request arbitration on this. I shall inform User:Dan56 of this present submission. Thank you. Redheylin (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion


 * "He has been informed by a 3rd party"??? What does that even mean SMH. clearly has a competency issue, since none of the policies I cited and connected to issues with their sourcing, nor my opening of an RfC in light of this editor's edit warring, has registered with them. I messaged them directly after their first revert, I explained the policies at length in relation to the content after their second revert, and then opened an RfC (notifying this editor both in my edit summary reverting them and in my last message to their talk page. Yet he deflects my efforts at reasoning with poorly thought out statements and ignorance of how WP works. Like wtf is their problem?? Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ("He has been informed by a 3rd party"??? What does that even mean) It means that User:Qwyrxian has stated, when commenting upon a previous instance of your many reversions at Talk:George Starostin, that


 * "Dan56 asked for my input as an experienced Wikipedian, and I have to say that Dan56 is completely correct. If no independent source has ever discussed his blog, then it shouldn't be covered here. Well, maybe we could have a single sentence (and I do stress maybe)"


 * However, I have added such an independent, non-self-published source. I have noticed your last statement to me that; "You're really annoying", and I consider it uncivil, likewise your allegation of incompetence above. I also object to your issuing an edit-war notice without reporting any edit-war. I have also noted that you have modified this page so that it appears that you have reported me here, whereas the edit-history will show that the opposite is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=708365014


 * As I have stated, I consider your statement that Starostin has not claimed to review music to be mistaken and contentious, and I do not accept, in the light of his many Wikipedia citations and mentions in published works, that you ought to revert without notice on the grounds that "it is not important". Redheylin (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all, you added a citation that doesn't say anything about him being a reviewer of pop music albums. Second of all, like I explained to you when I first messaged you, biographies of living persons require high-quality sources, and what is determined as a notable subject is based on significant coverage by multiple third-party sources. Thirdly, there are no Wikipedia citations to his blog, as it was considered unreliable in a discussion by WP:ALBUMS members a long time ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_44) I gave you a warning for edit warring so you wouldn't do it again and I wouldn't have to report you. That's the point of a warning. Like duuuuuhhhh. But then again, you didn't really read any of my messages or warnings carefully, or go to the WP policies I referenced and linked, didya?? You just gave it a quick glance, and said "I'm right anyway" Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I note that, in addition to having altered this page, you have reverted a 4th time, claiming that the citation given, a book on Pink Floyd at;


 * https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cAiL9oTFz78C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22george+starostin%22+reviews&source=bl&ots=Otpqosp3Ec&sig=ccYecSPtiSsgLIqf1NYXJfHVRf8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilxeW73qjLAhUlD5oKHYnkBPoQ6AEIlwEwFQ#v=onepage&q=%22george%20starostin%22%20reviews&f=false


 * which refers at length to Starostin's reviews of this band, also does not constitute a confirmation that Mr Starostin reviews records - a contention that I consider mistaken and vexatious. It gives the URL of the said reviews and, as I have said, quotes them at length. I consider that your reversion, again without notice or negotiation, is inappropriate and that you have exceeded the 3-revert limit. I request that you refrain from posting on my page, the talk page and here, until arbitration is obtained. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a revert since I didn't undo any part of your edit, whereas you readded the same content four times. I tagged your source for not supporting the statement you used it to support, because it didn't. If you had read any of the guidelines on WP:RS and WP:NOR that I cited, you would know better, but you don't because you clearly don't care at all about this being an encyclopedia, only about what you think is notable. "Without notice or negotiation"?? You're ridiculous lmao Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it will be obvious that I have added a selection of citations in attempts to meet your requirements and that you have reverted four times on different and spurious grounds without constructive comment. I think it will also be clear that, though you have tried to obtain a consensus, at the place you cite above, that these reviews are unreliable, you have failed to have done so. And I think that your continued false statements and your allegations that I am "annoying" and ridiculous" and "incompetent" are unacceptable. Once again I request that you forbear and await arbitration. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "Allegations"? "spurious grounds"?? Who are you, Atticus Finch? I didn't revert you for a fourth time. The statement you're so hell bent on adding is still in the article, is it not? Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Having arrived here straight from the RfC at Talk:Georgiy Starostin, I'd just like to state my hope that if any action is taken here, it's not against Redheylin. At the RfC, I've referred to two third-party sources that I only know about because someone in the past has either attempted to use them as a source in the article, or they've been offered as a source in a previous discussion dedicated to this issue. The nominator here removed the first of these (a PopMatters piece) from the article, and seems to have forgotten about the second, which was raised at a discussion that he was most certainly part of in 2012. So, to read at the current RfC that "There are NO reliable, third-party sources that discuss his hobby as a music blogger/reviewer" is somewhat surprising. There are, but the impression I get is that the nominator keeps ignoring or removing them (the Pink Floyd book cited above was mentioned in that same 2012 discussion, after all). What this means is that any editor wanting to add that Starostin is also an online music critic/reviewer effectively starts at zero each time when in fact, even though any mention of the previous examples has been omitted both here and at the RfC, it seems that we have a growing number of sources who at least recognise Starostin as an album reviewer. I've got no personal opinion on Starostin, and I appreciate that this forum is focused on an episode of edit warring, not on article content. But I see other editors' attempts regarding this issue constantly thwarted by the same editor, to the point that it reeks of control. And it's constantly accompanied by an element of hostility or, as is the case above, downright insults. JG66 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in the RfC, even your sources were questionable and made up of original research. I offered a compromise, considering how obscure the coverage is on this linguist's music blogger hobby, that it be mentioned in the article body, not in the lead. There are NO reliable third-party sources that discuss his hobby as a music blogger. There are obscure references to his site by sources with no relation to this article's topic (WP:NOR), along with brief off-hand mentions of his name on a few music websites. BLPs require better than that. And how could you even say that smfh? That if any action be taken, it's not against Redheylin. What hostility? I engaged the talk page and his talk page, and he just kept reverting/restoring the statement "Starostin is a prolific music reviewer", four effing times, just continuing to respond with some really misinformed info on what's relevant or verifiable information, and not once engaging the talk page when I kept urging them too. Like wtf lmaoo... . Look at the diffs and make a judgment that's independent of your opinion on the content/sources in question, cause the research you offered at the RfC is just as questionable to introducing into the lead of a BLP. The other editor did not bother taking any of the policies I cited seriously (whether it was on sources, verifiability, notability and BLPs, or just on how to conduct themselves and not start an edit war, BRD, or anything). I opened a discussion at the talk page. They did nothing but deflect any reasoning I offered at their talk page and just reverted four times within a 24-hour period, hint hint. Like what hostility?? Maybe a little frustration since the editor's been editing articles since 2008 and everything I was saying seemed foreign to them. Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about – there's nothing OR about those three third-party sources. And I'm sorry but hostility is something I see you bringing to many discussions on Wikipedia: your whole tone towards editors who disagree with you is hostile – "hounding" those who oppose you, as Nortonius said in this recent RfC; Drmies also commented there on your aggressive tone. And I recall past episodes on this noticeboard when you've been warned about this. As mentioned above, I've got no comment on the edit warring; I came here to provide some context on this issue. JG66 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about? Well, I explained it to you at the RfC as best I could. You either understand what original research is or you don't. Dan56 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please, why is this case unactioned? Dan56 has continued his edit war on this trivial matter, although the RfC that he opened has gone against him, he refuses to accept it. Plus, he has has modified this, my request for oversight, to make it appear that HE has made the complaint against ME - which surely deserves sanction. And his lack of civility to me and other editors is disgraceful. I am requesting that, as he has made the same edit countless times against countless editors, he be proscribed from editing this page, or any other which cites Starostin. Redheylin (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Quit misrepresenting things bro. This does not look like you were reporting me but the article. I reported you because you kept restoring your bold edit in spite of me informing you of the relevant policies and guidelines. You continued to do things your way. "countless times" is bs, and more importantly I offered a compromise at the RfC and with this edit to Georgiy Starostin; one of the two editors who weighed in at the RfC agreed adding it to the article body rather than the lead. STOP MISREPRESENTING SHTT. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Redheylin and User:Dan56 are both *advised* not to add or remove the contested sentence again until the RfC at Talk:Georgiy Starostin reaches a conclusion. If the dispute is reported here a second time one or more blocks are possible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hoyalawya reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Adding promo material repeatedly to the page after repeated warnings against promotion and edit-warring. I am an uninvolved editor and only came across this via my usual patrolling. GABHello! 02:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. See User talk:Hoyalawya as well as the ANI discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:SVK2016 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

