Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive315

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:188.23.146.118 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=714556677&oldid=714500481
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=715281040&oldid=715275947
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716652503&oldid=716613751
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716727395&oldid=716725953
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716744061&oldid=716738202
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=717178385&oldid=716868424
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=717178951&oldid=717178385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=716791749&oldid=714934913
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=716795155&oldid=716791832
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=717452721&oldid=717078782
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=717456510&oldid=717452850  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.146.118 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I introduced a tag about the innacuracy of the article. The user Xenophrenic deleted it.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716791439&oldid=716753258

Comments:

I really don't understand why the user keeps editing the article with misleading information. I have also repeatedly edited the article with well documented sources and did my best to write the information in a neutral way. Gustavo Petro himself recently admitted(link) that he does not hold some of the qualifications that he claimed to have.

This are the sources of the information (and there are many more) : El espectador - Colombian newspaper Semana - Colombian magazine Kienyke.com

I can provide more information on the issue if needed. Just ask for it in this page.

I don't have a wikipedia account. But if needed I'll create one. thank you.

User:Madam queefnuggets reported by User:Peter SamFan (Result: Indef Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 717480989 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 717480959 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 717480917 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 717480892 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 717480864 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 717480814 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 717480778 by Peter SamFan (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 717480685 by Passengerpigeon (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 717480604 by Peter SamFan (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Admins died in a fire. (Twinkle)"


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


 * Comments:


 * He has reverted more times after I reported him.  Peter  Sam   Fan  23:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * by RHaworth Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:188.23.146.118 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=714556677&oldid=714500481
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=715281040&oldid=715275947
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716652503&oldid=716613751
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716727395&oldid=716725953
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716744061&oldid=716738202
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=717178385&oldid=716868424
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=717178951&oldid=717178385

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=716791749&oldid=714934913
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=716795155&oldid=716791832
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=717452721&oldid=717078782
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xenophrenic&diff=717456510&oldid=717452850  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.146.118 (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

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

I introduced a tag about the innacuracy of the article. The user Xenophrenic deleted it.
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gustavo_Petro&diff=716791439&oldid=716753258

Comments:

I really don't understand why the user keeps editing the article with misleading information. I have also repeatedly edited the article with well documented sources and did my best to write the information in a neutral way. Gustavo Petro himself recently admitted(link) that he does not hold some of the qualifications that he claimed to have.

This are the sources of the information (and there are many more) : El espectador - Colombian newspaper Semana - Colombian magazine Kienyke.com

I can provide more information on the issue if needed. Just ask for it in this page.

I don't have a wikipedia account. But if needed I'll create one. thank you.

User:Rjensen reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - blocked 8 times already for 3rr violations on US Civil War related articles. mostly on US Civil War related articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Toddst1 is a partisan in this mini edit war -- he does not charge the other guy who has repeatedly  erased sourced material from top experts (James McPherson, Eric Foner) and until just now failed to use the talk page. User:Toddst1 furthermore grossly distorts my record ("blocked 8 times already for 3rr violations on US Civil War related articles" is simply false: there was one block re Civil War ten years ago.). I should just have reported repeated vandalism by DaltonCastle that took place while i was editing other sections of the article instead of reverting his repeated deletions of old and new sourced material. Rjensen (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
 * No. I have not edited the article, rather I voiced my concern on the talk page as a Third opinion.   Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a partisan act by Toddst1 to call out one edit-warrier and not the other. Toddst1 defends the other one and is again partisan (esp when he relies on a misreadingf of the UNDUE rule.) Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 editor transgressed 3RR and the same editor has 8 blocks for the same issue.  The other editor did not and does not.  WP:TE is emerging here.  Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – Three days, though I believe that WP:3RR was violated by as many as two people. On the talk page, User:BusterD seems to have some advice on how to reach an agreement. If you can't agree, consider an WP:RFC or WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Mehdinasir reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Last four are:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  reverted this edit from another person

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Reverting has gone on since atleast April 11. The editor is the son of Syed Mohsin Nawab Rizvi. Have received no comment from Mehdinasir from talk messages or edit summaries. I asked for page protection, but was denied. Bgwhite (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

User violated 3RR and begin war of edits. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This user must be blocked because he still violate rules and continued unjustifed revert:
 * 1) SvEcHpInXID (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to confirm that there are clearly 4 reverts of 4 different editors (without edit summaries) within 24 hours. Tradedia talk 11:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ракал not want stop violation the rules and his still continues unjustifated revert:

