Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive312

Generation X article (Result: Semiprotected)
I have a well sourced, two sentence addition to the Generation X article, regarding a relevant subject that seems to be targeted by another editor for a campaign of rule-skirting removal. I think this other editor intentionally started this campaign using an ip account before seemingly creating an account to avoid the 3RR rule violation. I suspect that any debate will soon include these and other sockpuppets. Any help or suggestion on how to proceed? I don't see any applicable policy that suggests my edit/content is undue. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So far there's no edit war. A discussion was opened on talk, so go there first. It's not appropriate to bring any of this up here yet. Wwwma (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't just push people around like this. There are rules and you knowingly are working around them. I could stoop to your level too but i'm hoping an impartial mediator here can help work this out without us having to get banned for 3RR, if not more. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving this submission to this noticeboard from the regular admin noticeboard. Maybe this was the proper place to start? Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody is being "banned" from Wikipedia. As of now there is no edit war.  Just go to the talk page and work it out there.  You prematurely posted this on the admin boards before waiting until a real infraction took place.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwma (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, you won't engage in responding to the talk page, as a comment has been left there and is awaiting your response. Secondly, of course you want this dialog here shut down - you have already violated the 3RR rule and are using multiple accounts to do so. The ONLY reason we are not having an edit war is because I brought this here. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for eventually responding there. It still does not excuse your actions/behavior in starting this. If you would have deigned to address this at the talk page first, we wouldn't even be in this venue. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If you check the talk page there was a response posted. Just finish this on the talk page because there is no edit war whatever you say. It's all there under history. Wwwma (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can work it out on the talk page and I will continue there, but it needs to be addressed here that you knowingly violated the 3RR rule and attempted to get around it by using different accounts. Hopefully an administrator will address this situation, regardless of whether or not I agree with the outcome. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC) User:EdJohnston - What about the clear evidence that wwwma used a ip account to revert before switching to his/her user account to avoid the 3RR? Isn't that still violating the rule? It's the same individual, just using different accounts to try and skirt the rule. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: I've semiprotected Generation X to exclude the possibility of IP socking in this edit war. At present neither User:Wwwma nor User:Buddy23Lee have broken 3RR with their registered accounts, so there is no need for other action. If either party reverts again before consensus is reached on Talk they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:K!lluminati reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Already handled above)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources. ,, and. He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that, could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. --Panam2014
 * Can you handle the request ?

--
 * There are no 1RR for Yemen. Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources., ,  and . He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that,  could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here..


 * Killuminati is a liar. SABA News is not a member of FANA since the beginning of the war. In reality, Saba is now divided into two branches: one pro-Houthi and the other pro-Hadi each with a website. And each agency contradicts the other. So that source is unusable.

For topic ban, I have removed anything. This is Greyshark09 who added without consensus and while it is not admin. Also, ISIS is present in Libya but with that, there is no topic ban. Donc It was logical to remove the ban visionary topic. There are no RR1 for Yemen. Reuters quoted the agency Houthi saba does not prove it is reliable time. It's just that it is sometimes cited when the information is verified by Reuters.


 * It is strange for a POV Pusher to cry to WP:PA when wrongly accused his opponents of vandalism. Furthermore, claim that sabanews.net is the real estate is a lie because the Houthi took control of Sanaa and the news agency. This is why the Yemeni government has created a new domain. The sources do not say that only the pro-Houthi faction Saba is a member of FANA. It does not delete the points of dissidents view, this is just not using biased sources. Sabanew.net therefore also should not be used. I have not continued cancellations, it's just the start, I accidentally deleted all the information, even the ones I had not deleted. I have therefore delivered. Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. SABA is a member of FANA not the Saba agency controlled by the Houthis. Reuters says well "Saba controlled by the Houthis." Can you stop this pov pusher?
 * Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do, especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

Kiluminati doesn't respect the 3RR. For that, he should be Warned. Could you re open the request or permit me to re open a new. The Kiluminati's 3RR :, ,. The edit introduced by Kiluminati :,. The map before the edit :. Clearly, he has violated 3RR. So why he is not penalized ? Panam2014 (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No separate action is needed here, because I closed an earlier report about the same dispute, still visible above. Needless to say this one is not in the standard form for a 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is the problem . The 3RR ended only because Edjohnston forbade me to me to change the module. But Kiluminati has not been blocked or warned from continuing. Could you consider my demand? because in the opposite case it amounts to giving carte blanche to continue Kiluminati . Especially since he already paticipate to various edit war with . Panam2014 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:70.162.223.119 in general and in regards to Danny Jacobs (actor)
Page: User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: During his or her brief career, editor notified numberous times and was blocked twice (see ). Quis separabit? 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User2.27.75.51 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:26, 25 March 2016 and 23:31, 28 March 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:55, 28 March 2016
 * 2) 17:50, 28 March 2016
 * 3) 19:34, 28 March 2016
 * 4) 22:42, 28 March 2016‎
 * 5) 15:52, 29 March 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 17:11, 28 March 2016‎
 * 2) 19:10, 28 March 2016
 * 3) 20:18, 28 March 2016‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 02:22, 29 March 2016

Comments:

FWIW, I've implemented a compromise edit, at that article. Hopefully, both disputees will accept it & move on :) GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you give the situation even a modicum of attention, you'll easily see the anon has been reverting against two (long-time) editors. That makes a total of three "disputees", not two. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the other (long-time) editor, will agree to the compromise offered. Time will tell :) GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll know if you get a consensus at the talk page favouring your change. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain reported by User:GabeIglesia (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Greetings. I felt I would raise this to the attention of admins as there appears to be a persistent NPOV issue going on over at Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that has been taking place since March 25, 2016. WP:Civil has also been invoked. I myself haven't been directly involved, but I have been observing the discussion and the changing versions of the article, and it has become a bit concerning. I would appreciate the higher-ups having a look at this and setting things straight - even if it something as simple as a slap on the wrist in the form of a verbal warning, (or even if it's just a "Hey, GabeIglesia, nobody did anything wrong. Chill.") - I would just appreciate the edit war coming to an end on this high-level article.

The reversions are a little bit more complex than simply between one version of the article over another, as users have since edited the content within. As such, I just linked to all the relevant diffs I could find, but the basis of the disagreement should hopefully be clear in the talk page. Thanks, all. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hairball...Nasty reported by User:Carbrera (Result: Indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1) Before the reverts
 * 2) Example of reverts

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


 * Drmies (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Depauldem reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Withdrawn/no action, issue resolved)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the politico article explicit states the UK spending as $£204 million.  The filings themselves back up those numbers.  I cannot believe you are fighting black and white truth."
 * 2)  "The politico article explicitly states the budget of the movie, and it is supported by the public audited financial statements from the film itself."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 712530255 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 4)  "Politico is citing the official audited financial statements of the production company set up in the UK to make the movie.  I add up the numbers myself, and they are correct.  Since when are editors at war with reality??"
 * 5)  "The source used POUNDS.  The USD amount is $306 million"
 * 6)  "The $306 million is what 204 million pounds is worth, using the exchange rate of 1.5 for 2015. If you want to use £204 million, fine. Or if you want to use the exchange rate of today, it would be $293 million. But the filings are not from today"
 * 1)  "The source used POUNDS.  The USD amount is $306 million"
 * 2)  "The $306 million is what 204 million pounds is worth, using the exchange rate of 1.5 for 2015. If you want to use £204 million, fine. Or if you want to use the exchange rate of today, it would be $293 million. But the filings are not from today"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:
 * It took a little while, but User:Depauldem has at least started to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page and stopped reverting (see: ). I am ignoring the fact that the user overwrote a comment, and assuming good faith, as the reply appears to indicate an effort to improve the article. (Full disclosure: I'm involved in the effort to resolve this content issue.) --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I think that may have been my mistake in overwriting the prior comment, which I think is now restored. I am now making my case in the talk section for the page and I am not editing/reverting the amount again. I think the numbers in the official citations I provided speak for themselves and the new, correct, amount will be restored by another editor. Depauldem (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I filed this because I didn't think we'd see a positive resolution otherwise, and since I did the situation has progressed better than I expected. We don't appear to need a block, but I'll leave this here for admin decision and closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Outcome: Since the situation seems to have stabilized, I will close this as a withdrawn/no action necessary. Thanks to both parties. Neutralitytalk 02:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 reported by User:K!lluminati (Result: Restriction in lieu of block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After 24 hours, I could have 2 reverts. Biased source."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 712165758 by 5.50.66.71 (talk) my ip adress"
 * 3)  "Contribution with my account"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and  and partially ,, and few others.

Comments:

This user breaches of 1RR restriction that was one of the rules page.

Basically, he does editing on map without mention any sources/web links/documents. and when be asked to him about providing of source he replies your source is invalid, unreliable, biased and with hard sell tries to impose own-views to others that it's an example of WP:POVPUSH and his action is exactly contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and free circulation of information. even he refuses requests for discussion on talk page! (all of them are available on talk page).

It should be noted that he has been warned one time by admins in Syrian Civil War Map due to infringement ,, (2014 notices), and earlier was taken notice because violation of law WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in Yemen civil War Map at here K!lluminati (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no 1RR for Yemen. Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources., ,  and . He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that,  could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. .  --Panam2014 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Always you have difficult to perception and cognition of WP:RELIABLE source, should bear in mind all of text and articles must "be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" but you choke most opposition comments. this matter been done repeated over and over again in throughout of your-edits (be found here).


 * Accord to WP:SOURCES definition, the word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
 * The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
 * The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)


 * that from your point not source! E.G. Saba News Agency that's a member of the Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA) and quote from it mainstream media such as Reuters (Paragraph 9) not a source! or rest of source.


 * The problem starts from misunderstand Arabic language and unfortunately due to lacking of international reporters and weakness in news coverage at yemen The majority of sources about yemen are written in Arabic and for this reason, sources (from 2 between sides) nominate invalid! it's problem. K!lluminati (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Amazing!! he removed  Regulations Page  of documentation! ,, is there any admin here ? :| K!lluminati (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Killuminati is a liar. SABA News is not a member of FANA since the beginning of the war. In reality, Saba is now divided into two branches: one pro-Houthi and the other pro-Hadi each with a website. And each agency contradicts the other. So that source is unusable.

For topic ban, I have removed anything. This is Greyshark09 who added without consensus and while it is not admin. Also, ISIS is present in Libya but with that, there is no topic ban. Donc It was logical to remove the ban visionary topic. There are no RR1 for Yemen. Reuters quoted the agency Houthi saba does not prove it is reliable time. It's just that it is sometimes cited when the information is verified by Reuters.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * you called me "Liar" in event that WP:PA and using of inappropriate language & ugly words that it's prohibited! i hope admins take action in relation to this case.


 * About Saba; we not dealt with fakes domain. official main domain is Sabanews.net which has gained ISBN code and Whois tool shows this is older than other one. not real issue but also that's sources and being of validation those. you dont accept to hear voices of dissent & not tolerate opposing viewpoints and tring to impose your opinion to everyone as minutes ago you revert my edit without inserting source just due to having radical ideas. Cool!
 * I point out once again per Wikipedia guidelines "mainstraem" or "POV" sources are not a criteria for being reliable. POV sources can be reliable and mainstream sources can be unreliable - the question is whether the source shows WP:RELIABLE:


 * “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”


 * What counts as a reliable source? to answer this question i refer you to WP:SOURCES, any sources have those conditions are RELIABLE and can get loan them for content development so as it turns out controversy is going on around WP:POVPUSH.