The whole edit war:  

See: Kotleba – Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko Also: Facebook - Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVK2016 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three days by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SVK2016 counter-reported by User:ThecentreCZ (Result: Semi)
User being reported: Facebook post is not a graphical manual of the political party, for even not a trademarked logo created by the automatic vectorization. And, are you blind please? You must notify any user you report.. He really started the edit war by reverting my legitimate editions. Really silly behavior to report seasoned user by new user to the Wikipedia. Top of this absolute crazyness to even not notifying me. Best wishes, wish good judgement, I think semi-protection is reasonable. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semi, per the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Firebrace reported by User:Edwardx (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Ignored my reasonable suggestion that WP:AFD is the best approach here.


 * The first edit wasn't a revert, but nice try... Firebrace (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. User:Firebrace seems to have given up his campaign, now that the article was speedy kept at AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Arcenter, 71.179.21.197 reported by User:Oshwah (Result: Semi, Block)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

Another IP range (104.244.53.61, 104.244.53.62), as well as another user (Xmaster8621), have also begun adding content to the article Timothy Parker (puzzle designer). Temporary pending changes protection may also be necessary.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More IPs have been involving themselves in this article and the dispute (as you'll see on the history page). I'm not going to continue listing them.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for three days. Offhand I have no true problem with the content the IPs and possible COI editor have removed, although I do think that the claims need more sourcing in the article itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left Arcenter a warning about COI editing and I've expanded the allegations very slightly. The thing to remember is that these are just allegations at this point and need to be worded as such. The coverage is heavy enough to warrant some mention, but I don't think that it needs to be much more than it is right now. I do want to say that I'm not really comfortable with sections like this since it can be construed as an attack against Parker. It seems likely that Parker is editing his own page, but we do need to be careful about how we go about uncovering this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He's continued editing. He isn't reverting, but he is making some mildly selective edits that are of some concern. I've given him a 24 hour block because he was reverting and he has made no attempt at communicating with anyone. I've posted several messages to his talk page so there's no way that he could be missing these questions. I did make a note of this on the talk page along with a request that we allow him to collaborate on the talk page. My main concern is that I want it to be clear that we at least gave him a chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Marking this report as closed since User:Tokyogirl79 has taken any necessary admin actions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Matthewjoule reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Conflict of interest user has been edit warring for a month now to get a sponsers name included, has not joined the discussion on the talk page and has been reverted by assorted editors, it is very disruptive.Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like he was blocked for 24 hours whilst I was filing this report. Theroadislong (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours by User:Mattythewhite. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Oldyeller123 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: protected, blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:

Conflict of interest user and various socks are reverting to non neutral promotional version.Theroadislong (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. The fresh socks are accusing experienced editors of being socks. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Several wikipedia accounts have been vandalizing the page with biased information/removing cited content/adding incorrect versions of events, and not discussing them first on the talk page. I do not know how to do all the fancy wikipedia tagging, but I do know bad writing when I see it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldyeller123 (talk • contribs)


 * / by another admin -- slakr  \ talk / 02:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:C8:4000:D3:C0BF:E166:6BEB:54A5 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Executive Order 11110. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * &mdash; it looks like they have multiple ips and have also created an account to vandalize. -- slakr \ talk / 02:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He has been blocked and reported for similar behavior multiple times, so he's expected to be aware of what edit warring is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've opened a section for this regard on the article TP.