He is also do such actions in other page Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:
 * 1) here
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Your must stop him.SvEcHpInXID (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. This editor reverts a lot but never participates on talk. There is a 1RR in effect on these maps, as explained on their talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Anders165 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717172652 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 717171663 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 717168537 by EtienneDolet (talk)"
 * 4)  "Which sources ? Only Pro-FSA sources claim self. This group is not Kurdish and not represent majority of Syrian Kurds. YOU CAN create a group under the name of Syrian Kurds, but you cannot hide the true."
 * 5)  "This is not Kurdish group. They just claim it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Iğdır. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Elazığ Province. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Liwa Ahfad Saladin. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Rapid-fire edit-warring across multiple articles. Does not stop despite multiple warnings. His recent contributions consist of pure edit-warring across multiple articles. Large-scale, bot-like edit-warring disruption without any discussion. Dr.  K.  04:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Addendum: In this edit-summary the user is mocking the Armenian Genocide: Yes, we know that Armenians were massacred by the Turks . bla.bla.bla.... XD. Dr.   K.  04:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock by .  Dr.   K.  04:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just curious, whose sock is it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * . I think I misread the editing pattern as the usual Vgleer sock that undoes Dr.K.'s edits. However, they are still edit warring, so I reset the block to 24 hours. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck my comment above, but I still wish to thank you for stopping this disruption. Dr.   K.  05:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Very likely a sock of, doing exact same edits as Sedej did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.198.192.131 (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Anders165 started the large-scale edit-warring as soon as they got unblocked. Dr.   K.  15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * and Sorry that I wasn't around to deal with this.  I see that the SPI settled this matter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Compulsory purchase in England and Wales (Result: Page protected)
Someone restore order, please.— S Marshall T/C 17:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor who doesn't care about a WP policy aka see also aka the inclusion of redlinks which was discussed 4 months ago and a legal article editor was told to cease doing it. WP guidelines say not to put them in and there is no consensus for otherwise. Note the editor was advised on his talk page of both seealso guidelines and the December 2015 talk page discussion If this editor wants to change consensus on redlinks which is also covered under WP:REDNOT, he needs to go to Seealso's or REDNOT's talk page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The manual of style is not policy. 3RR is, though.  I've got you bang to rights, WilliamJE, and I would advise you to restore the stable revision voluntarily.— S Marshall  T/C 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Guideline or policy, the consensus is no redlinks per both WP:REDNOT and WP:Seealso. You want to change it, take it to the above mentioned talk pages....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am under no duty to watchlist obscure manual of style subpages in order to prevent a consensus of about six editors from coming up with stupid, ill-considered, one-size-fits-all rules that screw up thousands of articles.— S Marshall T/C 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I have removed redlinks per WP guidelines, and other links already mentioned in the body of the article. Stability restored, guidelines followed, suggest all drop it now.  Scr ★ pIron IV 19:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would. In this case, I think not.  I invite you to look at this editor's contribution history, talk page history, and recent history of conflict with other editors about this exact issue.  What we have here is someone on a crusade to remove redlinks from see also sections.  Administrator intervention is warranted.— S Marshall  T/C 19:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a crusade to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It is merely ensuring some consistency is followed, and good practice.   Scr ★ pIron IV 19:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To help dropping sticks, I protected the article for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really?— S Marshall T/C 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * SQL Query me! 12:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Sdpdude9 reported by User:Imhungry4444 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Instead of blocking both users - which would be completely warranted here, I have fully-protected the page for a week. I would encourage both parties in the future to work out issues on the talkpage, instead of edit-warring over something like this. * SQL Query me!  12:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:652E:487:B35:DF60 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

IP is disruptively removing comments of other editors. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm removing blatant personal attacks. They should also be removed from edit summaries and the user making the attacks should be blocked. 2602:30A:C06E:EDC0:80B3:5D9:F53D:BBB1 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , along with their /64 range, since the comment on this page is already from another IP in the range. Quite apart from the edit warring, you're not supposed to remove other people's comments on talkpages, not even once. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit summaries only -- issue is of harassment by User:BrillLyle (see below)