K!lluminati (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: To admins, he continues reverting on the page regardless of laws and at the same time 2 diff reverted by him.
 * 1)  "Undid revision 712312659 by Panam2014 (talk)" at time "15:12, 28 March 2016"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 712332455 by K!lluminati (talk) Unreliable source." at time "15:05, 28 March 2016"

so sorry for tagging. take a peek, may help to resolve this matter?! K!lluminati (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is strange for a POV Pusher to cry to WP:PA when wrongly accused his opponents of vandalism. Furthermore, claim that sabanews.net is the real estate is a lie because the Houthi took control of Sanaa and the news agency. This is why the Yemeni government has created a new domain. The sources do not say that only the pro-Houthi faction Saba is a member of FANA. It does not delete the points of dissidents view, this is just not using biased sources. Sabanew.net therefore also should not be used. I have not continued cancellations, it's just the start, I accidentally deleted all the information, even the ones I had not deleted. I have therefore delivered. Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. SABA is a member of FANA not the Saba agency controlled by the Houthis. Reuters says well "Saba controlled by the Houthis." Can you stop this pov pusher? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've suggested that User:Panam2014 can avoid a block if they will agree not to edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. This user was given a final warning by User:NJA on 4 February, pursuant to an earlier 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do, especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Panam2014: The deal is being offered to you not K!lluminati. Your answer is what matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My answer is yes . Why you permit him to continue his actions ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Panam2014 has accepted a restriction in lieu of a block. They will not edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Kiluminati is the one who initiates the vast majority of edit wars on the Yemen module. Most of his recent edits (stretching back to December 2015) have all been POV edits, since he has often altered the map module in favor of the Houthi combatant side, using unreliable or very biased sources. Since he has refused to stop, and since this has continued after a failed attempt at mediation on another noticeboard, I would like to request a 1-month article ban on User:Kiluminati, extending until May 1, 2016, in order to stop the edit warring on the Yemeni map module. If he is not blocked or banned, the edit wars will probably continue or worsen, given this user's battleground mentality and his history of POV-pushing. This case should have been listed in a reported below, but since it was redirected to this one (by another user), I have decided to make this request here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It takes two to tango, though one of the two at least made an effort--but edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it takes two to tango, and I tried to follow WP:BRD which requires at least 1 reversal. After that, I made an attempt to either explain each edit or contact the other editor to discuss. Why would you block me "even if you're right"? What recourse do you suggest I could have taken??? -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 11:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, and I hate to state the obvious--any recourse but reverting! Call on an admin. Warn and report to AIV. Start an ANI thread, claiming there's disruption with unexplained reverts. I mean, you can say "per talk page" all you like, but if you're the only one on the talk page then you're saying "because I said so"--there is no consensus on that talk page to point at. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but respectfully, do you really expect me (or everyone else for that matter) to involve admins, AIV, or ANI after 1 revert? That would likely not result in any action, especially if the other editor keeps on ignoring it. Even this Edit War notice was ignored until I restored it from the archive... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * P199, this isn't about my expectations, except for one: that editors don't edit war (even if they're right). I don't know why you want to hypothesize about what needs to be done after one revert, since you reverted seven times, if I'm counting correctly. Your opponent was worse, but unless it's vandalism, you just can't go there. After two or three, yeah, I'd call in the cavalry, unless you're willing to let it go--like I'm doing right here, right now. Have a little faith in the system and in the good sense of your fellow editors, even if you can't rely on the good sense and cooperation of that particular editor. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:94.12.159.22 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 712666085 by Gongwool (talk)m Please stop removing this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 712567627 by JimRenge (talk) I'm not promoting anything. It's an example of what the paragraph is talking about. Read it before reverting again."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 712504572 by Gongwool (talk)"
 * 4)  "Re-adding example of cybersectarianism that was removed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Four reverts in less than 24-hours. Rather a slow burning edit-war (purely to insert unsourced WP:OR, it must be said), but has ignored warnings, and accused other editors of being the edit-warriors. Seems to be only here to promote the Australian faction of the subject organisation. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  18:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Drmies (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SWF88 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User notified: Diff

Comments:

Straight 4RR vio. 4 consecutive reverts in 9 hours. Two different editors asking him to stop. Instead he resorts to personal attacks like accusations of page ownership against me, and again against a different, uninvolved editor. And then another blatant attack: "blanked the stupid threat of a self important moron". Not only a block, but a mandatory apology to that editor is in order. - the WOLF  child  05:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment now you bring the issue to the notice board? after I told you i take myself out of it? find yourself some other form of amusement. like i said, take ownership of the article if you want, i will not involve myself in it any more. SWF88 (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and now a third accusation of ownership right here in his response. - the WOLF  child  05:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * lol mandatory apology. dream on. SWF88 (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * nice attitude... no remorse at all. - the WOLF  child  05:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * like you care, if bitcat or whatever his name takes issue with it, i'll take it up with him.SWF88 (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. If the community or an admin takes "issue" with it, they will be taking it up with you. - the WOLF  child  05:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not. If said user is offended of what i wrote blanking my own page, he should take it up with me and we'll respolve anything that needs resolving. we're all adults here wolfchild. SWF88 (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Then act like an adult and take responsibility for your actions. You think that if BilCat doesn't say anything then you get a free pass for posting such a terrible insult? It doesn't work that way. While I'm glad you're finally aware of WP:BATTLE, there is nothing in WP:WWIN that prevents the community or an admin from holding you accountable for your actions. Now, why don't you let this go, and let the process take it's course... - the WOLF  child  06:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment. looking at user:thWolfchild's past interactions and the number of edit warring warnings he got and dished out, he seems to relish personal conflict. I don't and like I said, I will not indulge him any further. SWF88 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So again, your attack others instead of addressing your own appalling behaviour. Have you apologized to BilCat yet for calling him "stupid" and a "self important moron"...? Have you apologized to optakeover yet for accusing him of page ownership when he wasn't even involved in the dispute? The only "personal conflict" that needs to be addressed here is coming from you. Even after you've been warned (4 times!) and reported, and even after you repeatedly claimed you would stop... you just keep going. - the WOLF  child  05:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and again with the provocation. i'm not falling for it. like i said, i'm done with the page, whichever user can do whatever they want with it. even take over. SWF88 (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're done, then... be done. - the WOLF  child  05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I may be new but i know this Wikipedia is not about winning. you behavior is very aggressive and antagonistic. SWF88 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, at least you learned something in the 6 days/80 edits that you've been here. But with all the attacks, insults and edit-warring, I would say that you're the aggressive antagonist here. Plus you keep saying you're "done", but then you keep posting here again, and again, again... - the WOLF  child  05:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Plus you keep saying you're "done", but then you keep posting here again, and again, again.. <- this comment says it all. you're more preoccupied with getting the last word, in other words winning, then resolving an issue(that's already been resolve btw, since i said i will not be further involved in the page). SWF88 (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * oh, the irony... - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  06:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. Let's be optimistic and accept User:SWF88's above statement as a promise to stop editing the article. That will save us the trouble of blocking both parties for 3RR violation. SWF88 made a a personal attack against User:BilCat. Let's hope that the edit warring and the attacking don't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Maruru~enwiki reported by User:Ronz (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Maruru~enwiki's first two reverts were over the amount of coverage of criticism in the lede. Starting 10 Jan, the reverts included content about Hari's affiliate marketing:


 * 1) 18:34, 27 October 2015 editor misrepresented the edit by saying the content was moved rather than deleted
 * 2) 18:42, 27 October 2015
 * 3) 03:26, 10 January 2016
 * 4) 19:41, 21 February 2016
 * 5) 03:07, 22 February 2016
 * 6) 21:52, 21 March 2016 edit summary: "This does not belong in her bio - If you continue to add this, user will be reported."
 * 7) 15:09, 30 March 2016
 * 8) 18:47, 30 March 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:00, 10 January 2016 16:21, 24 March 2016

Some of the relevant discussions on talk page: Note that Maruru~enwiki has made no contributions to any of the discussions:
 * Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_3 15 August 2015
 * Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_6. 3 November 2015 -  9 November 2015
 * Talk:Vani_Hari/Archive_7 23 December 2015 - 8 January 2016
 * Talk:Vani_Hari Started 22:38, 21 March 2016.

Comments:

Maruru~enwiki has now joined the discussion, but continues to edit-war. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have submitted an investigation request for Omnipum and Maruru~enwiki as they are confusingly similar, here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * – per the SPI report by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:201.146.245.86 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, reverted by

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), reverted by
 * 2), reverted by Xenophrenic
 * 3), reverted by , I think with the wrong Twinkle warning message: I guess 3RR was meant here?
 * 4)  with edit summary "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus", reverted per no consensus, with invitation to go to talk page to find consensus. 3RR warning user talk
 * 5), again "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User never responds to talk page messages and warnings. Tenditious editing on other religion related articles.

Comments:

Moot note: I think this report is moot now: as soon as this was created and user was notified, they stopped contributing and article has stabilized. Removing this from watchlist. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:41de:1ada:1451:cd4f & User:2602:306:CE42:4D30:CDE:865A:8AD5:5ECE reported by User:carptrash (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on National Statuary Hall Collection. (TW)"

Attempt at discussion at Talk:National Statuary Hall Collection
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * I believe that this editor has passed the three revert rule at National Statuary Hall Collection. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably the same user as both IPs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And he (probably not a she) is still at it. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * . It's obviously the same individual. It's quite normal that individuals are assigned a whole /64 IPv6 range by their ISP. They're certainly edit warring, and I've blocked the 2602:306:ce42:4d30::/64 range. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you also block User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:e007:6d10:2e57:442c? They're continuing the edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also User:2602:306:ce42:4d30:e007:6d10:2e57:442c. Looks like they're changing IP very quickly, can we have semi-protection?

Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They're in that range, too, Joseph2302, in other words they're already blocked. No IP has edited the article after I blocked the range at 18:26 UTC. We shouldn't need semi. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC).

User:Shadow4dark reported by User:Ferakp (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This user has added Kurdish terrorism category to every single pages it has visited. I didn't add his reverts, because there is more than 20 same reverts about the same thing: added link to Category:Kurdish article so you can see his changes.


 * – It is not clear enough what the problem is here. There is no 3RR violation. If you believe that should not exist, you could try nominating it for deletion via WP:CFD.  A complaint about edits by the filer of this report is now at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:252:d0c:b9f0:ddcf:c12d:b856:2e3d reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * - warned by Gamaliel
 * 3RR template just to be sure

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diffs of direct attempts to contact user and notify them of policy:   Comments: User has been inserting spurious material into John C. McAdams; has finally admitted that his/her major source is a blog. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 20:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (and later discussions)

Comments:

User is under a 1RR restriction (imposed as a result of continuous edit warring) on anything related to India or Pakistan but nevermind 1RR, here they broke 3RR straight up. Their initial defense was that they "didn't revert" only "restored". Then that changed to that it was a "new edit", hence not a revert. Not sure how the "I only restored" and "it was a new edit" are being reconciled here but regardless, it's a pretty clear case of blatant disregard of both the policy and the restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: indef block)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