Comments:

There are some disputed points regarding the article which are being discussed on the article talk page. Some agreements and disagreements are being exchanged there, as it's seen. BlueMoonset correctly tagged the article writing " issues discussed at length on talk page and still unresolved". Suddenly, a user who has shown tendency to commit edit war on several occasions, jumped in and removed some disputed material without participating the discussion. It was weird, as the issues were not resolved so I restored them and kept on discussing my points on the TP. The reported user once again did his job of reverting without participating the discussion. After almost 2 Mins, he put a note on the article TP and accused me of POV editing (which it self should be proved). As I said He was not even involved in that discussion! Here my point is not that I was right regarding those issues as here's not the place for that, rather I want to say that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right," (as Drmies said) and I think that single diff of FC's revert is clearly enough to prove his edit warring where almost nothing is resolved. Note: Among other occasions, the reported user was verified to be guilty of edit warring some days ago. Mhhossein (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring: There is consensus on TP that article should be given a NPOV makeover. Mhhossein does not WP:OWN the article and anyone can edit the article to reduce POV edits. Everyone including BlueMoonset and User:Dr.K., except Mhhossein agrees with my edits, to be frank this is a simple case of one disgruntled user with a case of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI. If Mhhossein reverts me with the reason that TP discussion is ongoing, however, the issue about POV has already been decided and the article tagged, hence it is proven that restoring NPOV is not against policy. reverting any edits that restore NPOV is total BS. Enough is enough this time I want a damn boomerang for this guy who keeps posting shitty reports about me, simple as that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As It's seen FreeatlastChitchat pretends to ignore that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". I think because he simply survived his previous case although he was guilty of violating WP:3RR, as it was proved. Anyway, How do you know they agreed with your edit warring? could not they do it? BlueMoonset clearly asserted that the issues were not resolved! You should've participated the discussion instead of being such a disruptive user. Moreover, I'm asking the admins to take care of "Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring", because FC has been blocked and warned for being uncivil multiple times. He was also asked multiple times to practice diplomacy, the suggestion he ignores usually. Mhhossein (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What I said was that POV problems persisted, which is why I finally tagged the article. Neutrality issues have plagued this article for well over a month and were what sank its DYK nomination, which I closed over a week ago because none of the issues raised had been addressed. At some point someone was going to come along and attempt a rewrite to take care of the neutrality problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Look BlueMoonset! There are some disputes over some points and this naturally happens. Who is right and who is wrong is something and dealing with those issues is something else. I had my points, as you did and they are all respected. For example, at first it was said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. Here it's not important who was right and who was wrong rather the very important problem here is that edit warring retards reaching a consensus and is prohibited. You can see other sections such as "Just two SIM cards", "returned to the United States" and "Some points" where disputes were simply resolved via discussion. The very spirit of being able to discuss the issues with other editors leads us toward consensus, the point which is apparently hard to understand for some users. FreeatlastChitchat's persistent edit warring trend has to stop somewhere. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone calling one revert "edit warring" belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:edit war, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," the case is even more clear if the parties don't try to solve the issue via discussion. You made zero effort to resolve the issue! Moreover, any one who violates the limits of civility by calling others "...someone tripping on acid..." and "...should be taken care of on hourly basis" and had been repeating this behaviour over and over (I can simply present multiple diffs) probably needs to be addressed by admins. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Note to closing administrator: Please consider WP:BOOMERANG -- perhaps a topic ban or a ban on noticeboard complaints -- for the editor who initiated this. At this point, their unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Could I know what you mean by "unsubstantiated noticeboard complaints about FreeatlastChitchat border on harassment"? Mhhossein (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein He means that you have been routinely opening up new reports on noticeboards about me. none of these reports hold any water. As per WP:HARASSMENT you are now going to be banned either from opening up new reports or from Iran/Islam related topics. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean that most of your complaints about FreeatlastChitchat lack merit, which is why they are rarely supported by administrators, and they are starting to appear—to me at least—to be "a pattern of repeated offensive behavior ... to intentionally target" FreeatlastChitchat, which is how Wikipedia defines harassment. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's enough. Mhhossein's behaviour has crossed over to disruption and should stop. I also think he should be prevented from reverting editors such as FreeatlastChitchat who act after talkpage discussion and within consensus trying to clean up that article from its heavy-handed POV and propaganda. Finally, this report is a clear sign that Mhhossein does not understand when to file a 3RR report. Dr.   K.  03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1- ASFAIK, FC were proved guilty and were warned after my reports 2- I advice you and Malik Shabazz to read harassment once again completely to see this is not harassment. In fact, this is FC who is hounding me on multiple pages 3- You have shown enough cases not following TP discussions. 4- Dr.K.: There were no consensus! His act was disruptive as before. What you call "heavy-handed POV and propaganda" was being discussed and some agreements was forming. We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We were 3 (you, bluemoonset and me) and I had my points. Please get your facts straight. FreeatlastChitchat also participated in the discussion and I actually thanked him before you reverted him. You reversion was not justified on the talkpage so actually it was you who edit-warred without discussing on the talkpage and without anyone agreeing with your strong POV, for which you were admonished several times on the talkpage. Dr.  