Comments: User:BrillLyle has been reverting my edits, patronizingly dismissing them and refusing to indicate what exactly was the problem and/or to rectify anything in particular with which he took issue. Instead he simply reverted my edits three times before 3RR tolled. On my talk page (see ), he left this ancient RFC which has nothing to do with anything in recent memory just to try to viciously embarrass me by scavenging through my past. I made mistakes, I served my time, and that's it. I could have changed my username but I haven't. Quis separabit?  18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm actually quite confused here. This person is a known edit warring sockpuppetter and difficult editor. He said he had discussed the edits he made but there was no Talk page discussions on the page in question or on my Talk page. And when I wrote on his Talk page here he deleted the section -- which I have never even seen before. My issue was that I have had pages that I have worked very hard on changed by this editor in the past and he has behaved in a very uncivil way. This experience is the same. I question why the edits were made, especially as there is no value add, the dates on the entire page are consistent, and he added little to no content. Why does he get to behave this way? I can walk away from the pages he works on after I do but it seems patently unfair. To be called out for this here is also not ideal. I had thought to report his editing as being disruptive and against good will principles here but thought I would give him the benefit of the doubt and not follow through. Now I regret that. This whole issue is pointless. I will just walk away. But this editor is a problem. He drives away editors and doesn't add content. It's all sort of a nightmare. Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * " He said he had discussed the edits he made but there was no Talk page discussions on the page in question or on my Talk page" -- NO. I said I had communicated via edit summary just as BrillLyle did. It's 2016, and BrillLyle should really forget about things that happened on Wikipedia up to and more than a decade ago and concentrate on the present. Since being restored to editing privileges a decade or so ago (can't exactly remember what year, it's that long ago) I have not been blocked once. I do the best I can and have the commendations to prove it, on my talk page in my archives.  Quis separabit?  19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Whatever fantasy you want to believe. I am walking away from this page -- a page I improved significantly -- because of your behavior. Do you have any ability to examine your own behavior here as being unpleasant? I don't care how many gold stars you get, it's a lump of coal from me. BrillLyle (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Why are the shooting tables do not match those from the other NOCs?"
 * 2)  "consistency with the other NOC pages"
 * 3)  "STOP HARASSING MY EDIT. DON'T STRESSED ME OUT. DON'T ASSUME ME THAT I'M NOT HUMAN."
 * 4)  "The tables must be separated."
 * 1)  "consistency with the other NOC pages"
 * 2)  "STOP HARASSING MY EDIT. DON'T STRESSED ME OUT. DON'T ASSUME ME THAT I'M NOT HUMAN."
 * 3)  "The tables must be separated."
 * 1)  "The tables must be separated."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User clearly has ownership issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 3rd party commentIt should be noted that the reporting user Sportsfan 1234 has behaved very similarly and I have warned them both on this issue. Also that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics attempting to resolve the issues these two users have. At this stage I think a trouting may suffice as both have made some atempt to reach a consensus on the understanding that they re each on a last warning - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You know what. I'm done editing the San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I created the page though, but because you won the case on the edit warring. I decided to move it to the sandbox. You create the page instead, and put the necessary contents. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * FFS. Can which every admin deals with this please ensure that the article is moved back from User:Raymarcbadz/San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics to it's proper place. I retract my previous comment on trouting, this has gone too far. Thanks - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Basement12. We'll bring the contents back if someone besides myself should re-create the article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already moved the page back, even without addressing the rest of the case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's too late. The page has been deleted. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is getting out of hand, Raymarcbadz has gotten the page deleted, and has now recreated it and restored it to their preferred version (which is against the MOS, and discussion!). When will this stop. There is only so much one editor can do (before it is considered edit warring, and believe me this is not the end goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why can't you create the article instead, and see if you can prove that it follows the MOS guidelines? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like a case for WP:Boomerang to me. Sportsfan was not 1 little bit better with his behavoiour. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Raymarcbadz continues to edit against discussion on other pages as well and threatening to delete them! "Inconsistent with other sports; If you keep reverting my edits, I'll delete the page right now." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Pennyerrs reported by User:Velella (Result: Sock blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */Yeah, how do you know that, Im not and you cant prove it."
 * 2)  "/* Early life */Only Marche, I added Porto Recanati, the town where his ancestor came from."
 * 3)  "/* Early life */"
 * 4)  "/* Honours and achievements */"
 * 5)  "/* Trivia */"
 * 1)  "/* Trivia */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on  Lionel Messi . using TW"
 * Pennyerrs ✅ and indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User talk:166.170.34.148 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked 48 hours, with warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 717935580 by Yobol (talk) Why don't you explain your objection in the talk page? My edit is in response to the  request in the section "The lede is a mess""
 * 2)  "/* Ethics */ re-added material that got "lost" in editing/reverting"
 * 3)  "revert yobol lede edit. Nuffield has weight .I will elaborate in talk page"
 * 4)  "/* Ethics */ Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a report done by many expert in an authoritative organization. needs to have its due weight. (whether you like their conclusions or not)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See this diff and the subsequent two more warnings on their talk page


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

See talk page of article
 * Comments:

Numerous 3RR warnings on their talk page. Not even more reverts prior to this that do not fit within the past 24 hours. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * by Anna Frodesiak with a warning that future instances will result in an extended block. Mike V • Talk 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:46, 1 May 2016
 * 2) 03:40, 1 May 2016
 * 3) 03:34, 1 May 2016
 * 4) 03:21, 1 May 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (can't give diff as edit created page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started this RfC nearly a week ago, IP is reverting application of consensus and is aware of and involved in discussion.