The first edit this editor made after coming off a month long block for their involvement in a protracted edit war at Football records in Spain was revert the page to their preferred version. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307 for previous diffs. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:217.248.22.214 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv rearranging of an archived discussion"
 * 2)  "Stop mucking around with other editor's comments."
 * 3)  "Leave other's comments alone."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Talk:Blindspot (TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP keeps making WP:POINTy edits taking the word of the relevant policies/guidelines too literally, and reverting perfectly legitimate edits to add missing signatures and indentation changes to make the discussion more readable. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (What would the POINT I'm trying to make?)
 * The edits are resorting an archived discussion, changing the meaning of comments by placing them at various other places. It is also utterly unnecessary. My changes reverted talk page vandalism, thus 3RR and similar do not apply.-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I may also note my belief that of some sockpuppetry being involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (217.248.20.109, 217.248.0.219, 217.248.22.214). This is supported by WP:SOCK, which states Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, meaning that sockpuppetry is not just account-only, as the IP editor seems to believe. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So what's your reason to assume "deception"?-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suspect this user is the same one who tried to force through their changes on the Shannara Chronicles page and made an extensive amount of topics on the talkpage. They used over a dozen IPs which seemed to change almost daily and had a habit of posting on peoples talk pages who disagreed with them. See the users IPs such as 217.248.0.149, 217.248.29.18, 217.248.32.212, 217.248.2.44, 217.248.63.96, 217.248.29.218, and a ton of others all seem to geolocate to the same area as this user.81.106.156.18 (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You "strongly suspect"? Well that sounds ominous.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merely an observation of your past behavior as you were quite active on the Shannara Chronicles page not so long ago. I do find it highly unusual that you seem to be editing under a new IP daily, what do you have to hide exactly? This report seems almost pointless because your IP keeps changing. I suggest you make an account to be accountable for your actions on here.81.106.156.18 (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An observation that implies that something is fishy, or you wouldn't make it. What exactly is it that I did wrong?-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can please someone comment on Wikipedia policy's position on changing other editors' comments on talk pages? Thanks.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor has continued their 3RR violation with yet another revert, claiming it is vandalism yet failing to cite how. They falsely accuse of modifying the content of the comments while all that has been done is a combination of indentation, usages of unsigned, and placing the comments into chronological order; the meaning of the entire discussion remains the same, as does the meaning of every comment. The editor cannot be discussed with in any format, as they believe that they are completely in the right, even claiming that 3RR does not pertain to them though nothing at WP:3RRNO pertains to them. They have also furthered their sockpuppetry by editing from yet another IP - this is conclusive from the post before mine. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whovian has a very, very precise understanding of how talk page comments should look like, and he is willing to enforce this even for other people's comments, and even on archived discussions. He was blocked for this before, and promised to leave it be in his unblock request ("I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself."). Well, that promise turned out to be false.
 * This whole matter is puzzling to me. First of all, I am not used to see someone making changes to other's talk page comments. There were no insults, no BLP stuff, no libel, not threats of any kind, just Whovian's hurt sense of perfection. Even cosmetic changes would be unacceptable, but while making his changes, he re-arranged my comments in a way that changes the flow of the discussion.
 * Unless you have a sound reason to do it (like the one I listed above), changes to someone's comments is considered vandalism. 3RR does not apply.
 * This is the second case of Whovian haphazardly editing talk pages (I know of). He is wasting enormous amounts of effort and energy.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the actual policy. Vandalism says: "Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. [...] It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment." As for the reordering, the policy is not clear on this, but I can't see any problem with moving a comment to be in chronological order. The issue was even pointed out to you. You can hardly call that "vandalism", and it doesn't make it harder to follow, quite the opposite. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point? Of course repeated re-ordering, shuffling comments and disrupting the flow of the conversation is illegitimate. Doing that against the repeated expressed wishes of the author is at the very least rude and disruptive on top of that. Also my comments were signed before you shuffled them all over the page.
 * In what possible way can comments be made clearer by shuffling them around?
 * What is to gain? The conversation was ARCHIVED. Were there any complaints except from one very active participant? At best you can achieve a very minor increase in clarity in an archived discussion. Please explain in what way this mess is worth that.-217.248.10.121 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question has now reverted a total of five times under different IPs at, which they have admitted to using; no matter of their intention and personal beliefs, this is a clear violation of 3RR. However, I believe that when action is taken against them, they will continue to partake in their sockpuppetry and continue their actions. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I "admitted" nothing of the sort, I simply confirmed it. You sockpuppet allegations are a red herring, stop it.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You confirmed that you are editing under different IPs. That's confirming that you are a sockpuppet. Story, end of. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the rules again.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Recap
Here is what happened:
 * On 2016-03-09, we had a short but heated discussion about a term in the lede of Blindspot (TV series). During this discussion, Whovian took it upon himself to referee details of the talk page format for at least seven times, against my express and very clear objections, and changing the content of my comments at least once.
 * During the proceedings, Whovian also tried to archive the discussion once with so much disregard that he again changed my comments.
 * For this mess, we were both blocked, I for 24 hours, Whovian for 48 hours.
 * I took the opportunity to take a break, while Whovian asked for a lift. In his unblock request, he said this: "I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself."
 * The matter was resolved during my block, and I archived the discussion a day later.
 * On 2016-03-19, Whovian changed the archived discussion again, resorting my comments extensively, merging paragraphs and adding autosigs where none were needed (or only needed due to his own resort). I reverted him, and this is what brought on this report.

Changing talk page comments is rare, and only acceptable when some serious fault can be found in the content (BLP, threats, &c; not claimed to be the case here) or when some clear faults can be found in the formatting, to the point of impeding the discussion. We don't go around fixing spelling errors (which would increase readability, dramatically in some cases) or fix other minor errors in other's contributions. We certainly don't do that after being told to stop, literally dozens of times. It's impolite and disruptive. In this particular instance, and after so many requests to stop, it's simply vandalism.

Are my comments hard to understand due to their formatting? You be the judge, but I don't see how resorting them in a haphazard way could possibly improve that.

Then there is the matter of my alleged sockpuppetry. Whovian brings it up again and again, but fails to respond to the one pertinent question: What would be suspicious about my changing of IPs? Did I ever abuse it? Did I ever deny it? The simply fact is that my IP address is changed daily by my Internet provider. There is nothing I could do about is, even if I would like to. There is also not the slightest bit of policy disallowing this.

This is a colossal waste of time, for the second time. Whovian should respect talk page comments written by other editors, and should abstain from ever making such changes again.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and he does it again, right here.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: The talk page is semiprotected for two weeks. Conducting an edit war with a fluctuating IP is disruptive, on any page. I have no opinion on who is right about the talk page formatting. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Semiprotection after a dispute between an IP and a named editor is clearly taking sides, are you aware of that?
 * Where can the core matter (Whovian's talk page edits) be addressed? Which forum would be the best?-217.248.11.96 (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, the admin made the correct decision. You show remarkable edit war tendancies on pages like here but as your IP address changes so rapidly you can never be held accountable for your actions as you seemingly refuse to make an account on here. Although I wasn't involved in the Blindspot stuff, I feel your behavior in the Shannara Chronicles page is entirely relevant in this discussion. Let this go, surely it can only end with a range ban to prevent you from socking your way out of a ban. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "With all due respect, the admin made the correct decision." - The admin ended the dispute in a way that clearly favors one side, without giving any rationale. Do you agree that should happen in more cases brought here? If not, what is it that you agree to?
 * Stop the sock allegations. You have no basis for this.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a history of disputes with multiple editors, and have reverted people under multiple IP addresses to further your agenda. That by all accounts is the very definition of sock puppetry. The admin has simply put a stop to your behavior by protecting the page as you seem unable to be reasoned with. Anyway, this will be my last post on this subject as a resolution has been found. I just think you need to take a step back and let this go. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are very mistaken on what sockpuppetry is.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotection after a dispute between an IP and a named editor is clearly taking sides, are you aware of that? Seriously? If the admin took any sort of different action, you probably would have still accused them of taking sides. They admin doesn't need to give any rationale - they read this discussion, they thought about the best course of action from the experience they've received over years of training, and they took it. Easy done. If you really want anything done, recommend a ban against your IP range 217.248.*.* so you can't edit war over a range anymore. You continue to say that this is a waste of time, and yet you're the one wanting to take it further and keep the whole thing going - make up your mind and give it a rest. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants reported by User:FL or Atlanta (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Argument_from_authority#Example_section_is_using_bad_examples. Lots and lots of discussion on the Talk]

Comments:

MjolnirPants is also not following WP:NOCONSENSUS, which says "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", instead removing material they dislike and insisting it not be re-added despite the absence of a consensus to do so. Attempts have been made to resolve the issues on the page through mediation, but MjolnirPants has pulled out of two mediation attempts before they were able to get off the ground. They have also stated that they refuse to speak to me further on the article's Talk page. All of this makes solving the current disagreement on the page extremely difficult. FL or Atlanta (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * for a week. It was either that or block both of you. Note that the purpose of giving a warning is after a second or third revert to encourage the other party to discuss rather than revert. Giving a warning three hours after a fourth revert, and reporting 12 minutes later, is not useful. Listef (klat) 10:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Depauldem reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
User being reported:

Previous case: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive312

Page: Previous version reverted to:

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

Page: Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The case is essentially a continuation of the case filed above at Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive312 where the editor is perpetuating the same type of edits at other articles. The editor hasn't violated 3RR but is perpetuating the earlier problem at other articles. The case was closed after he stopped reverting and started discussing the issue at the talk page, but now the disruptive activity has resumd his actions need to be re-examined. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User Betty Logan is guilty of the exact same thing. A simple review of both the reversions and the talk pages shows that I have been trying to engage in a discussion, but have been met with reversions and unwarranted reporting.Depauldem (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that four unconnected editors have reverted you across three separate articles and nobody actually supports your position should probably tell you something. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * . Cut it out. Listef (klat) 10:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:PuliMurugan reported by User:Rebbing (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 712907761 by Rebbing (talk) Same with you... When you undo or delete some thing from a wikipedia page, you need to ask the main editor first. For now, please don't mess this page up."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 712894783 by Rebbing (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User isn't interested in discussing his promotional edits and refuses to follow WP:BRD. He claims I need to ask his permission before reverting his changes. As he's already given me a "Non-helpful Wikipedian" barnstar in protest of my nominating his spam articles for deletion, I fear further attempts by me to work things out would be needlessly provoking matters. I'm not looking for a block, just a firm warning from someone other than myself. Rebb ing   20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see where you invited the editor for discussion; all I see is a talk page full of warnings you placed there. Also, we are a long ways away from edit warring, and we're certainly not at 3R. Plus, I don't know how those edits are promotional, and other things in that list seem poorly sourced as well. I will not deny that the user shouldn't have reverted and should have discussed on the talk page--but that goes for you as well. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My invitation would have been the suggestion that the editor discuss his changes at the talk page. They were his changes, so I assumed it was his burden to discuss them, not mine. I stand corrected, and I apologize for my behavior on that article and for making this report.  Rebb  ing   02:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Listef (klat) 10:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my report, and I have no desire to be difficult about this, but, in my defense, this is the edit warring noticeboard, not the three-revert rule noticeboard. In the instructions at the top, it states: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule"; the text "active edit warriors" links to WP:EDITWAR, which explains that: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."  Rebb  ing   11:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 27 March 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:34, 27 March 2016‎
 * 2) 20:36, 27 March 2016
 * 3) 12:34, 28 March 2016
 * 4) 12:40, 28 March 2016‎
 * 5) 15:54, 28 March 2016‎ "The fucking fact that these fucking facts are *sourced*, are about the Clooisters, and cannot be removed without consensus)" Note: First communication at talk page took place at 15:57, 28 March 2016, minutes after the fifth revert and just before the sixth
 * 6) 15:58, 28 March 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just look at any of the dozens upon dozens of 3RR warnings on BMK's talk page

Comments:

is back to his usual belligerent edit warring, this time facing off against, and  in his insistence that his popular culture section must stay in the article, per his demands, despite rather clear consensus to the contrary. Regardless of any ex post facto discussions at the article's talk page, BMK has a rather clear obligation to step back at (or before) the 3RR mark, but has persisted in battling well past this point. Is 6RR enough to justify a block? Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that (a) this is already being discussed at WP:ANI, and (b) there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their "enemies" having with other people. I expect 75% of Wikipedians will end up in that section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Didn't see the ANI, but I did see the edit warring on an article on my watchlist. There is a special VIP lounge in the Tenth Circle of Hell reserved for admins who aid and abet our most aggressive edit warriors, going out of their way to give a 37th slap-on-the-wrist warning to five seven time losers who are then allowed to violate the bright line 3RR rule with impunity. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Block log highlights (see here) listing BMK's 3RR / edit warring blocks (7 so far by 7 different admins; 4 since 1/2015)
 * 09:32, 16 January 2016 UkPaolo (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
 * 22:59, 15 October 2015 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
 * 13:50, 28 July 2015 The ed17 (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: long-term pattern, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=673506396#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Staszek_Lem_.28Result:_Declined.29)
 * 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
 * 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
 * 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
 * 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)