K.  05:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's clearer now. As it's seen on the article talk page, We 3 were involved in the "POV issues" section that I had started. We were exchanging our points. For example, at first you said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. There were also some other points being discussed there. We were just three when the points were exchanged! suddenly, FC jumped in and removed some material while he hadn't participated the discussion and there were of course some unresolved points which needed to be discussed yet. I emphasize, He had absolutely zero participation in the discussion. The only comment he made was after the removing and reverting had happened accusing me of POV editing. I restored the material as there were no consensus yet. We were 3, and one (me) had his points and FC had no points there! He should not have done that when there were no consensus. Mhhossein (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Mhhossein this shows your utter lack of WP:COMPETENCE and you serious WP:OWN issues. You do not understand(or you do understand and just ignore, which is a bigger problem) that I (or anyone else for that matter) do not require YOUR PERMISSION and your consent in order to edit an article you have worked on. ANY one can edit an article while adhering to policies. If I read a TP discussion and understand what the editors are talking about I have every right to edit the article according to the consensus that has been formed you can see that the other editors where quick to grasp that my editing was spot on and even thanked me on TP. Therefore I don't have to go to the TP to say "MR Mohossein SIR! Can I please edit the article"? Nor do I have to get your "express" consent if I see that Wikipedia policies are being violated AND the majority of editors are going against you. This 3PR thread is most likely going to result in you being banned from reverting my edits and reporting me, and if it does not I am going to ANI. This has gone on far enough it is highly ridiculous that you think you own articles and people need your express consent to edit them. Consensus does not mean that until you agree with something it will not be allowed, consensus means that the majority of editors form an opinion based on policy, and if you disagree and cannot quote any policy, then you should seriously reconsider your editing pattern. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Uninvolved non-admin comment Having no involvement, but knowing both users, I'd like to offer them both some advice. As both users have been warned before, for unfounded reports and for WP:NPA violations respectively, I'd not be opposed to (a short) block for both. Both can be useful contributors, but both far too frequently engage in behavior of this kind. Jeppiz (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, you really need to stop reporting FC unless there's an obvious policy violation'. In this case, it is obvious there is not a policy violation. Reports like this one is a waste of the communities time. If you don't know what a 3RR violation is, then I suggest you do not report 3RR violations.
 * FreeatlastChitchat, you really need to start respecting WP:CIVIL. Even if the report is wrong (and it is), there's no reason to say that Mhhossein is "tripping on acid" or "belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis". If you're reported, state your case once and do it factually instead of engaging in repeated melodramatic personal attacks.
 * @Jeppiz so if someone KEEPS on reporting and reporting and reporting another editor what should he be called? Calling something which is ridiculous as ridiculous is not a personal attack. Just how many times is an editor allowed to make "wrong" reports btw? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @FreeatlastChitchat, that is for the admins to decide (and I already adviced Mhhossein stop). But really, do you think accusing him of drug abuse or accusing him of being mentally ill is the best approach. I understand your frustration, but there is no reason you could not express that factually instead of these vile personal attacks. Saying someone is a drug addict or mentally ill is not just a little bit uncivil, it is far beyond what is acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Jeppiz how do i express it factually? you tell me and I will do it. How do I stop this guy from opening up these ridiculous reports every single time I edit one of his POV laden articles. Just answer this question and I will be highly, highly indebted to you. How can I stop this frivolous reporting which wastes my time and everyone else's time, which frustrates me and puts a full stop to my editing, cuz I want to make sure this is solved before editing another article or else this guy is just going to pile on the reports like he did a couple of months ago. I will follow your advice to the LETTER. just give some advice. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz: Could you please present the mentioned warning diff? Warning for what? By the way, 3RR is different from edit warring. Here, we are talking about an edit warring. Per WP:EW, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." FC needs to practice democracy. The only problem here is that he can't and doesn't want to respect TP discussions. Did he participate the discussion? were there any consensus? Not actually. Mhhossein (talk) 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this diff (warning by Drmies) is worthy of mentioning. Finally, I tried to form a consensus on the article talk page. There were still points to be dicussed and resolved via discussion. Unfortunately, FC blew up the balance. Getting thank by one user is not shoeing anything. we were 3 and one of us had counter view. So, Should his view just be ignored? Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Mhhossein et al--please don't think I'm a cop you can have on call. I may be able to look at something, but only if and when I can--and want to. I'm a bit tired of y'all's bickering. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not want to bother, rather I thought there are things only you can take care. You could simply ignore the pingings. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: All above is about a flawed and incomplete Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. Freeatlastchitchat were bold enough to make this edit, I reverted because I thought no consensus were formed yet (you can see the TP to see some points are not clear still + see my edit summary). I kept on discussing the the points and unfortunately the cycle did not complete as Freeatlastchitchat reverted without bringing his points to the TP (He just made an accusation). Of course it does not mean that he should have got my permission for making the edits, rather I mean he should have respected the points being discussed on the TP. Mhhossein (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * to take action, as I don't see long-term edit warring by this user on that page; Alerted both and  for American politics.  If this continues within the topic area, editing restrictions, topic bans, and/or interaction bans may follow as arbitration enforcement remedies for either or both users.  However, this isn't the typical place for discussing personal editing restrictions and complex patterns of long-term editing habits. If anyone feels that's necessary, please consider raising a thread on WP:ANI. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So, should the WP:PA's be reported at WP:ANI? Mhhossein (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I would bear WP:ROPE in mind. Irondome (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Irondome: Thanks for the tip, but can you explain more? Mhhossein (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My tip. Walk away, drop it, leave the situation and get on with building the 'pedia. WP:BOOMERANG. Escalating or continuing this by any party would be unwise. Drop it. Use DR if you have to but nothing more confrontational. You need to de-escalate. All parties. Irondome (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just attacked by him, as you saw. He had done same behavior before and received a heavy warning. However, thank you again. --Mhhossein (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:DaniloFFloresCarvajal reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Danny Flores music artist page Wikipedia.org"
 * 1)  "Danny Flores music artist page Wikipedia.org"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Numerous warnings on user's talk page for removing speedy deletion templates: Caution:  Warning:  Final: Chrisw80 (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This same person who's used multiple IP's made yet another account and went to delete JayFrance's involvement on My House by removing the song from the producers singles discography BlaccCrab (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User being reported:

User:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No action)
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:

1. I reverted to the status quo, that existed until December 2015:. User:Rgvis also rejects the addition at the moment:

2. Borsoka, who reported me, is also involved in the edit war:

3. There is a difference of 2 days and 1/2 between my 1st and my 4th revert.

4. The recent discussion on the talk page was initiated by myself and I am an active participant in it. I want to get a consensus with all involved editors. 123Steller (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just two remarks. (1) No, I did not participate in an edit war. (2) No, you are not an active participant in the discussion. You are making declarations without referring to a single reliable source (. Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It appears that User:123Steller has not continued to revert since March 6. If this starts up again let me know. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:LongNailsShortHair reported by User:TheGracefulSlick
This user has been removing sourced material and rearranged content to his preference (but is not typical of format) in the You're Gonna Miss Me (song) article. I've warned the user in edit summary and sent the user a message, regarding the incidents. Although he/she acknowledged the message, he/she blatantly disregarded my warning and, instead, is beginning to remove material. At times, the user shows promise by adding helpful links, but other times, like this, he/she does not heed to formating and sources. At the very least, the user needs a brief block since a warning clearly didn't work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Onel5969 (Result:36h )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Deffrman

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

Comments:

Several editors have tried to explain this poor behavior through the edit summaries and on the talk page. All to no avail.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 04:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Mezzi10 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Libby Schaaf. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserting promotional material to an active politician's page, previously blocked for socking to enter this material. Ongoing problem, and the editor refuses to discuss.  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * for soapboxing and edit warring, with no engagement on the talkpage at all. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page: <br/ )

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts at Western Wall: Then he started to add the same Tallit: And here at Tefillin:
 * 1)  First addition
 * 2)  Revert of undo
 * 3)  Another revert of undo
 * 1)  First addition of material that was contested at Western Wall
 * 2)  Revert of undo
 * 1)  First addition
 * 2)  Another picture after the first was removed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

On his talkpage: , In discussion:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk pages: Talk:Western_Wall, Talk:Tefillin Talk:Tefillin

Comments:

VanEman has huge POVs, every few months a new one, which various editors have told him on numerous occasions. His talkpage shows a lot of edit war warnings. This editor is a hothead who edit wars about all kinds of subjects in Judaism related areas. I recommend of temporal block and a topic ban from Judaism-related ares. This editor has proven himself to be unable to participate in community editing. We, the other editors active in the field, have tried to reason with him, he will not improve his behavioral problems. It is now time to say goodbye to this editor, at least in the field where he has proven he can not keep cool. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just going to comment that I don't see much, if any, edit warring here. The edits were sequential and when reverted, it was not always the same content that was replaced. Am I missing something? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverts can not be sequential. There is always an undo in the middle.
 * Please also note that "3RR" means three reverts, not necessarily of the same edit.
 * The edits were analogous, even if they weren't identical.
 * The point I am trying to make is that this editor is a POV edit warrior, and unfit for editing on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * please comment &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser's accusation that VanEman has a "huge POV" is moot because, as I feel, Debresser her/himself has a "HUGE POV" as well. (Don't we all?) The way I see it is that Debresser and SJ are not allowing certain content to appear in Jewish articles. As can now be seen from Tefillin, part of VanEman's material has been successfully added (by myself after "consensus" at talk). Yet neither Debresser or SJ worked to include this important information in the article. Why not? Maybe they are the ones who should be blocked for edit-warring. VanEman had valid points and had text removed under the guise of "lacking consensus". But where was this "consensus" established? VanEman is simply being forced into submission. Chesdovi (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

please comment. Chesdovi (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Fonsy74 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff as IP
 * 2) diff as IP
 * 3) diff under account now
 * 4) diff again
 * 5) dif again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for Fonsyn74

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

Comments:

Please block. WP:NOTHERE. Based on their IP and editing, this user may be a sock of the blocker user, Nuklear (see SPI. The style is the same,  the interest in obscure old drugs is the same,  but the edits are not adding synthesis content which was the hallmark of Nuklear. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion is finally happening here, but the article is still messed up. I stood down and allowed Fonsy74's version to stand, but this new editor is completely resisting paying mind to policies and guidelines and instead is just making personal attacks. There is no way forward here. Please do block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update. So last night I finally got time to find good sources and was able to restore some of the content Fonsyn74 wanted but sourced to MEDRS sources - see here.  Today Fonsyn74 showed up and edit warred back in the content (actually incorrect) based on the poor sources.  They also came to the Talk page and made an argument that shows they lack competence in the underlying science, as I explained here.   WP:CIR and this user and its IP do not understand the science nor the policies and guidelines, nor are they interested in working within the policies and guidelines.  (they explained here that they are a software person who is interested in nootropics, which is a topic that unfortunately attracts a lot of cranks and advocates)Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * note - added 2 IP addresses this user has worked from as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

'''