Comments:

IP editor is reverting several changes: Skyerise (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keeps restoring category "Philosophers of mind" despite consensus against it.
 * Keeps changing "stand-up philosopher" (sourced) to "performing philosopher" (unsourced)
 * Keeps reverting implementation of RfC consensus.
 * I second this. The IP has been disruptive in numerous different ways. It has repeatedly made edits without explanations or edit summaries, most recently here. This is behavior which unfortunately suggests an absence of interest in discussing issues or reaching consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What an enormous amount of hypocrisy and ignorance.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Skyrise appears to misstate several facts. There is no clear consensus on the philosophers of mind category.  Rather, he and FKC have insisted on their position and several others have disagreed but tired of the WP:BATTLEFIELD.  I personally think Leary does belong in this category but concede I have not yet found a source that states it clearly in one sentence.  Re: the stand-up versus performing philosopher description, the editor that the IP reverted was me.  But having searched for new sources, e.g.,, I think he's right:  Leary did call himself a "performing philosopher", not a "stand-up philoopher", the latter term apparently having been applied to him by others; this is why I didn't revert back.  Re: the RfC "consensus", I concede the !votes to exclude outnumber those to include but the RfC has not been closed and proper procedure is for an uninvolved editor to do that.  Skyrise announced he intended to close his own RfC.  When informed this was completely inappropriate , his response was to insult all those who disagree with him as "uninformed", a clear and unambiguous personal attack.   Msnicki (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If there actually were an acceptable source calling Leary a philosopher of mind, such as a respected work of reference dealing with philosophy, I would probably not have any objection to the "philosophers of mind" category either. That does not alter the fact that there is no such source. You removed the category yourself at one stage, with the edit summary "rm Category:Philosophers of mind per talk page", and that does count toward consensus for keeping it out at least for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As we all know, 3RR has nothing to do with the content and only to do with a count of reverts. The IP has crossed the bright line. I only listed the most recent four. Others could be added. Skyerise (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Protected by KrakatoaKatie. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:AdamDeanHall reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 3RR warning for this page
 * 2) User's block log showing previous edit warring blocks

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * 1) Clearly explaining that this is a content dispute and not vandalism that is being reverted on the article talk page
 * 2) Explanation on the talk page of the IP user that this editor keeps reverting


 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 10:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:120.151.160.158 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added variety of reliable references"
 * 2)  "Move this warring to the article talk page please.  This source is absolutely acceptable according to wikipedia rules.  Undid revision 718088582 by David.moreno72 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write ...  Bruce is both."
 * 4)  "Visit your talk page to mediate this instead of warring please. If you do not know Bruce, you should not be editing this page in the first place.  Here's 260+ wiki other articles accepting him as reliable: site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ "Schneier, Bruce""
 * 5)  "Industries most widely accepted expert in this field is the most reliable source possible. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier or his dozen+ books.  Do not revert without again without citation to back up your opinion."
 * 6)  "user offered their opinion, without any references as justification, for removing the reference to this industries most widely respected expert in this matter.  multi-factor is not stopping breakins - pick up any IT newspaper."
 * 7)  "reference effectiveness"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:120.151.160.158&diff=718088083&oldid=718087902


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Multi-factor_authentication


 * Comments:

Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, but the IP continues to edit war about this adjective in the opening sentence. McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I was asked to provide different sources. I did. Why are you calling this a war, and blaming me for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.160.158 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses the term "edit war" to refer to editors repeatedly overriding one another's edits. It's explained at WP:EDITWAR. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * IP was warned repeatedly and persisted. Katietalk 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:86.154.101.95 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As requested by Rms125a, removed references and changed link to point reader towards those scholarly references. Rms125a please answer on Talk Page what you mean by "speculation" - your link below is dysfunctional."
 * 2)  "Removed external link as requested by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Hope everyone is satisfied now."
 * 3)  "It is not one writer, but a scholarly survey of 100 (one hundred) writers. Read the reference."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on April 3. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Two warnings given. Amccann421 &#160; (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Amccann421 accuses me of edit-warring, saying "Please do not add or change content, as you did at April 3, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."