, BMK has been blocked by seven different admins for edit warring. He's received no less than 13 non-blocks (warning / page protected / no action are included; no violation and blocked are excluded) and slaps on the wrist after edit warring reports by 12 different editors. These blocks and warnings have only become more frequent since January 2015. As usual, he's resorted to his "Aw, shucks. I guess I should have gone to the talk page sooner. I've got a bad temper." after being caught violating WP:3RR (or in this case, 6RR). As a bright-line rule, and one that has violated dozens of times, a block of increasing duration would be the most appropriate way to prevent slap on the wrist 37, 38 and 39. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 3RR noticeboard violations where BMK received a warning / page protected / no action (13 so far by 12 different editors; 7 6 times since 1/2015)
 * 1) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive135 - Closed July 2010
 * 2) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive201 - Closed November 2012
 * 3) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive214 - Closed May 2013
 * 4) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive228 - Closed November 2013
 * 5) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive232 - Closed January 2014
 * 6) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive234 - Closed January 2014
 * 7) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive257 - Closed September 2014
 * 8) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive277 - Closed April 2015
 * 9) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive279 - Closed April 2015
 * 10) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive282 - Closed May 2015
 * 11) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive283 - Closed June 2015
 * 12) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive286 - Closed June 2015
 * 13) Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive294 - Closed September 2015
 * Alansohn's block log BMK (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing out how an editor can be reformed (and how you haven't). I've been clean, sober and unblocked for six years and eleven months, as of today. And how's your track record, my little churchmouse? Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved party. Alansohn, now would be a very good time for you to shut up. You made your point, and are only making yourself look bad. Shut up and walk away. My unsolicited advice. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As another uninvolved party, I would suggest that oknazevad follow his own "advice". - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose any action per discussion at WP:ANI. This is stale, and so attenuated from previous incidents that we can't credibly link it back to any previous pattern of disruption. Action on this report would certainly be punitive. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 02:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This matter was extensively discussed at ANI; that should be sufficient. A few people said some really undiplomatic things. Anybody who messed up this time around has hopefully learned something that will keep this problem from recurring soon. I share User:Floquenbeam's surprise that Alansohn has been so active in this complaint since he is not one of the people involved in the article dispute. He did answer my question and says he edited the article in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual result: BMK will be further enabled on his path of edit warring. An editor who has been blocked no less than nine times for edit warring (I hadn't seen the two blocks listed under his Before My Ken block log; I'll add them to the list for the next case), and has been warned no less than 13 times previously without a block, will be given a free pass on a 6RR bright-line rule violation and a free pass to continue his chronic pattern of edit warring. Without a consistent string of admins as enablers, each one buying the bullshit that BMK "has hopefully learned something that will keep this problem from recurring soon", this wouldn't keep on recurring every few weeks, with toothless warning after toothless warning handed out and then ignored by the perpetrator. Alansohn (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What can you say? He's been here a while and chats to admins. Content and conduct don't really matter when you're buddies with the admins, who are equally guilty of disruption by ignoring shit like this, as the person is who breaks 6RR. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:94.254.225.161 and User:153.19.171.18 reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: and, a user working out of two IPs.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no discussion, as this is obvious vandalism.

Scolaire (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: page is now semi-protected. Scolaire (talk) 17:50, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected for one year. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Knowledgebattle reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 3 edits by Nishidani (talk): Sorry Nishi, disruptive edit by Galassi. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713028461 by Galassi (talk) Stop disruptive editing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 713009927 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 712993776 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 712933836 by Galassi (talk) Wth? I had it all organized. If you want to clean it up, there's definitely too much, but keep it organized."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 712933836 by Galassi (talk) Wth? I had it all organized. If you want to clean it up, there's definitely too much, but keep it organized."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   (full discussion is more useful, actually) "/* French Prime Minister's opinion in the introduction - Israeli Minister of Education's opinion is not */ r"


 * Comments:

Blocked for edit-warring before Doug Weller  talk 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

^ Whoopdeedoo.


 * User:Galassi had rolled back my edits. If you look at the page revert differences, I had made some large, substantive edits aimed at reorganizing a whole section, which was previously all jumbled and mixed together. Anti-Zionism. To figure out how to classify them, and then to ensure that views were accurately classified, I followed up on all of their sources.
 * I was doing them pieces at a time, at first; but because Galassi didn't approve of the very last contribution – the quote by Shulamit Aloni – he went ahead and rolled back the entire thing. All of my edits. Since his rollback was bundled into one action, I was able to revert it. And frankly, after spending all that time and effort to accurately label their positions, I'm not okay with him going in and messing it up. That's why I rolled back.
 * I'll say the same thing here that I told them both... if you want to make specific changes, then you do so. But I had made other, substantive changes, which both User:Galassi and User:Doug Weller were made aware of, and still chose to revert, anyway. (Probably so that we'd end up here – Hi.) You happy now, Doug? Edit appropriately and specifically, and we won't have to meet on this battlefield. You were reverting for the wrong reason.
 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 15:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is obvious KB edit-warred, and lack of sleep is no excuse. One desists, naps, and thinks things over. Thus a sanction is appropriate. But it should note noted that This edit by User:Galassi, which started KB's editwarring, was clearly faulty. Knowledgebattle confused who Shulamit Aloni was, and should not have left the statement in the text, as opposed to a footnote. But his addition did balance a section that patently violated WP:LEDE by giving a multi-sourced statement suggesting widespread cross-sectarian support for the equation of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, without a balancing statement noting that the opposite is also true, that many believe conflating the two is a silencing tactic. I tried to balance that some time ago, and it was reverted out, editors, like Galassi preferring to have the lead espouse one of two POVs, rather than taking the trouble to try and fix it as KB did. Nishidani (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A sanction isn't a good idea. (Just being honest.) And yes, the majority of my editing has been to clean up and organize the article. As for adding the balance – I'm surprised you've addressed it in this article in the past, too. So I'm not the only one who noticed that. Well, I would just expect that anyone making a decision takes a look at the edits I made.
 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And for the second time you've deleted a post of mine on a talk page (a different one), this time reverting others as well. And you may have been trying to get balance, I don't know. I should be upfront and say that I am concerned about your userpages. User:Knowledgebattle/projects/Christian Republican corruption looks to have BLP issues, and another, well, you know what I mean. I very much like some of your edits and voted to delete an article you brought to AfD, but I'm not sure you should be working on religious issues, even though I'm also an atheist. Doug Weller  talk 17:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, you're concerned about my userpages? Oh no! I would just delete your comment, but you'd probably cry about it. So instead of deleting your comment, I'll just say this... IDGAF. They're not your userpages. They're subpages, dummy, not official articles. If you don't like the subpages, then don't make similar ones for yourself. Problem solved. KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no dog in this fight. I don't know the editors involved.  In general, I think blocks are a bit too freely handed out.  But this comment, aside from containing a personal attack, shows that the editor in question is either unaware of, or unwilling to abide by some of Wikipedia's basic rules, both substantive (BLP) and procedural (don't remove others' comments).  Some kind of action is called for. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And now I'm "Doug Weener"? Lovely. Doug Weller  talk 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You sound like what they call a "regressive", or to use an older term, a pansy. Every chance you can, you snitch about stupid little things, you complain when you get offended instead of just screwing off, and you go around stalking people who offend you. Grow a pair of balls, man the fuck up, and fuck off. Then we'll be cool.
 *  I've got a suggestion – Doug grows a pair and goes his way, and I go my way. User:Wikidemon stepped in and implemented their own opinion, and other people can, too. Boom. It's like magic.
 * KnowledgeBattle | TalkPage | GodlessInfidel ┌┬╫┴┼╤╪╬╜ 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I posted this at 15:40 UTC, Knowledgebattle did another revert at 17:17, including removing an overquotation tag, which clearly should be left in until the issue is resolved (and seems appropriate). Nishidani placed a DS notice on the talk page before that edit, making the article a 1RR article. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 72 hours is light, considering the in-your-face deletions after several warnings were made. Surely a week at least?Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. Edit warring; removing article talk posts by other users; personal attacks on the noticeboard. The user had one previous edit-warring block in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:5.29.102.252 reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I've already made the case in the talk page. You're telling me to "discuss it" whilst you are dodging the talk page yourself. Who's edit warring?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713026453 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)I did though, I provided two different sources - one of them is a large magazine, and the other one is a video of that interview."
 * 3)  "So you're slandering me to push your own agenda, lovely. I'm neither a nationalist nor pushing a POV. There's no "POV" in him being of Russian ethnicity. Is it POV to state in de Niro's article he's of Irish and Italian ethnicity?"
 * 4)  ""Edit warring"? No one is edit warring. Emelianenko stated that his of Russian ethnicity in an interview, are you saying that's irrelevant to his early life? I've referenced it, so you really have no leg to stand on."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 712819075 by Spacecowboy420 (talk)Surely his ancestry is relevant? And surely you can't tag him in "Russians of Ukrainian descent" when he has stated that he's Russian?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Can be seen here


 * Comments:

Far more then 3 reverts. At Least two different editors asking him to stop but he kept on doing blatant reverts. I highly recommend a short block for this IP. MBlaze Lightning  -  talk!   14:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are a very active member, which is respectable, but you seem to be so active that you don't have the time to actually learn the situation when butting in. Once again, I referenced the information I added. Where's the dispute, and where's the POV? Surely you should be more concerned with whoever accused me of "nationalistic POV"? 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I tried resolving it on the talk page. Ironically, those who shout the loudest "use the talk page" seem to ignore it the most.

Secondly, here's what the dispute is about. Emelianenko stated in an interview that he's of Russian ethnicity, when asked. I have added it to his "early life" section, with two references. However, the next thing is that it gets removed, and I get accused of "nationalistic POV." I'm not a nationalist, and I fail to see the "POV" in him stating that he's of Russian ethnicity?

Was the person who wrote in de Niro's article that he's of Irish and Italian ethnicity accused of a "nationalistic POV"? 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: There's actually an admin monitoring the page, User talk:Davey2010. I think his advice should be asked first and foremost. 5.29.102.252 (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you violated 3RR. In fact, You've made far more then 3 reverts. You should follow BRD. At least 2 editors asked you to stop Edit Warring and discuss the matter at talk but you kept on doing blatant reverts. Beside, It was who actually started talk page discussion can be seen here. You should refrain from adding YT Videos/Interviews or Non-English primary sources to add controversial contents instead you should add secondary sources to back your claims.   MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I told the IP editor " I suggest you go to the talk page, and attempt to gain consensus, rather than continuing to edit war." when he had already made multiple reverts, and he proceeded to make more. He doesn't seem to listen to anything regarding edit warring/talk pages/consensus - a short editing block might reinforce what is being said to him.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Initially, I felt sorry for the IP editor. He must be new, he doesn't have an account yet and he is making good faith edits.
 * Then I looked at his edit history. It's full of the same crap that he is trying on the above article. He isn't here to build an encyclopedia, he's here to push a lot of nationalistic crap related to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Not exactly an editor with the best of intentions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And more meaningless words. I've provided a source for the information added. He stated he's of Russian ethnicity, that's relevant to "early life." Period.
 * "It's full of the same crap that he is trying on the above article." - I think you're suffering from paranoia ;-) My edits are mostly about the community which I came from, Russians in the Ukraine. You know, like some are Irish Americans? Or to add information about the stance taken by Russian celebrities about the Crimea crisis (once again, referenced).
 * However, I fail to see how any of my edits are relevant to this article. So you're removing a sourced piece of information which is no doubt relevant (once again, since when do we remove information on ancestry), because you didn't like my other edits?
 * "he's here to push a lot of nationalistic crap related to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia." - And another lie ;-) Show me at least one revert I made in an article actually connected to the conflict? I avoid them on purpose. I have been adding information about the stances taken by celebrities on the conflict (referenced), plus (unrelated to the conflict) expanded information on the Russian community in Ukraine. 5.29.102.252 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the IP has broken 3RR they qualify for a block regardless of who is right about Emelianenko's nationality. This block might be avoided if the IP will promise to make no more changes to the article unless they first get consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. If you have a look at the talk page of the admin who reverted me originally, he also acknowledged that he didn't realise that the piece of information was referenced: So that doesn't really count.
 * Judging by that fact, Spacecowboy420 had actually broken the three revert rule before me, and therefore, should be blocked before me?
 * And last, yet not least, I was accused of a nationalistic POV simply because I added a (referenced!) peace of information about his ethnicity. So...?
 * I don't think he/she is [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fedor_Emelianenko&oldid=713040910&diff=cur&diffonly=0 going to stop]. You should block him now for a short period. Thank you.  MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   19:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Being right (even if you are) doesn't grant you an exemption from the WP:3RR policy. So far as I can tell you are the only one who has broken 3RR. For clarity, the person you refer to above as an admin is not one. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:DaveA2424 reported by User:Scorpion0422 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:29, 1 April 2016
 * 2) 17:35, 1 April 2016
 * 3) 18:04, 1 April 2016
 * 4) 20:53, 1 April 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:35, 1 April 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It's a content dispute where the user is (rudely) insisting he is correct despite providing no sources. He's shown no regard for policy and this was his response to the warning. -- Scorpion <sup style="color:black;">0422  21:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Suitcivil133

Comments:

The first edit this editor made after coming off a month long block for their involvement in a protracted edit war at Football records in Spain was revert the page to their preferred version. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307 for previous diffs. If this sounds familiar it's because I reported their opponent yesterday. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

But I have merely protected a several year old consensus and moreover included a primary source (FIFA.com) to prove my point. My opponent is the only one who disagrees and continues breaking the long-established POV on that page without providing evidence that shows that FIFA DOES NOT recognize the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup.