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homotaurine&oldid=709390872 This is the summary of the discussion. Sorry if I've done something wrong, anyway it is necessary that an external person decide for my contribution or the other. We need a administrator. This is my humble opinion, Sorry to all wikipedia users to see the discussion and thanks.''' Fonsy74
 * – 48 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. I've blocked the two IPs each for a week. I tried to negotiate on the user's talk page but got nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * follow-up - Special:Contributions/Wintryce - obvious sock of User:Fonsy74 who was blocked this morning. Would you also please block the sock, and would you please consider protecting the article? Thanks. (Note - I posted this first at :EdJohnston's talk page here. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Follow up, Fonsy74 acknowledged here that their use of a sock was wrong and has apparently abandoned that account as they stopped using it after that. It should be indeffed, if anybody wants to do that. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Loverboy156 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Indeffed sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You are in the wrong here. It doesn't violate the crystal ball policy, because while we don't know the track names, we DO know how many tracks there are. I attempted to do this on the 7/27 page, and someone reverted it back for this reason."
 * 2)  "Livelikemusic, you need to be consistent here. 7/27 (Fifth Harmony album) has the exact same thing; one song has been revealed, and the rest are "Track #", so it can't be both ways."
 * 3)  "7/27 by Fifth Harmony also only has one song revealed, and the tracklist is shown there, so this needs to be consistent."
 * 4)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was just warned about edit-warring and discussing before reverting again; user seems to have a borderline battleground behavior and a sock-puppet investigation has been opened against them, as I do believe them to be a problematic user who has had the same kind of issues in the past when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. Should be noted that the you do not need to do three-reverts in order to violate the 3RR; it is simply a noted guideline, but not a complete following of the rule, and given this user's edit-history, this is going to be an on-going problem. <small style="font-size:85%;"> livelikemusic  <small style="font-size:85%;"> talk!  04:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . I've indefinitely blocked Loverboy156 as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Livelikemusic reported by User:Loverboy156 (Result: Filer indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Listing "Track 1" and "Track 2" is inconsistent. No need to list an incomplete tracklist."
 * 2)  "Per the crystal-ball policy unless track is definitive, it violates. Take to talk page before reverting per BRD."
 * 3)  You've been warned about edit-warring. Reporting you now. You seem to not be here to edit constructively.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User and I have been edit-warring against each other. They asked me to discuss it with them, and when I attempted to do so, they removed my message. User is unapproachable, and seems to approach things with a battleground behavior. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems to be a complete retaliated report against me, with same excuses given to them, and given the suspicion of sock-puppetry, the edits are completely acceptable. To avoid potential problems I have chosen to not interact with the suspected sock, given their extreme dislike for me (see the current report and its history, as I've been told to "fuck off", among other things by the main sock account that I am suspecting the new user(s) to be joined under.  Not to mention, this report is completely cut-paste from my own report above as the "diffs" are the reporting user's own edits.  <small style="font-size:85%;"> livelikemusic   <small style="font-size:85%;"> talk!  05:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I never told you to f*** off... and if your edits are acceptable, why aren't mine? Reverts are reverts, it doesn't matter if you think it was acceptable. You made three reverts within one day, which means you were edit-warring. I can't believe even after you clealy broke the rules, you have the audacity to report me, and deny that you yourself broke the rule. I may get blocked, but you are going to get blocked as well, whether you think you were wrong or not. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, as explained above, as I believe to you be a suspected sock, it's off of past experiences, and reverts were made under the suspicion that you are, in fact, a sock puppet. Again, feels like a very personal retaliated report right now.  I have modified my post above to clarify my intentions.  The fact Wikipedia Admins have to deal with this is just sad. <small style="font-size:85%;"> livelikemusic   <small style="font-size:85%;"> talk!  05:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I should also mention, user is clearly paranoid. I don't mean that as an insult, but one other user came on and made a revert against him as well, and he claimed we were the same person (hence the sock-puppet investigation that is currently going on). User has a hard time considering that they're wrong. Instead, they choose to attack others and accuse them of being the same person. Even if the other user and I were the same person, both me and Livelikemusic were edit-warring, so blocking both of us from editing would be the obvious thing to do here. However, I don't like the way Livelikemusic went about attacking me and accusing me of things. They need to learn to be more mature and calm about things like this. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, they have to deal with it because you reported it. It also wouldn't have gotten this far if you would've just talked it out with me. I have nothing against you, and I'm not sure what you mean when you say it's a personal retaliated report. What did I say that was person, other than that you seem paranoid (which I said after you made that comment). All I did was report you for edit-warring (which you did do, even though you still deny it). Nothing about that is personal. Loverboy156 (talk) 05:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . I've indefinitely blocked the filer as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Deffrman reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Global lock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   03:48, 10 March 2016
 * 2)  03:50, 10 March 2016
 * 3)  03:57, 10 March 2016
 * 4)  03:58, 10 March 2016
 * 5)  04:05, 10 March 2016‎
 * 6)  04:06, 10 March 2016
 * 7)  04:10, 10 March 2016
 * 8)  04:13, 10 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No fewer than four editors have had to revert his contentious edits, which remove https from link and adds pictures that are entirely too large for the infobox. Additionally, he is editing another editor's comments (mine) on his talk page to make it seem as if I am saying the opposite of what I wrote — blatantly misrepresenting another editors. ]


 * Result: User:Deffrman's account has been globally locked by User:NahidSultan due to long-term abuse. See this action at meta. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Adamstraw99 reported by User:Ankisur2 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]19:59, 10 march 2016
 * 2) [diff]16:09, 10 march 2016
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_%28weapon%29&action=history Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]19:59, 10 March 2016

Comments:

The user is posting personal opinions calling them "general view" and deleting sourced material.He has been duly warned in the edit summary page,but continues to edit without referencing and deleting materials that have been referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankisur2 (talk • contribs)
 * – Only two reverts. User:Ankisur2 has been posting this complaint in multiple venues. Use Talk:Astra (weapon) to work this out. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:UCaetano reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
 * 2)  "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This user had deleted two times 6 credible references regardless their contents.Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Page protected two weeks. See an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Xismrd reported by User:Midas02 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pantheon-Sorbonne_University&oldid=708335066]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xismrd#March_2016_2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xismrd#March_2016_2]

Comments: Despite multiple warnings by myself and C.Fred, this user keeps on reverting his preferred edit without making any attempt whatsoever in engaging in a discussion. I tried to put it off for a while, but the message just doesn't seem to sink in. --Midas02 (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User just reverted again. I've invited them to self-revert and discuss at the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. Seven reverts since March 5. User has made a garbled request at RFPP over someone else's signature. If this eccentric behavior continues a long-term block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kindzmarauli reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff OK with me, or diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff reverting me
 * 2) diff reverting me
 * 3) diff reverting me
 * 4) diff reverting QuackGuru
 * 5) dif reverting QuackGuru
 * 6) dif reverting QuackGuru

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, deleted, warned again here by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here and here.

Comments:

I took the time to build this case, but the user has now said they have unwatchlisted the article. originally with this unpleasant statement, which was removed by Quackguru here per WP:NPA I reckon; the user restored it then edited it to make it unobjectionable. I suspect that they have indeed unwatchlisted this. Because I took the time to do all this, I am finishing it. I expect this to be closed with no action, but I will cite it if they start up again. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the third notice board you've forum-shopped, including the one where you accused me of having "advocacy issues". I wonder which others are out there you can report me to? The idea of one person edit-warring is hilarious. Three of those reverts were yours and three of them were QuackGuru's. Have you reported yourselves? Or is this yet another way for you to win your war on my attempts to keep the article stable while it was at AfD, and to prevent people from poisoning the well with their COI templates? LOL. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the only place where I have dealt with your edit warring, and as I said, I expect this to be closed with no action. the posting at WP:COIN was to deal with apparent COI of the other editor, and yes I did that because you were contesting the analysis. I have not posted to any other board. Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Kindzmarauli broke 3RR but they appear to have self-reverted and say they are taking the article off their watchlist. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Aidepikiwnirotide reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yes, I had added 6 credible reference and You "deleted" "two times" all of them. It's you who need to mention your reason to delete theses credible references on talk page."
 * 2)  "Look at the references!, Btw you cannot "delete" credible references. Your problem is other thing ! ... What does "Achaemenid Iran" mean? You cannot "distort" the history!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Not the first time he's done it, warned a few times, and been blocked recently for it. UCaetano (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And apparently he decided to report me here, copying my exact report, as you can see below, including listing him as the user reported. UCaetano (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the first time either he has filed a bogus case here as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks. I've rolled the article back to a version from March 4 which precedes the current edit war. This article has been the target of nationalist editing in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Washington-Art-Movement reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Repeated claims that the word kiln is pronounced "kill", with a silent n.