However the other editors have pointed out today to me that in fact it is NOT permitted to cite references/sources in April 3 or in any other Date-of-Year pages. Hence I removed my references. Unfortunately, now Amccann421 has appeared on the scene and is criticising me for removing the refs and accusing me of edit warring. Please confirm, on the April 3 Talk page, that you have got it wrong. And please do not further disrupt the discussion and editing process unless you have a valid point to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.95 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Revert warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. A fluctuating IP from 86.254.* is being reverted by multiple others, so this needs a discussion. Some editors argue that any Biblical chronology that is speculative needs to have evidence presented in a separate article on the topic, not in the date-of-the-year article itself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Patrick1425 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* United States */"
 * 2)  "/* United States */"
 * 3)  "/* United States */"
 * 4)  "/* United States */"
 * 5)  "/* United States */"
 * 6)  "/* United States */"
 * 7)  "/* United States */"
 * 8)  "/* United States */"
 * 9)  "definition of Arab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs"
 * 10)  "/* United States */ media reports of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting"
 * 11)  "/* United States */  2015 Chattanooga shootings prompted further expressions of anti Arabism in the media"
 * 12)  "Definition of Arab is a person whose native language is Arabic."
 * 13)  "/* United States */"
 * 14)  "/* United States */ references to media reporting of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting and anti Arabism"
 * 15)  "/* United States */"
 * 16)  "references to Arab American Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazziz in Chattanooga.  His murder of five U.S. service members on July 16, 2015, generated media reporting."
 * 1)  "/* United States */"
 * 2)  "/* United States */ references to media reporting of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting and anti Arabism"
 * 3)  "/* United States */"
 * 4)  "references to Arab American Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazziz in Chattanooga.  His murder of five U.S. service members on July 16, 2015, generated media reporting."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has repeatedly tried to add the Chatanooga, TN shootings to the article, despite being reverted by myself,, , and. This is the same material added by IP editors previously (e.g., see this revert by ). The material being added is COATRACK and OR (none of the sources given even mention the word "Arab" let alone "Anti-Arabism" or any synonym). This is long-term edit warring with block evasion (see ).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - please ping me in any replies. Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I started a SPI a while ago (Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick1425) for what it's worth. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Haqiqat510 reported by User:Mona778 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This user is engaged in edit warring. Mona778 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Greg440 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now

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

-Second wave of reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page

Comments: The user keeps reverting edits as it was shown above. I approached him via edit summary and his talk page, but he was never open to communication. He had one argument at the beginning, backed by no source. When I kept pressuring him regarding his methods, he started deviating the conversation including what someone might see as xenophobia, as he argued that I don't understand stuff because English is not my first language and I should edit the Portuguese version of the Wikipedia, even though I have almost three years of experience with such articles. I even adjusted the article to a version that appeals to the similarity of other articles and is still correct, with sources to back it up. The funny thing is that even this user had a identical edit earlier as shown in the second link at the top of this report. Now he's just reverting the page, nothing else to argue from his part. I'd like to report this to avoid a bigger edit war. I've restrained myself from entering this thing and even waited a day to perform a different edit to try to resolve this issue, yet he keeps edit warring and flinging with the 3RR. I do not come here with the intention of seeing him blocked whatsoever. I just wanted to have administrators telling him how this is supposed to work. Specially because he says we have to be "professionals" here. He lost himself with that word and ends up contradicting exactly what he mentioned early in our discussion at this talk page. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:Greg440 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now

Diffs of my reverts: -First wave of reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

-Second wave of reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page

Comments: User keeps reverting my edits, starts personally insulting and insinuating me by calling me "xenophobic" over Wikipedia editing. User fails to acknowledge other articles that use proper lingo and instead has decided to throw a tantrum. Users first language isn't English and fails to recognize examples I've provided. Claims I'm edit warring when it takes more than one for there to be a war. After the first initial edit reversions he then proceeded to decide the term we were arguing over and how it should be presented wasn't even valid just to further complicate the situation and prolong the back and forth.Greg440 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe what I've said earlier here and in your talk page can speak for myself. Totally opposite to everything you mentioned here. You even copied my entire report... I'll refrain from further commentary on this section. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally opposite of everything I mentioned here? Everything I just stated was entirely factual. There's zero room for interpretation. Greg440 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

3primetime3 reported by User:70.124.133.228 (Result: Warned user(s))
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)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #1: (the user being reported made 9 reversions after this warning)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2: (the user being reported made 5 reversions after this warning)

After this report was first posted and the user was notified, the user continued reverting my talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

70.124.133.228 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Report is for the reversion of warnings on the IP's talk page. While his edits were in violation of 3RR, our conversation on my talk page here seems to show that he didn't know that users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages. He understands this now, and hasn't made further reversions. I recommend siding with good faith and perhaps giving him a reminder about 3RR and talk page guidelines as opposed to blocking.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He has stopped, which is a good outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor was warned and ceased the edit warring. No further action needed at present. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Robertx123 reported by User:Clubjustin4 (Result:Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718073836 by Edwardx (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Life */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 717709333 by Mervyn (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahdi Al Tajir. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


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

Robertx123 is still continuing to edit war to re-add this material even after the latest revert mentioned in this report, for example with this revert today. The edits made by Robertx123 may also be in breach of WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Factoidmactoid reported by User:Sekyaw (Result:No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

The user reverts with the same reason despite my multiple attempts to resolve the issue on their talk page. The edits of mine are completely reasonable and have stated my reasons of the edits on his talk page, to no avail. The user seems they are the creator of the article and are only active due to the current edit war.  Sekyaw  (talk)  07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Although no 3RR is applicable due to his reverts being at somewhat of a slow pace, I am not optimistic one bit that the user will stop the unreasonable reverts without communication.  Sekyaw  (talk)  05:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I basically see the two of you reverting each other without any attempts to discuss at the talk page of the article. Please engage into talk page discussion.Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:81.100.18.16 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Simple brightline 4RR, reverted against multiple editors.