My link below, and the one that is used on that page currently, shows the exact opposite, namely that FIFA does recognize the ICFC.

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

This consensus was also established elsewhere on Wikipedia more precisely on the talk page of the ICFC itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Inter-Cities_Fairs_Cup

I have been targeted unfairly and I have been a 5 year old contributor to Wikipedia without any past problems.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ferakp reported by User:92.106.216.139 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  See the large discussion at ANI.

Comments:

Most of his reverts have been explained to him already on WP:ANI. For example, he again reverts to the sentence "Female genital mutilation (FGM) was an accepted part of Sorani speaking Kurds and Iraqi Arabs in Iraq. ", which makes the false claim that FGM is only a problem of the past, and also the false claim that FGM is also a problem of the Iraqi Arabs (it is not common at all among the Iraqi Arabs, see the UNICEF report). The revert also deletes the fact that HRW said that the law against FGM is not being enforced.

Reverts 4, 5 and 6 are reverts of additional added material. Revert 6 (and 4), he claims he reverts because of missing ISBN, but a published paper is not a book, hence there is no ISBN.

Many other users have reported Ferakp for source misrepresentation, edit warring, disruptive editing, see at ANI and see this conclusion at ANI. The user has also been edit warring in this article previously, as well as in related articles and articles related to Kurdish terrorism.

The problem with the first diff: Kurdish women also continue to face numerous problems.. statement was simply wrong because all mentioned problems aren't related to all Kurdish women. So what I did? I edited the statement to make it more neutral and added it back to the leading section. Adding negative statement to the lead section and generalization of things is againt WP:NEUTRAL About the FGM: It's not a part of culture. Neither the source confirm it nor other sources support it. I changed it to according to its source and mentioned what the source exactly said. So this edit wasn't improving the article because the source didn't verify it, WP:V and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS  You removed my al-Monitor source and removed all details which said that it is now a law and it is illegal. You replaced it with much older source and details. You simply tried to blackwash the article. You changed MICS reported in 2011 that in Iraq, FGM was found.. to In Iraq, FGM is found mostly among the. This is simple against WP:POV. About statistics you added, I told you in the talk page that you can add them if you mention the year of that study and its details, but you didn't. Your edit which added ..assessed a 16% rate of female genital mutilation in Western Iran, where it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect statement was against WP:V. This is because the source doesn't say anything like that. The source says: The rate of FGM was discovered to be 21 percent in West Azerbaijan, 18 percent in Kermanshah, and 16 percent in Kurdistan, according to field interviews and research conducted by Ahmady and his team. The source didn't say that it is 16% in Western Iran, it said 16% in Kurdistan. What does source means with "Kurdistan" is still unclear. Did he mean all Kurdistan, including Iraq, Turkey and Syria or did it mean only Iranian Kurdistan? If source meant Iranian Kurdistan, then it is not Western Iran as your statement says so, Iranian Kurdistan is officially North Western Iran. However, I assumed that the source really meant 16% in Western Iran even though the source doesn't mention that and I tried to find the claim that it is mostly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect. However, the source doesn't say anything like that, not even close. The source says that Among the Kurds in Iran, FGM is mainly practiced by Sunni Shafi’i Kurds who speak the Sorani dialect, but not among Sunni Shafie Kurds who speak the Kermanji dialect. So, the source neither verify 16% rate in Western Iran nor that it is mainly practiced by the Kurds in Western Iran. Clearly against WP:V and WP:PROVEIT. Your statistics (and exceeding 80% in Garmyan and New Kirkuk) is not valid anymore, one of my source is simply against this statistics. However, as I said, you can add it but mention the year of that statistics. Your last edit is simply duplicate. The problem with the second diff: This edit was simply intend to blachwash the article. If it is illegal and my newest source says so, why you add the old source and say that it is still not enforced? Isn't this clearly disruptive editing? The problem with the third diff: I told you that your link is dead and I couldn't find the same source anywhere. I said you need a source for it and then you can add it back. You found the source and you added it back. I thanked you for the edit. The problem with the fourth diff: I told you two times that is it a book, news or publication. I said if it is a book, add ISBN and if not add the link or more details about the source so users can check it. I also told you that I can't find such article or publication and please add the link or more details, but you didn't. I simply can't verify this edit because you haven't added a link or details about the source, so I can find it and read it myself. Also, it is very high claim and it need reliable sources. If the source exists and it really says so, you need to mention that it is from 1996 and not generalize it. The problem with the fifth diff: I already explained this here. The problem with the sixth diff: The same problem with the fourth edit. I told you to add link or more details so I can verify it. I said that you need to also mention that it is from 1996 or whatever the source shows. Your latest change was simply removing details. Ferakp (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This user who reported me is probably the same user who reported me to ANI and called his friends. This user with his friends is continuously blackwashing Kurdish articles. All edits the user mentioned are reversed because of blackwashing and that they were clearly not improving the article.

User:Altanner1991 reported by User:F-16 Viper (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713062809 by F-16 Viper If important information was omitted, then you should incorporate it, or fix a source, because otherwise there have been very many considerable improvements throughout the article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713061501 by F-16 Viper (talk) This is a much needed fixing of several issues as going with the attitudes from the talk group."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 713058480 by F-16 Viper sources were outdated, important information had been missing or left ambiguous, notes were inconsistent, layout issues were fixed, fixed redundancies"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Deleted large swaths of text from page, changed entire layout without discussion/removed notes from page and added text with unreliable sources. I warned him about it on his talk page and undid his edits, he proceeded to edit war. F-16 Viper (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My working was much needed and is from considerable effort, taking much time to polish which might not be noticed; it brings vast improvements of wording inconsistencies and redundancies and lightly cleans the page. An identical column had been listed twice, in the other table sources were left disattached from their respective times whereas the previous table had them attached to each time, these inconsistencies do not need to be undone, please stop that. If any important information (for example another source or time) was missing it should be added back and you are welcome to reincorporate any as needed. You should not be starting a fight over this and can work with the changes, add any piece of information you think would be important, a note you think should be added back into the page, it is not worth in doing all of the other valid edits. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you had put so much effort into it but frankly your edits were completely unconstructive. You can't completely change the format of the page and then expect other people to go edit from there, especially when you remove important information like manufacturers times, and verified third party times. This format has been used since the beginning and you cannot just change it willy nilly. The two columns for example were to list verified time and manufacturers given time, these are not redundant columns. You also needlessly removed listings from the page and added times with unreliable sources. F-16 Viper (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Altanner1991 might avoid a block if they will promise to wait for a talk page consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair, I hope he does accept because I think he can be a valuable contributor if he doesn't do the rash deletions. F-16 Viper (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, you'll find the information will be left alone so that you will find the article remains as you described. Perhaps as mentioned, a talk page can be started in order to first reach a consensus on the disputed changes before they are applied. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, yes I do promise to not change the disputed text unless consensus on a talk page is reached, and I also apologize for finding this message after making an unrelated correction, which was not related to this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Only the edits recommended by F-16 Viper in message to me would occur, as contributions inside the box so that yesterday's disputed removal of any notes or columns would first wait until the consensus of a talk page, and the unreliable source will not be used again in the future. Thank you for your explanations. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. My offer (at 05:12 on 2 April) asked for a promise not to change the article again before getting a talk page consensus. I didn't refer to 'disputed text', I referred to *any* change. Altanner1991 has continued to change the article, at 12:48 on April 2. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

User:70.162.223.119 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (IP has blanked the page more than once)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: added today, but various warnings went unanswered on user's talk (see, , ). Quis separabit? 13:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * AND YET IT CONTINUES  Quis separabit?  13:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * – 3 days. Competence is required to edit Wikipedia. Here is an example edit, drowning the article with tags that make little sense. Discussions with the editor have not let to any good result, and the behavior continues on April 3. See also this edit questioning the notability of Gary Shandling. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston -- thanks for the three day reprieve from this IP (if he/she doesn't get around it) but I don't think the issue is competence; I think it is COI or fancruft, plus arrogance and bad faith. Yours, Quis separabit?  17:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Cauleyflower reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Users alerted under the Troubles case)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The concensus on the talk page is that it is clearly de facto and has not been superceded. This aggressive Irish Nationalist censorship campaign needs to end."
 * 2)  "clarification"

By KrakatoaKatie
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Three seldom used accounts have seeked to edit the same way on this article in the past three days. RPP was made, KrakatoaKatie declined and gave 1rr warnings under Troubles restrictions, aswell as advising a breach should be reported here. Murry1975 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * "reported" for disagreeing with you - how pathetic! I made 1 correction and 1 revert. The recent edits have been more in-line with the talk page than the pure reverts by Irish Nationalist editors undoing corrections. It seems only Irish Nationalists like yourself are making pure reverts and not contributing anything to the article. Now you are trying to game the system to keep the censorship campaign ongoing against anything representing Northern Ireland Cauleyflower (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No violation of the 1RR sanction has happened here, seemingly. Both parties made one revert after the sanction was put. The history of article shows one editor reverting against three editors, or three editors reverting against one (who really knows?). On the talk page, three editors were discussing the disputed issue (two of them were against Dmcq, as I got). So I think there's only a content dispute here which should be resolved using recommendations at dispute resolution. If the question is that who did the edit warring, the answer will be "both Dmcq and Cauleyflower". Mhhossein (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As you say User:Murry1975 seems to have just reported here without contributing to the talk page. Since I seem now to be in a minority I will stop. You can look at the start of the article and see what a mess they are making of it and I doubt they'll take advice from me as they seem to think any opposition is from Irish Nationalists and therefore to be ignored. I think it is funny, they probably consider themselves Unionists and yet argue against what the government has said. Oh well I guess that is what consensus has turned out to be here on Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Dmcq: I see that you are good at making RFC topics. Why did not you try that instead of engaging edit warring? I gave the other editor a rather soft warning for the national epithet he directed at you. Mhhossein (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not all that keen on RfCs, they are not good for discussion only for coming to an eventual decision, and on those pages especially I'd prefer that there was some sort of actual consensus rather than more hot air and polarization. Dmcq (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to admin: The case is a content dispute where both parties were engaging edit war by reverting each other's edit and I think they need to be warned against making further such edits. There's a TP topic showing that they had been discussing the issue which led to no clear consensus. This nomination by Murry1975 is flawed because the diff he has provided as the diff of warning is in fact a general sanction notice not directed at a specific editor. As I said above, the 1RR was not violated considering the time of the notice being put on the talk page of the editors (both editors made one revert after the sanction was determined). Mhhossein (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:KrakatoaKatie has placed a WP:TROUBLES banner on the talk page, which serves as a notice of the WP:1RR restriction. In my opinion this case may be closed with no action so long as the following recent editors receive alerts of the Troubles discretionary sanctions:
 * Flag of Northern Ireland: User:Cauleyflower*, User:Eckerslike, User:Dmcq, User:Murry1975, User:Jonniefood*, User:Mo ainm, User:IrishBriton*
 * Northern Ireland flags issue: User:Scolaire, User:Miles Creagh. Those names marked with (*) are already alerted.
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Users have been reminded of WP:1RR and alerted under the WP:TROUBLES case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh great. It had quietened down. Unless it is necessary for an ongoing dispute all this does is train people to game the system rather than contributing properly. Dmcq (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Insidious edits from 66.87.118.132 (Result: No violation)