This has some historical background to it. But it has never been the main pronunciation and it was seen as an antiquated and rustic pronunciation even 200 years ago. It is quite wrong to now claim, in the lead, that the word is pronounced "kill", as if this were the only pronunciation in use.

This is a new user (no other edits) so we should show some forbearance, but it is hard to proceed when they respond with hair-trigger re-addition of the challenged content. Most editors here are bound by 3RR. An old Talk: page discussion on this has been re-opened, but they have yet to engage with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The claim that this is an antiquated term is false. Many people in the industry still use the original pronunciation of kiln. I have supplied references that show the current popular vocalization of the "n" sound has occurred in the last 100 years. That said, I know for a fact that in 1947, my father wrote one of the first pottery glossaries as his thesis. In it, kiln is pronounced "kill." He ceramics for 25 years. All of his students and all of his compatriots still pronounce kiln "kill." There are also comment boards you can research that show that where pronouncing the n is popular, it is not exclusive and is often determined by region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington-Art-Movement (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I have made revisions that are more inclusive of the newer pronunciation, referring to it as "popular" while referring to "kill" as original. I think that is a fair compromise. a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington-Art-Movement (talk • contribs) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Jinno.e reported by User:Ofir michael (Result: )
Page: User being reported: }

Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user reverts


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

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

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

Comments: Comments#1: I have warned user Jinno.e not to write about himself, the things he wrote in the article are outrageous and not true. He is altering the article because of the fact that the musical group has broken up and uses it for payback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofir michael (talk • contribs)

Comments#2: has shown that he does not respect Wikepdia rules and uses the Analog Pussy article to promote his business. I ask that the article will be restored, will be blocked and the article will be protected.Ofir michael (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston reported by User:Aidepikiwnirotide (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

This user deleted 11 credible references regardless their contents and without any explanation similar to a Vandalism.
 * Comments:

List of references:

My argue about "Multiculturalism" and "various civilizations" (that is mentioned by User:UCaetano):

"Multiculturalism" is one the first and obvious properties of an empire like other empires such as British empire. As for example Indians in India or Africans in Africa as a part of British empire are not truly British.

The recent changes of Achaemenid Empire Page and removing eleven credible references by UCaetano and EdJohnston without any explanation proves the infected Anti-Iranian sentiment environment. The reality should not be said because of this atmosphere !. Cambridge, Oxford and all notable Iranologists (e.g. Pierre Briant (Frech) and Willem Vogelsang (Dutch) and not Iranian!) are wrong except these two users. They even do not respect Wikipedia rules (i.e. removing several credible references without any reason!). This means my nationalism thoughts? or your thoughts is Anti-Iranian sentiment? This means filtering and distorting the history and nothing else and is not in favor of Wikipedia reliability.

I am waiting to hear a logical reason for deleting these references, otherwise, all of them will be returned, sooner or later. Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This would probably be a better fit for WP:ANI. Though, since it's primarily a content dispute, maybe it should be discussed at Talk:Achaemenid Empire. clpo13(talk) 00:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will notify Ed per policy as you have failed to do so. Amaury (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ANI is not the place for this. The talk page of the article is since this is a content dispute. first I note that you have made edits to the talk page for the article. In fact it not had an edit since last October. Next you would do well to read up on what it is and is not edit warring. Ed protected the page and reverted to a stable version before the back and forth between you and other editors. Ed made no other edits to the article thus this report is flawed and will be closed as no action. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I should add that the protection was to get all editors involved to start discussing things on the talk page. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I imposed two weeks of full protection at Achaemenid Empire per an earlier report of edit warring. When I did so, I rolled back to a March 4 version that was before the edit war started. The filer of this AN3 was previously blocked on February 20 for warring at Qajar dynasty. Some admins are used to nationalist edit warring about the empires in this part of the world (Achaemenids, Qajars, Safavids). EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * . This is a baseless report. I don't have the time tonight to evaluate the filer's record to determine whether sanctions are warranted. I urge other administrators to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a simple question is that what does Achaemenid Iran mean? which is mentioned in several references (see references above [1][2][3][4][6][7][8][9][10][11])