This is a politically contentious issue, but so well-sourced that there is just no space left for a "content dispute". See past Talk:

Various POV editors, with such obvious names as "" and today an IP, and who may or may not be the same person, don't like Parsons being described as Anglo-Irish and would prefer British. They present this as a minor technical quibble of, "Anglo-Irish can't be presented as a nationality within the limited parameters of an infobox", but when they're also deleting 1K of text to make their POV, then that's no longer about infobox parameters.

Only attempt at discussion was on their user talk:, where they admit "He was Anglo-Irish".

If someone wants to make infobox behaviour more subtle, then go for it. It would make describing Trevithick as Cornish a bit easier too. But edit-warring to remove sourced description of him as Anglo-Irish in the body is not the way to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The editor is going about this in the wrong way but in my opinion, he is completely correct in wanting to change the social class of Anglo-Irish (see Anglo-Irish people) to an actual nationality which would seem to be most appropriately British in this case. Anglo-Irish is manifestly not a nationality and is included in the Biography section. Dabbler (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So do you support stripping out 1k of sourced text from the lead, as is being done here? This isn't about the infobox, it's about a block of text with references to back it up.
 * I don't dispute that both English and Irish would come under "United Kingdom" in terms of nationality here (although "British" would not encompass Ireland), but we work by sources here and the RS sources that give support to Parsons being notable and belonging here in the first place describe him as Anglo-Irish, not British or English. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * He is both British and Anglo-Irish and if you described him as an "aristocratic engineer" in the lede with a reference to Debretts to show that he was aristocratic, would that really be appropriate? The place for the Anglo-Irish RS is in the Biography section where his background and family is described, not in the lede. Dabbler (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Wattsj528 reported by User:Meters (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (Note that it may be necessary to look at more than just these diffs since in some case he did cut and paste moves and in others he renamed the article and then created a DAB page out of the resulting redirect. Some of the resulting pages were deleted and do not show up in the history.):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  and

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (warning prior to first block for edit warring)
 * 2)  (warning prior to second edit warring block)
 * 3)  (disruptive edit warning 4 prior to second edit warring block mentioning that this is a continuation of the previous edit warring)
 * 4)  Blocking editor User:Ultraexactzz's comments on edit warring after first block
 * 5)  Blocking editor Ultraexactzz's comments after second edit warring block.
 * Given this recent history I did not bother to issue another warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User insists on renaming original version of article to I Swear (John Michael Montgomery song) and creating a DAB of the original title. No response to discussion of move on article's talk page, multiple attempts to engage user on his or her talk page, or two recent edit warring blocks. Less than 30 minutes after the latest edit warring block (two weeks) expired the user moved the file and created the DAB again. Meters (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Moot now since user has since been indeff'ed by User:Kudpung. Meters (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Violetnese reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 717993658 by Paul Erik (talk) Don't listen to him, I am them, there are too many Idols."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 717987271 by Bbb23 (talk) Come on, keep this one. Rumors/gossip not this!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 717982508 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "He is known for his falsetto!" Not a revert.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Here they warn an administrator about edit warring, suggesting they're well-aware of the penalties. Bbb23 responded with a warning, though (I assume) on the wrong user talk page. clpo13(talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When I post to 's Talk page it is never a warning, except when it's about the unhealthy effects of eating bacon while watching college football. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you know I greatly appreciate your words of advice and encouragement. Roll Tide, my friend. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

Despite warnings about adding unsupported comments, this user has edit warred with two editors about Gordon-Levitt being a falsetto and/or countertenor. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Falsettos right now, don't take him off. violet  nese  23:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know this board is about conduct, not content, but I can't resist. First, you can be a bass and sing in falsetto. Second, having a "high" tenor voice does not mean you're singing in falsetto. Third - and I'm not sure where countertenor came from in this silliness - a countertenor is not the same as a man singing in falsetto. Fourth, regardless of anything else, how on earth did this editor determine that this piece of trivia belongs in the lead? Frankly, WP:CIR is more applicable here than edit-warring (fwiw, she didn't breach 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh, you're right. I assumed this was a revert from the edit summary. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's right. http://www.instagram.com/ryanjkirkland. violet  nese  23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Look what Ryan just saw on Wikipedia! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA. violet nese  23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one! violet nese  00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not only an edit war, it's a BLP-vio and also borderline vandalism. Not sure what this editor's deal is, but they've gotten three warnings for vandalism/disruptive editing in the past 6.5 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just want to know what the deal is with the Instagram links. clpo13(talk) 19:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned against adding 'falsetto' or 'countertenor' to articles again unless confirmed by a reliable source. You may be blocked if you continue to use your own original research. Here is one example of an edit you made where the source you are crediting does not use the word 'falsetto'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikiwillkane reported by User:Intelligentsium (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restoring editions."
 * 2)  "Restoring controversies.  It has everything to do with Wikipedia, this person, and everything is properly cited."
 * 3)  "Added sub-heading "Controversies" and Daniel Craig quote from GQ (with original citation)"
 * 1)  "Added sub-heading "Controversies" and Daniel Craig quote from GQ (with original citation)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* May 2016 */ 2nd warning"
 * 2)   "/* Kim Kardashian */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversies section */ new section"
 * 2)   "just saw this, new threads to the *bottom*"