 * User being reported:

I noticed a vandal that instead of doing obvious destruction. The person edit numbers etc that are critical to concepts. The user is "Special:Contributions/66.87.118.132". Perhaps it's worthwhile to have a look at the rest of edits from that IP block (66.87.0.0 - 66.87.255.255, SPRINTBWG-2BL). Part of it seems to be related to a high school (Capuchino High School?). The offending edit that got my attention was this. A 32 768 Hz crystal used for digital real-time clocks outputs 2^15 cycles per second not 2^16 cycles. Anyone who designs using that number will see their clock running at half the real speed. Bytesock (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. This IP has made only one edit in the year 2016. They could have made a good-faith mistake in their change to Real-time clock. Just one recent edit is not enough to show edit warring, and this change doesn't appear to be vandalism. The stuff from September 2015 *is* vandalism but it might not be the same person, since IP addresses get recycled. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert Peterson 753 reported by User:Gala19000 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * – 3 days by User:Lectonar. EdJohnston (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:LjL (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713431526 by Tom.Reding (talk) No we don't. Only for opinions, not for facts. See WP:TWITTER. Sorry."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713430208 by Tom.Reding (talk) It's a preprint server. There is no peer review. Sorry."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 713386234 by Tom.Reding (talk) we need peer-reviewed papers. Not unpublished preprints."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 713299716 by Davidbuddy9 (talk) Not a good rationale. This version vetted by experts. Take it to talk."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring on Earth Similarity Index */ new section"
 * 2)   "Disruptive editing"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Vetted by experts" isn't a rationale */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Improvements to the article */ It may not be self-published in the first place"


 * Comments:

This editor has been somewhat aggressively removing content from various articles related to the concept of "habitable exoplanets", based on a (disputed) claim that the sources involved as self-published and that they are an WP:EXPERT and that others, like me, lack the WP:COMPETENCE to judge the sources. I invited them multiple times to take their sourcing issues to the WP:RSN, but instead, there seems to be a complete rubber wall against any attempt to keep article content, to the point of responding to my detailed edit warring warning explanation with "Do you have a degree in physics or astronomy?". I find it very important to note that, although it's not a revert, their edit after the last revert was, in my opinion, basically pure vendetta/disruption by calling the article's subject "the wholly invented ESI". This last edit is the actual reason I resorted to reporting. LjL (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for stepping over the line of 3RR and commit to not doing that ever again. I am trying to improve the article with the help of some astronomers who are interested in improving Wikipedia for public knowledge and was getting a little frustrated at the seeming article owners replacing poor content. Still, I think we are making progress with doing a better job at getting what exactly this subject actually is covered by Wikipedia. I do think there is a problem here with people not working with experts, as has been documented in previous news stories and such books as "The Cult of the Amateur". I am trying to work in good faith with editors here, and I understand they might be upset that their sources are being impeached by Wikipedia standards, but I would prefer to work together rather than fight! jps (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I have tried to extend the olive branch to this user here. I think we need to work in such a fashion so that normal Wikipedia-based research can compliment the best academic perspective on these topics. jps (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The commitment to avoid edit warring is appreciated, I just hope it doesn't mean that instead of doing technical reverts you switch to spiteful edits like the one after your last revert, which while not being a revert, looks like an attempt to WP:GAME by doing something equally as disruptive as a revert.
 * I replied to your message asking me to cooperate, but as I pointed out in my reply, I do not actually have a "vested interest" in this subject: I only have a vested interest in Wikipedia being used properly. Wikipedia can use contributions by experts and academics, but only as long as they do not expect to be able to trump normal policies and the normal consensus-reaching just because they are WP:EXPERTs. Consensus doesn't trump policies, as you sometimes mentioned; but even deciding whether a source is reliable or not (and it needs to be, per policy) is something that needs to be done by consensus if there isn't agreement. LjL (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Jps is warned for 3RR. Per the above exchange, the editors seem willing to discuss. The article now accepts relevant Arxiv preprints and a website as references, without any snarky language such as 'the wholly invented ESI'. Continued reverting may lead to admin action. You know that WP:RSN is available for this kind of question. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for a WP:RSN answer considering WP:ONUS. Shouldn't the people wanting to include the problematic content be the ones asking? I think it's pretty clear that a self-published website and a preprint need to be treated carefully in science articles per WP:PSTS. Asking for "input" for such a straightforward point seems needless to me. I won't stop anyone else from posting the question, obviously. jps (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Binksternet, 331dot, Willondon, Izno reported by User:74.95.112.141 (Result: 74.95.112.141 blocked)
Page:

User being reported: User:Binksternet, User:331dot, User:Willondon, User:Izno reported by User:74.95.112.141

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz&diff=713523352&oldid=713505019

Diffs of the user's reverts: This has been going on for awhile and is a conspiracy to violate the 3-revert rule to delete image galleries I added to illustrate the text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jazz&action=history


 * (cur | prev) 15:01, 4 April 2016‎ 331dot (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 74.95.112.141 (talk): Needs discussion. (TW)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 15:00, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713505019 by Willondon (talk) No clear criteria for includion? Each image is of a person mentioned in the preceding text. Stop this edit war! The 3-revert rule applies.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 12:32, 4 April 2016‎ Willondon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713433820 by 74.95.112.141 (talk); too much content; not clear what it illustrates; collection seems random, no clear criteria for inclusion) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 01:02, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713430803 by Izno (talk) This is your 2nd revert in a 2-hour period. Notice is being served on your talk page. The other editor is on his 1st revert.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 00:41, 4 April 2016‎ Izno (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-1,041)‎ . . (you boldly added the images and were subsequently reverted by 2 editors. please discuss on the talk page (WP:BRD)) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 00:21, 4 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (146,036 bytes) (+1,041)‎ . . (Undid revision 713384999 by Izno (talk).Undoing 1st revert in 24-hour period. 3rd will be reported. ) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 18:46, 3 April 2016‎ Izno (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (-988)‎ . . (agreed, the other images are enough) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 14:37, 3 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (145,983 bytes) (+988)‎ . . ((talk) When was this voted on? A single editor undoing another's work is sabotage! What does 'too much' mean? Photos illustrating text are never too much. What about the sound tracks? Is this an edit war?) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:26, 2 April 2016‎ 74.95.112.141 (talk)‎ . . (144,995 bytes) (+220)‎ . . (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 17:06, 2 April 2016‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,775 bytes) (-988)‎ . . (gallery is too much) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] See diffs listed above.

Message sent to last reverter Willondon:

You and three other users are being reported for an edit war conspiracy. Together you reverted my contribution three times in a 24-hour period and gave no valid rationale. It's you alone who changed the rationale from the original false excuse "gallery is too much" to "too much content; not clear what it illustrates; collection seems random, no clear criteria for inclusion". Are you prepared to back yourself up? All articles belong to the Wiki org. and its readership, and to delete valuable information such as images illustrating the text makes it their business. The time for talk is over, because the proper procedure was to discuss possible deletion on the article's talk page with notice given to the author, and obtain a consensus prior to any action taken, not to start an edit war by one self-appointed deletion after another in a conspiracy, with no notice sent to author, followed by demands to discuss it on the deleters' talk pages after the deletion, accompanied by threats of abuse of editing privileges against the author just for undoing the deletes and following the procedures for violations of the 3-revert rule. Three editors don't make a consensus against the interest of the rest of Wiki's readers anyway, but three coordinated reverts violates the rule, so I'm reporting you all and letting the administrators handle it rather than live under your threats while you keep deleting the galleries for self-invented reasons that boil down to thinking you own the article not Wiki. Please wait for the process.

Comments:

I'm a little puzzled at how several editors (3+ now) coming to the conclusion separately constitutes a conspiracy. The IP has declined to comment at Talk:Jazz and as he's the only one for-inclusion, I think that's his burden. In general, I would request the article not be protected, since the IP has added other content that seems not to have triggered anyone else's revert-button. --Izno (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would further note that I was not notified of this discussion; only came across it by reading the report against the person making this one. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   16:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713493394 by 47.54.189.22 (talk)"
 * 2)  "rmv. cities from TV station call signs, rmv. sm. that end up x2 sm., rmv. dump of Shaw Media predcessors"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This particular case has been spanning a couple of days, first taking place on March 28. Spshu and 47.54.189.22 continue to argue over whether or not Shaw Media predecessors should be included. Regardless of whether or not Spshu is right, given his lengthy block log in relation to edit warring, an indef block might be needed. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First previous history of blocks are not suppose to be a factor in edit warring and you are not suppose to recommend block levels. Other editors agree generally with my edits and have reversed 47.54.189.22's edits:

Electricburst1996 has been harrassing me and blocking any conclusion to discussion from occurring by demanding that I appeal his decisions to wikiprojects. Harrassing by hitting my talk page with uw-editsummary template for a rare occurrence for me using an empty edit summary 9when not dealing with vandalism or distributive editing), instead of looking at my history of edit summaries. Then I request that he stop harassing me. this only seems to be the continuation of his harassment since this Electricburst1996, do not even discuss the issue on the talk page. Technically, it was the IP editors role via BRD to start, I have since start a discussion. Spshu (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ViperSnake151 m (Reverted edits by 47.54.189.22 (talk) to last version by Spshu)
 * 1) Talk:The_Disney_Afternoon refusing to discussion any thing on the addition of sourced information, thus getting a denial of a 3O request.
 * 2) Talk:Laff (TV network), which he attempt to remove regarding his disruptive editing then tricked an administrator in getting me blocked, where I was disallowed a defense from the block, because I was block!
 * 3) [IncidentArchive908#Long-term edit warring and personal attacks by User:Spshu] which was his first attempt at trying to get me permanently ban while I was not able to defend myself, which started to boomerang on him. Which then he back petaled.
 * 4) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALaff_%28TV_network%29&type=revision&diff=706520734&oldid=706519895  "I don't want this to escalate. I think the source should stand. After all, you haven't raised a stink about other lists of this nature, have you?"
 * 1. I removed that talk page section because I felt that it was not appropriate for an article talk page - it seemed to be more about the editor (me) than the article itself.
 * 2. If you looked at your talk page, from the very top, you should realize that you are guilty of incivility on several cases.
 * 3. Wikipedia policy does not outright prohibit the use of primary sources.
 * 4. You have zero authority over what talk pages I can discuss an issue on.
 * 5. How is leaving a warning on your talk page considered "harassment"? Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. You were informed other wise.
 * 2. I am aware what is at my talk page. You too are guilty, but the point being is that that is not the procedure to bring up other cases at an AN. It is irrelevant to the current issue, except that you are improperly referencing as a reason to punish me on this issue and indefinitely so. (see WP:HUSH)
 * 3. It does not, but you have block good third party sources at Disney Afternoon then want unlimited use of no sources at Laff. But more to the point at Laff you were removing the begin of discussion, which may have been a factor in my last block. You did not start a discussion. And this became the point in the boomrang in you last attempt at a permanent block.
 * 4. I never said I had any "authority over what talk pages I can discuss an issue on." It has been you general lack of discussion what so ever.
 * 5. A warning can be consider harassment, see WP:HUSH. You should have look and seen that general that was a question notice to post on the talk page. Spshu (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * – 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:WilliamJennings1989 reported by User:Headbomb (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See (a bit complex)