Would you interpret Achaemenid Iran for me ? or essentially you don't believe these references and Iranologists?! Aidepikiwnirotide (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nuked reported by User:Qed237 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 709709421 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 709701829 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 709697036 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 709693691 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 708641732 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* Matches */"
 * 7)  "/* Matches */"
 * 1)  "/* Matches */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* re:Premier League Future Fixtures */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* re:Premier League Future Fixtures */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This editor keeps on edit warring and reinserting material protected by copyright. <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> 16:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This material is not copyrightable and has been proven as such in court (https://www.aippi.org/enews/2012/edition26/Barbara_Sartori.html), yet the above user continues to interfere with my contribution. Nuked (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the first time you have given any source to support your view and you have still been edit warring. As shown on your talkpage this has been discussed many times at WikiProject Football with consensus not to add fixtures. <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> 16:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article on the court case was linked in a discussion article that YOU asked me to read. I assumed you had read those articles first yourself. I don't know what constitutes a consensus on wikipedia, however, the discussions you linked contained more confusion and disagreement than actual resolve and consensus. I disagree that there ever was a consensus on the matter, and as the copyright was deemed ineligible in a court case, the fixtures are free to be added. P.S. I would like to add, that "editwarring" must have at least two parties. I was unaware of this particular rule and that is my fault, but you did just as much "editwarring" as me. Nuked (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor continues to revert multiple editors. <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> 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that User:Nuked has carried on reinserting his pet edit even after this notice was lodged. So "I was unaware of this particular rule" can no longer be the case, and therefore he continues editwarring in full knowledge of the implications of his behaviour. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my mistake. Nuked (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to follow WP:BRD. You have been bold; it has been reverted; now you need to discuss the edit on the article's Talk Page, not simply keep undoing. That is editwarring, and it doesn't matter who thinks they're in the right! <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, that was my mistake. I won't do it while this dispute is under discussion on this page. I have been in discussion with Qed237, he's been reverting just like me. There is no reason to point out the same things twice, thank you. Nuked (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There probably is, when it seems as though it *wasn't*heard*the*first* time :) <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  18:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Mistake or not, an editor is expected to heed the warnings placed on their talk page and display a level of understanding of Wikipedia's policies, including (but certainly not limited to) WP:BRD, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:EW. You should have started discussion the . — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @ user:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi You pointed it out and said it was my mistake. I heard you. :-)
 * @ user:Jkudlick I concede that I need to read up on wikipedia policies, however, I started the discussion the second time my edit was reverted. The following edit reverts were responses to edits made by Qed237 and another user - all made during the discussion. Given that Qed237 boasts of being an experienced editor on wikipedia, I (wrongly, apparently) assumed my edits were just as valid as theirs. Nuked (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a long standing consensus at WikiProject Football that Premier League fixtures are copyrighted, per the texts that highlighted. If  believes this is wrong, the best course of action would be to start a centralised discussion at WT:FOOTY about it.
 * That said, they really shouldn't have made 5 reverts, so I feel a short block is in order. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Football fixtures used to be copyrighted, but this has not been the case since 2012. Any "consensus" arising since then that they are still copyrighted is clearly invalid. Number   5  7  13:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also agree that football leagues and affiliated companies lost any claims to copyright lists of fixtures following the CJEU decision of 2012, but that does not excuse any party from engaging in an edit war. I must note that the war has continued with additional parties, and also warn of the apparent WP:BOOMERANG thrown. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments strikes me there were mistakes all round here, both by the new editors and those with experience, and moreover, several "experienced" footy project editors who have made wrong assertions. I suggest this is all bundled up as "don't do it again, any of you" and we move on.  The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the discussion highlighted did show fixtures to be copyrighted, but it seems clear that they no longer actually are. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I might have been wrong about the copyright violations, I admit to that, but look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 88 which is latest discussion I could find. There multiple users still does not like fixtures being added and yet the editor continued to edit war and now even an admin joined the edit war calling my edits pathetic and linking to a discussion with only one response at the time and I find that troubling. <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> 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

If an admin says it is not copyright it is still a content dispute were multiple editors dont want fixtures and the admin chooses to enter a content dispute and add content twice, that to me is an interesting choice to do from User:Number 57, and not something I would expect from an administrator. I thought they would discuss first. <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> 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we should all agree that no-one has come out of this smelling of roses, but right now, any block would be punitive, and that's not what we do. Suggest any further discussion over whether people "like" fixtures in season articles before they take place is conducted elsewhere, and that this report is closed as no action required.  The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User:Nuked has agreed not to continue. It appears that discussions may be needed elsewhere on whether the formerly-copyrighted fixtures ought to be added to football articles. The normal rules about consensus apply to any additions or removals from now on. For the time being, the safest course is for nobody to add or remove fixtures until this is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's consider this closed and move any discussion of including fixtures lists to WT:FOOTY. Hopefully we all have learned from this; I know I have. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this should definately be discussed more. Should the fixtures not be removed as they where before this dispute? I am a bit provoked by the fact that an admin came in and re-instated it twice to their preferred version (they have been pro-fixture previously) and I feel like they have taken advantage of their adminship to keep their version. This should be removed and article restored while discussion is ongoing. <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> 16:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have commented the future fixtures pending the outcome of the discussion I started at WT:FOOTY. I note that there is a match scheduled for tomorrow, so the "

Previous version reverted to: (Western Sahara) Previous version reverted to: (Cocos Is.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (western Sahara)
 * 2)  (Western Sahara)
 * 3)  (Western Sahara)
 * 4)  (Cocos Is.)
 * 5)  (Cocos Is.)
 * 6)  (Cocos Is.)
 * 7)  (another revert immediately reverted back in on Mayotte)
 * 8)  (another revert immediately reverted back in on my talk page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: (this was reverted with the edit summary comment; "piss off")

Comments:

This user appears to have discovered charts and is now adding them as tables for religious demographics to various articles about places. Some are bar boxes, some pie charts, some helpful and some not. I removed one that wasn't helpful as there was only one religion on the chart. Another I removed as the text did not matchup with the chart. I explained my reasons in each edit summary, then after requested they discuss on talk page, citing BRD. I also tried to engage on their talk page with a 'welcome' template and personal message explaining BRD and consensus. I was told to "piss off". They have continued reverting their edits back in without any effort at discussion. They also removed the edit war warning I placed and immediately placed one on my talk page. I removed it, but they even reverted that with the edit summary comment; "Please do not remove blocking warnings". Since this account was first used today, it's possible the user was previously blocked and may be socking or block evading. (why else mention "block"...?)

Some other pages they have edited may need addressing but I'm not going to bother right now as they are reverting anything I do. I'll leave it alone for now. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After this and numerous other warnings, they have resumed the edit warring. clpo13(talk) 21:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fairly sure this is, about whom a sockpuppet investigation is ongoing here. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked for 48 hours after being reported to the ANI (and SPI). Pretty sure we'll just be back to these notice boards in 2 days... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I requested the block be extended... looks like it's 2 weeks now. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  04:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * – 2 weeks by User:Acroterion. This may be the longest reasonable block for the IP given it is likely to change. See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Yossimgim. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is as far as I could justifiably block, given that the IP will probably change in a week or less. Rangeblocks appear to be impractical, and liberal semi-protection may be the way forward.   Acroterion   (talk)   16:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have semiprotected Western Sahara and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:209.169.74.92 reported by User:Yomrlax (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&oldid=706063343

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&oldid=708358858

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&oldid=708292259]
 * 2) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_personality_disorder&oldid=708631976]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:209.169.74.92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP User 209.169.74.92 added controversial content to article. In following BRD, the content was reverted and a notice was posted on user's talk page calling for discussion. The user did not respond to discussion request and, instead, reverted the content.

Yomrlax (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * IP hasn't edited page since March 9. Katietalk 18:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)