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly adding a "Controversy" section containing undue and BLP-violating negative coverage despite warnings not to and discussion on talk page in which it was pointed out that the section was in violation of the BLP policy. Many of the entries in the section are simply frivolous and disparaging quotes Intelligent  sium  02:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:TJD2 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: )
Page:

User:


 * Previous version reverted to: 18:11, 1 March: "She also avocated [sic] locking males up in Internment camps."


 * 1st revert: 07:37, 30 April: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
 * 2nd revert: 04:14, 2 May: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
 * 3rd revert: 05:36, 2 May: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
 * 4th revert: 14:22, 2 May: created a new "controversy" section with "In September 2015 she created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
 * 5th revert: 05:11, 3 May, restored his "controversy" section (after he had responded to this report) with "In September 2015 she created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole." The edit was just under one hour outside a 3RR violation.

Comments:

This is a report for edit warring at a BLP, rather than 3RR.

Bindel said in an interview in 2015 that she would put men in camps if she could, where they could drive quad bikes and white vans, but it was a joke, and it caused no controversy as the edit claims. Two of the refs TJD2 is using are not RS. Because he is engaged in wholesale reverting, he's also removing all the copy editing, including fixing refs, that has been done between his edits.

I asked him to stop at 05:33, 2 May on Talk:Julie Bindel, where agrees that his addition isn't appropriate. I also left a warning on his talk at 05:47, 2 May. He responded, then removed the exchange, and reverted again. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Noting that he reverted again, after responding to this report. SarahSV (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hate to break it to you, but edit warring is violating the 3RR. Also I am not edit warring in the slightest, but trying to put sourced, accurate information in an article.  Just because she is a feminist does not mean that she is exempt from having negative quotes in the article.  I have not been edit warring, but trying to come up with a compromise.  First I reverted the whole article (wholesale rv or whatever you called it, I've never heard of it before...whatever), then I removed some questionable bias in the second sentence.  After this you and FreeKnowledgeCreator still complained it was inappropriate for the lead, so I created a new section.  NONE of this is copyediting, changing sources, or edit warring.  I have been making constructive edits the entire time, and citing new sources to back up what she said.  Both you and FreeKnowledgeCreator are open feminists, so I am of the opinion that you are just trying to censor negative information on the subject.  I have seen many people do this in the past.


 * As for my talk page, I can do whatever the heck I want with it. It's mine, period.  You are an administrator and should know this.  I responded and deleted it because I felt the entire debacle was pointless.  You gave me an empty threat of being reported and/or banned when you are an admin; meaning if I actually did something wrong you could just ban me outright.  I did not, so you didn't.  Nice try.  The issue created a great deal of controversy, and I could cite many websites that covered that side of things too including infowars.  I will reiterate this one last time.  Just because it's a negative quote about feminism does not believe it doesn't deserve to be covered just as much as any other controversy.TJD2 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I meant to add above that TJD2 was reported here in January for "[r]epeatedly trying to make the same change over four months. Antagonistic attitude and refusal to work with other editors ...," but no action was taken for some reason.


 * TJD2, as I explained on your talk, edit-warring needn't involve a 3RR violation; see Edit warring. The point is that what you're adding isn't really accurate, two of the sources are poor, this is a BLP, and you're removing other fixes for no reason. It just isn't helpful editing. SarahSV (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