All reverts are slightly different from one another, but basically is editing warring over matters of style as can be surmised in the article history. The user's response has been assumptions bad faith / personal attacks (accusing me of being OCD / WP:NOTHERE, or of being a liar , and others of being racists ). When provided with the specific MOS passages about en dashes, and how one should not edit war over matters of style, he complained " It should be valid and true to use the exact wording from WP:MOS to explain an edit. " and that those reverts were 'unsourced', which is a spectacular case of failing at basic reading.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has been warned both through edit summaries  and talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: You can see /  for attempts at discussion, but the user still is edit warring / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments: For the record, "Gibberish" is definitely a racist term because it derogates another person by comparison to a historical figure. To be specific, Headbomb lied about the term "ellipsis" right here -. The final state of the article replaces the parenthetical, spaced en-dashes with an appositive; This style is explicitly preferred in the Wikipedia Manual of Style - Headbomb has numerous reversions and deletions on the article; and none of those edits include constructive criticism, most of his comments are mean-spirited. I do not believe he acted in good faith; because despite the fact that I tried to gain consensus on improving style compliance with the WP:MOS, Headbomb ignored my goodwill and then implicitly threatened me with a block for disagreeing with his usage and grammar.WilliamJennings1989 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Except you know, I'm hardly the only person to revert your edits (I'm one of three today, by my count). No one finds them to be improvements. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:5.29.102.252 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713589338 by Oshwah (talk)I was told the problem was primarily sources. That problem is now resolved as I found an English one. Please grow up ;-)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713588777 by Oshwah (talk)An English source."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 713587933 by Oshwah (talk)"Controversial"? What's "controversial" about him being ethnically Russian? And the source is a popular magazine in Russian. Is this political or something?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 713571920 by ScrapIronIV (talk)What the hell is going on? It's referenced. Why is it reverted? Are there political reasons?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 713571241 by ScrapIronIV (talk)Unexplained?! He stated in an interview he's of Russian ethnicity, I added that info - REFERENCED. What's the problem?!"
 * 6)  "(talk)So keep that in mind with your silly edit war. Once again, the information is referenced. Under what basis are you removing his (referenced) ethnicity?"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 713503050 by Laberkiste (talk)What factual errors? And interview where he openly states that he's Russian is a factual error? Please turn to the talk page and refrain from revert"
 * Editor is still edit warring, having made the same disruptive edit at least twice since this report was submitted. RolandR (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I added a referenced piece of information into the article, that Emelianenko is of Russian ethnicity. From an interview. I referenced it. I was told I need to get an English source, which I did, and I'm still reverted.
 * Comments:

That doesn't make sense.
 * Your changes have been reverted multiple times and my multiple experienced editors, and the reason for these reversions have been explained to you multiple times (here and here). I acknowledge your later addition of an English source but that does not make it reliable. This report is for the fact that you have violated Wikipedia's three-revert rule and engaged in edit warring. Sorry, but we tried to help explain, but you have obviously failed to listen to them.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   22:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted on the basis of not having an English sources. I added an English source. Your ego games hurt Wikipedia.
 * – 3 months. Returned to the same activity right after the previous block expired. Negotiation seems unlikely to work. If this were a registered account, we would be considering an indef. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:David in DC reported by User:5.29.102.252 (Result: Filer blocked)
Fedor Emelianenko page.

It's just a joke! I added a referenced piece of information to the article, here it is:

He was born to parents of Russian ethnicity.

Please note, it's referenced. He said that in an interview.

And yet it's being reverted without any explanation!

Can someone please have a look at this? Under what basis is it being removed?


 * This editor has been reverted by 6 different editors over the past several days for inserting contentious material and failure to follow WP:BRD. He was also blocked for 48 hours for this behavior by User:EdJohnston. As soon as the block ended, he went back to it. WP:IDONTHEARYOU and WP:NOTHERE seem applicable.
 * Oh, and the editor did not notify me that he was starting this thread. I feel fortunate for having stumbled upon it. David in DC (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What's "contentious" in Emelianenko stating he's of Russian ethnicity?


 * Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerry121 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked. )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Good information to remain"
 * 2)  "Fine corrections made."
 * 3)  "Important information to remain"
 * 4)  "Important information to remain."
 * 5)  "No good reason to undo all this important information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec. (TW)"


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

For reference only, this same user also has an edit war at the French article, see. -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * --regentspark (comment) 15:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:68.204.79.96 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713684003 by Loriendrew (talk) You racists are pathetic. Your attempts to deny reality are hilarious."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713668642 by Loriendrew (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Agree with edits but goes against consensus developed on talk page &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(ring-ring)  14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected indefinitely. A review of the history suggests that a shorter protection is unlikely to work. Those who favor the 'racism' terminology need to get consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:74.95.112.141 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 713505019 by Willondon (talk) No clear criteria for includion? Each image is of a person mentioned in the preceding text. Stop this edit war! The 3-revert rule applies."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713430803 by Izno (talk) This is your 2nd revert in a 2-hour period. Notice is being served on your talk page. The other editor is on his 1st revert."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 713384999 by Izno (talk).Undoing 1st revert in 24-hour period. 3rd will be reported. "
 * 4)  "(talk) When was this voted on? A single editor undoing another's work is sabotage! What does 'too much' mean? Photos illustrating text are never too much. What about the sound tracks? Is this an edit war?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring against (at least) ?three other editors; advised take to talk; fails to do so. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  16:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Already blocked, see report above.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked at the same time I see :) <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Block, Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: This has been going on for awhile...
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Otherwise not involved.

Comments:

appears to have stopped since my posting of an 3RR notice on his page. Jim1138 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – Blocked three days. After being warned of 3RR, Gala19000 continued to revert with this promise to edit war in his edit summary. While User:Robert Peterson 753 ceased to edit the article after the warning, as noted by Jim1138. User:Gala19000 has been reported at this noticeboard twice before, for instance here. This article is under WP:1RR. Robert Peterson is warned for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:MBlaze Lightning (Result: No action but see warning below)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "changed reference from sarmila bose to bina d'costa. added anthony mascarenhas reference besides sarmila bose. also added sourced info on pre-op searchlight violence against biharis being the reason usd by pak governmen for op searchlight being launched"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 713648761 by MBlaze Lightning (talk)Rudolf Russel's estimated range for Bihari killings was between 50,000-500,000"


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

Can be seen here
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User is under a 1RR restriction (imposed as a result of continuous edit warring) on anything related to India or Pakistan. On 1 April, he was blocked by for Violating his 1RR restriction. . Just yesterday, he was reminded about his 1RR restrictions can be seen here. And Today, yet again he violated his 1RR restrictions (First revert, he then made a edit, and here is a second revert by user with a mis-leading edit summary.    MBlaze Lightning   -  talk!   14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * TZB and MBlaze Lightning are both under 1RR on India/Pakistan articles and i see both have made two reverts if i am not mistaken so if we are asking for a block then MBlaze Lightning should be blocked as well. I also do not think that 1971 Bangladesh genocide comes under WP:ARBIPA so please give that a consideration as well. Please also note that MBL asked TZB to self-revert which he did so i do not think TZB comes under any enforcement because of his self-revert action. I request a boomerang against MBL for violating his 1RR and reporting TZB after even though his self-revert which was requested by MBL.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:ARBIPA- "Broadly construed"; yep, definitely includes Bangladesh. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, i see a violation by MBL of 1RR without any retraction and then an audacity to file a report against a user who self-reverted after the requester's demand of the same. It was not even ethical for him to file this report.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's fair enough. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I had not even made 1 proper revert yet, let alone IRR vio. Anyway, Your reply was expected. Given that, you have a long history of defending socks and editors who follow your POV. TalhaZubairButt was informed by Kautilya yesterday again about 1RR and today he violated his 1RR restriction, knowing the fact that the next block will be more severe. He did not did Self-revert by his own will but rather he was told to do so. His self revert was a part of tag teaming between sheriff and TalhaZubairButt. Sheriff reinstated his version within a minute can be seen [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1971_Bangladesh_genocide&type=revision&diff=713670367&oldid=713669887 here]. Anyway, Self revert or not, this looks like a clear 1RR vio. All articles related to Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 comes under ARBIPA, In case you don't know. MBlaze Lightning  -  talk!   14:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC) here].
 * But, he did self-revert once you asked him to do so, then why did you ask him to do so if you were going to report him anyway. My history of defending the socks? No, i never defended the socks, your report on TZB was fallacious and it was proven so. You do not know about my history of exposing the socks yet. Here are your two reverts:


 * 07:06, 5 April 2016
 * 08:14, 5 April 2016
 *  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Since TalhaZubairButt has self-reverted in good faith, no action is necessary. But all editors are reminded that the events surrounding the separation of Bangladesh from Pakistan are precisely what the ARBIPA sanctions are designed to address and arguing that a major Indian - Pakistani flashpoint is not covered by those sanctions is disingenuous at best. Much of the editing on the pages related to these events is already disruptive and more than one editor is liable to end up blocked if you're not careful. Talk pages are designed for discussion, particularly when material being added to an article is contentious, and the onus for discussion is on the person adding the material. I strongly suggest you all learn to use talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you regentspark. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Potorochin reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This user was previously warned about edit warring in another subject area and specifically about editing on this page

There was an WP:ANI discussion related to this user where he/she responded this and this.

Comments:

This is two days of non-stop edit warring on the same page. One could find a lot more reverts by him. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply: Above mentioned diffs 1-5 were made by me two days ago during my dispute with User:Winterysteppe. He reported this dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident. These diffs were already discussed there and I explained my position that "there is no need to dump this article with all the smear ungrounded accusations which was thrown on President Putin, despite his name not even been mentioned anywhere in the Panama Papers". After the discussion there, User:Winterysteppe, who initiated the report against me, decided not to seek any admin action and conducted himself a Non-admin closure for this discussion. Later he apologised on my talk page for his accusations and even wrote a message to me "Potorochin, I looked back and i realized its totally my fault. I was a bit overzealous a bit and yeah, didn't 100% read, etc. ..."
 * Nevertheless, I decided to withdraw for one day from any editing on the Panama Papers article and yesterday didn't make a single edit there, despite being the most active editor of this article before.
 * If you check all other alleged reverts from today, mentioned by User:My very best wishes above, you will find that his accusations are absolutely groundless:
 * - diff 6 If you check this diff, you will see that in the old version there were repetitive statements like "According to the spokesman of the Russian President, the main target of the Panama Papers leak was Vladimir Putin" and "The Kremlin also claimed that Putin was the "main target" of the leak", etc. So I cleaned up the text and in the diff description explained: "Repetitive statements removed". I didn't do such edit neither before, nor after this edit. What kind of revert User:My very best wishes is talking about?!
 * - diff 7 I removed a text not from the reputable source and provided an explanation: "Not a reputable source, just a website run by several students of one university", which is true. I never removed this passage neither before, nor after this edit. What kind of revert User:My very best wishes is talking about?!
 * - diff 8 This is nonsence. I just moved information with Peskov's comments about Putin from the "Sergei Roldugin" section to the "Russia" section, as Roldugin was not menthioned in this passage at all. I didn't move this passage neither before, nor after this edit. What kind of revert User:My very best wishes is talking about?!
 * - diff 9 This is even more nonsence. I just moved the information to where it should be, according to the structure of the article. User:My very best wishes placed these accusations against Putin in the wrong section- "Official reactions and investigations", instead of the "Contents#People" section, where all other accusations against all other politicians are placed. So I moved it to the correct place. I didn't move this passage neither before, nor after this edit.
 * - diff 10 This is more nonsence than previous. It was actually User:My very best wishes who reverted my previous edit, by placing a copy of his text back to the wrong section. He didn't even bother to remove the same text which I moved earlier to the correct section. So, with this edit I just removed the similar text from the correct section, as User:My very best wishes insisted to have it in the wrong section.
 * As you see, I never ever made a single revert today, unlike User:My very best wishes.
 * If you follow other links which User:My very best wishes provided above, you will note that all of them link to diffs 1-5, which I already mentioned above.
 * I find the behaviour of User:My very best wishes as very disruptive, as he made above absolutely groundless accusations of an Edit warring against me, probably in an attempt to divert my attention from the productive work on the article and instead wasting my time combating his allegations here. - Daniel (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't sorted through diffs 6-10, which for all I know could be legitimate, but diffs 1-5 appear to be a clear 3RR violation and Potorochin's response is nonsense. Winterysteppe closed his/her own ANI complaint for reasons that appear to have nothing to do with edit warring. In the meantime, no fewer than 3  two different an admin pointed out that Potorochin was edit warring. None of this precludes another editor from submitting a 3RR complaint here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "In the meantime, no fewer than 3 admins pointed out that Potorochin was edit warring" It's a lie. Please provide diffs, when you make such strong allegations. - Daniel (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My mistake, 2 admins (diffs here, here). (Lies, all lies!) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You "mistake" again: the second diff you provide above is a warning to my opponent, not to me. - Daniel (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Foot in mouth. You are so right. Only one admin pointed out that you were edit warring. (Please remember that there are no opponents here, just collaborators. We are all in this together for a common goal, to build a better encyclopedia.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re:"You are so right". Thank you for finally admitting it. - Daniel (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Potorochin, do you understand what "revert" is? You are a highly experienced user. Here is link to the recent ANI discussion. Please check comments by administrator TP (where he warns Potorochin about his edit warring on this page) and by user Buckshot06. Note the response by Potorochin who continued reverting edits by other users on the same page, even after this ANI discussion. So, I thought uninvolved admins should look at this and decide if something needs to be done. Unfortunately, I do not have time at the moment to provide more diffs or continue this discussion. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The verdict of Administrator TP, mentioned by you, regarding diffs 1-5 which you provided above, was made both to User:Winterysteppe and myself three days ago and it states: "You are both engaged in an edit war. You should both step back from this for awhile." My opponent and I immediately followed his advice and didn't make any edits in the next 24 hours. My opponent, meanwhile, realised that I was right in my position, and, as I mentioned above, he apologised on my talk page for his accusations and then he wrote a message to me "Potorochin, I looked back and i realized its totally my fault. I was a bit overzealous a bit and yeah, didn't 100% read, etc. ..." And few minutes ago he actually even gave me a barnstar for "The Tireless Contribution" to this article. It was only him and myself who were involved in the edit warring three days ago. We've got an advice from admin to relax for awhile. We followed his advice and eventually came to our mutual understanding and now we do not have any issues, regarding our previous edit warring or whatever. It is in the past now.
 * Now, today, you have accused me in starting a new edit warring and provided diffs 6-10 above, as your evidence, but these accusations are absolutely groundless, as I explained in details above. - Daniel (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * really ? you are reporting edit warring by even though i made the mistake? Clearly I was mistaken when i mass reverted him because i was a little overzealous. Add-on comment. I should state that I have nothing against . I just thought that we had different views on the topic, although his position is much better than mine. Listen really, I think you should drop the act. There is no need for ridiculous reporting here. In fact, you took the dispute a little too far by wanting him blocked. Winterysteppe (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no judgement who of you was right. It does not matter. I reported Potorochin because he continued edit warring on the same page after this ANI discussion. According to WP:3RR rule, an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.. #6 - yes, it was revert (edit summary "Repetitive statements removed"). #7 - yes, it was revert because you removed a sourced statement. #8 - OK, this is a rearrangement, not necessarily a revert. #9 - this is a revert of my edit. #10 - yes, this is a revert (removal of sourced text). I am not telling anything about content. I think some of your changes were justifiable. I am only telling that you have shown a total disregard to WP:3RR rule and to advice by the administrator on ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Truly speaking, I'm really amazed, that, who was my opponent in the edit warring four days ago, came here to support me. As regarding , I'm glad that he already admitted that #8 was not a revert. It's a pity that he failed to see that my other edits #6 (clean-up), #7 (removal of poorly sourced info), #9 (rearrangement by moving text to the proper section) and #10 (removal of the text which I myself placed there with #9, after made a revert) were not my reverts either.
 * It looks like the discussion here would not make any further progress and I'm asking for the admin ruling and closure of this case, as I want to continue my contribution to Wikipedia, instead of wasting time, battling the ungrounded accusations here. - Daniel (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it was a content dispute that has been resolved. Without the need for admin intervention.


 * As a note of order, User Potorochin filed an SPI request about me. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You have nothing to worry, unless you are guilty. - Daniel (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this funny essay needs improvement. It does not list among possible "tactics" such things as filing an SPI request against your accuser or asking to protect the page you edit-war about during standing 3RR request (just above). Honestly, I do not mind closing this tread without action, but at the very least, you must admit that your edits #6,7,9 and 10 are in fact reverts. Otherwise, you are going to repeat the same. Also, your SPI filing and comments on the ANI indicate other problems, but they is probably not for this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Stale. There are more than 200 edits by others at Panama Papers since the last Potorochin edit listed above. Any attempt to close this based on revert counting would be unworkable. Report again if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
 * 2)  (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
 * 3)  (only one off handed comment in that discussion)

Comments:

Yes, this is just 3 reverts rather than 4 in 24 hrs. However, EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules. Indeed, they've filed 3RR reports based on that very argument. They have also tip-toed up to the 3RR bright line several times in the past, making this repeated behavior and, , [. The fact that ED regularly will make three reverts then wait for the clock to expire, while at the same time failing to participate in talk page discussion AND reporting OTHERS for making 3 reverts pretty clearly indicates that this is indeed an instance of gaming the rules and definite edit warring.

In light of the nature of the disruption, a 1RR restriction or a topic ban may be more suitable than a straight up block, for preventive reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * From what I see, I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases. The first case was with a single-edit IP account, who is likely a sock of this account, add a lot of information to the lead. I've already explained why I disapproved of such material concerning his wealth and assets being added to the body, let alone the lead. Also, the whole unsourced bit about "[Putin made $200 billion dollars of] money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" being placed in the lead is also concerning and in my view is OR and a violation of BLP (should've mentioned that in the edit-summary though come to think of it). As for the other edits, both of them were followed up with an explanation on the TP explaining them: . Therefore, it can be easily characterized as WP:BRD. Also, there's an overwhelming amount of support to exclude that material not just by me, but of most users on the TP as well ( and more recently ). This is really my first time I've been reported at 3RRN, and I would hope that I would have received an advisory after 25 February. That's nearly two months ago, and concerning an entirely different issue. So this came to me as a surprise. As for the 1RR suggestion, there's a lot of edit-warring going on from every side and this is gravely concerning. I'd suggest making the article itself restricted to a 1RR, as is the case concerning many EE topics such as Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. It'll encourage much more discussion on the talk page. In fact, from what I see, it should be temporarily page protected as well. As you can see in the revision history, there's a lot of additions/removals/reverts happening in which an average of 3,000+ characters of information is being added/removed/reverted...and its ongoing. Some of it is a cluster of different information packaged into one edit making it very difficult for editors to assess each of their particular grievances over them at the TP. In other words, that brings instability to the article, and a page protection would encourage all parties to sit around and talk about it at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: I sent the article to page-protection. I would like admins to see for themselves if it requires PP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You know, under normal circumstances that would be fine. But the fact that you have a tendency to try and use noticeboards, including this one (diff above) against other people for EXACTLY the same thing you're doing here, makes this look like a clear instance of WP:GAME. "Three reverts for me but not for thee". And despite your claims *you have* been warned about edit warring before (diffs above). It's just that you always tip toe right up to 3RR never actually break it. Which is why this is disruptive and why *some* kind of action needs to be taken.
 * (and if you think that IP is a sock puppet then file an SPI - I don't see it, there's no obvious person that that IP would belong to).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules." - that's exactly what you and your pals have been doing for years (at least since the Ukrainian crisis began). Dorpater (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making false and vague WP:ASPERSIONS. Who are these "your pals"? Generic accusations such as these are simply personal attacks and nothing more. Do I need to file another report here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Even just a look at the page version history of Aleksandr Dugin reveals you are constantly revert warring against many others to keep your preferred version with edits with absolutely meaningless edit summaries like this, . This is just an obscure corner, but you're doing the same in articles like Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War or just anything related to Russia. Why is that? Dorpater (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Aleksandr Dugin article happens to be a page which is subject to lots of IP, WP:SPA and sock puppetry edits (I think something like three different sock farms got banned as a result of editing there). And there is a long standing WP:CONSENSUS version. But have I broken 3RR or even 2RR there? If I did, feel free to file a report, otherwise quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

is Sayerslle, so the first revert is a 3RR exemption. See SPI. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One IP is from UK the other from Florida. So I sort of doubt it. And what are you doing here Erlbaeko? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the first revert you listed. This one. That is a revert of IP 92.3.12.19, which obviously is Sayerslle. Compare the IP-address with the IP addresses in the SPI (starting from 15 April 2015 (Skip the first one). Erlbaeko (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first revert listed here is well within the policy. The phrase "money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years." has nothing to do in the lead and is, indeed, tantamount to WP:VANDALISM. Listing this edit here as supporting the claim that the editor reported is breaking rules is in itself an act of bad faith. Dorpater (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:130.156.22.254 reported by User:Hebel (Result: Schoolblock)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUkrainian_culture&type=revision&diff=713706641&oldid=704179045

Repeated attempts to insert language that is in contradiction to the source given. The arguments are that the source is wrong. That is worrysome. This also happened on the page Ukrainians When pressed providing new sources for his contentions, the user:130.156.22.254 gives links to blogs, that are either not supporting or even talking about his claims, but even directly contradict them

I would like to emphasise that said user AND myself have broken the 3rr rule and are both edit waring. So I should take some of the blame myself. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears this IP is a public computer in a library and has been blocked for as long as one year in the past. The usual rationale is schoolblock, which keeps out anonymous but not registered users who use the IP. One option is to issue another such school block. Per WP:ACC there are ways for school users to create an account if they wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be assuming then, that this is a case of sock puppetry and I will act accordingly. I've made this report to the sockpuppetry notice board and will be treating any more attempts according to WP:DENY. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This probably also involves User: 67.81.5.244 as can be seen on the Ukrainians page:

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you. For your action here. User: 69.119.175.240 was also involved today here. He was also reported here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainians&diff=next&oldid=707443437
 * Result: This IP is editing from a school computer that has been blocked as such in the past. So I've done a one-year anon-only block. I also blocked User:67.81.5.244 for one month since it appears to be devoted to nationalist edit warring about Eastern Europe. The second IP is probably operated by the same person. I'm semiprotecting Belarussians and Ukrainian culture. If you know of other articles that ought to be semied, please leave a note on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:86.133.84.12 reported by User:SchroCat (Result:semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I only see three reverts of this IP in the history, and, additionally, they went to the talk page, and for the time being they remain the last user to post at the talk page. However, the editing is disruptive, and the edits they were reverting were previously reverted by other IPs, so I semi-protected the article for 1 week.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sramos92 reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I am not suggesting this is a 3RR violation because the reverts did not take place during a 24 hour period. This is an extremely slow-moving edit war, but it is a full-blown edit war nonetheless. Sramos92 appears to be taking a "wait it out" approach by avoiding the long-existing discussion in the hopes of simply outlasting those with whom he/she disagrees.

Also, I think it's important to note that a 24-hour block may be ineffective due to the slow pace of the edit warring behavior. I don't know what an appropriate sanction would be in this situation. Perhaps an official warning (short term block?) from an administrator, followed by an automatic permanent page ban if the behavior continues.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Sramos92 is warned they may be blocked the next time they make a change at Amity Shlaes unless they have a prior talk page consensus for the change. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)