TJD2's comment that I am an "open feminist" is totally ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything I've ever said or any view I've ever expressed. One does not have to be a "feminist" to think his addition is inappropriate. The sources are poor, as SlimVirgin said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I added it in different section was because you told me not to put it in the lead, but as it was a quote that she said that caused a great deal of controversy, it is notable for that very reason. I don't mean to have an antagonistic attitude, but I do want to come to a compromise.  How are the sources not reliable?  How is the addition inappropriate?  You haven't answered any of these questions and act as though it's inappropriate because it could make a prominent feminist look bad.  It is not only reliable and true as she did actually say the quote, but it is also relevant to the article as it did cause a stir.  I apologize for assuming you are a feminist if you are not.  I have been trying to reword the sentence in different ways to compromise, that is all.TJD2 (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * TJD2 has continued to restore the disputed content, most recently here, which is in addition to the diffs linked to by SlimVirgin above. SlimVirgin attempted to explain on talk:Julie Bindel what was wrong with the sources; you did not respond to her points. I am sure she would be happy to explain her reasoning further. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Abrahamic Faiths reported by User:188.32.107.172 (Result: Reporting IP has been blocked.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Note that User:188.32.107.172 virtually instantly reverted me when I attempted to restore to the stable version . I had not even had time to finish posting on his talk page. I've done so to the .172 talk page and to the .152 talk page. Since both IPs edit warring appear to be from Moscow and from the same provider, it would appear they are one and the same person. I recommend no action with regards to User:Abrahamic Faiths, and perhaps a boomerang to the IPs, though that may have little effect as they are obviously IP hopping. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * An administrator has taken action against the IP; --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An administrator has also decided to: --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Caseeart reported by User:86.154.254.204 (Result: IP Filer blocked)
Page:

User:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've added important, useful views information into the page backed up by citations from reliable news websites as well as splitting the page into appropriate headings to make it easier to navigate. This information is being discussed on the talk page and various other users such as User:Nishidani, User:Pluto2012, User:Oncenawhile, User:Makeandtoss and User:Tanbircdq have objected that undue argument can't be made and the information is permissible.

But aside from the ongoing discussion this had lead to repeated wholesale reverts by the user against the WP:1RR restriction on the particular page in an attempt to enforce their preferred version of the page. I've made the user aware of this which they ignored and continued to revert all of my contributions without responding to any of the points I made on the talk page claiming that 'warring does not apply here'. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As an admin who has this page on their watchlist and has also previously reverted the IP, I would strongly recommend a boomerang block here. The IP is clearly an SPA dedicated to stacking Katz's article with negative material. They have repeatedly canvassed pro-Palestinian editors on the article's talk page, at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and here again. I also strongly suspect that they are either a sock or meatpuppet of the editors who tried to force this material into the article last year, as their first edit was to readd it in identical fashion. Applogies for the lack of diffs (am currently on a train) but a quick check of the IP's contributions will confirm all this quite easily. Cheers, Number   5  7  16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * a) is Wikipedia censored? b) you're clearly biased admin or not, and pulling rank is really underhand. You've made uncivilised comments such "go and have a rant on an internet forum about it", and calling other users the "anti-Israel posse" as User:Huldra pointed out. c) the reasons backing up the information being on the page are clearly stated in the talk page. d) I only went on that BDS talk page for involvement of other users not to canvass and I notified a few editors once but then didn't do it again after being warned. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * After I added the information I left a clear message here explaining its justification and left the user a message to avoid warring . But they ignored removed it without discussing . Continously removing information especially without discussing isn't good and if that isn't warring I don't know what is. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is almost no rule that ip 86.154.254.204 has not broken here.
 * IP was warned twice, that they are not allowed to edit pages with 1RR WP:ARBPIA3 (which recommends to impose up to 30 days) and then continued edit warring. their edits are allowed to by undone. IP also misrepresented sources and thus adding libel material on BLP subject - (I could show exactly what was done).


 * Regardless of whether the page is 1RR - ip 86.154.254.204 (who is likely an experienced editor sock-puppet) has been edit warring, (one minute after the page protection expired to stop his/her disruptive editing) (24h and 7 Min), and disruply editing the article  (- two admins), repeated canvasing (and meatpupetry)  even after multiple warnings. IP played around with material in sources in order to portray the BLP subject like an extreme ridiculous person. IP attempting to convert article to attack style with about 80% attack material. IP called me  a acolyte of the subject. Caseeart (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (Added 4 clarity Diffs)Caseeart (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits are not entirely about the Arab-Israel conflict. Caseeart made wholesale removed of contributions including headings, a High Court of Justice response to Mr Katz, Mr Katz's response to the Brussels bombings etc. None of thhat has anything to do with Arab-Israel conflict.
 * Where have I 'played around with material in sources in order to portray the BLP subject like an extreme ridiculous person'? You've not addressed that once on the talk page and now you're bringing that up here. I've added useful information to improve the page from coverage he's received in mainstream media and I've given you a clear explanation on the talk page which you didn't respond to and simply removed the information. Wikipedia isn't censored, go on Naz Shah's page and you'll find 85% of what you call 'negative material' there. Can you show me where I called you an 'acolyte of the subject'? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (I see now that your edits were in fact about the Arab Israeli conflict) The first of playing around with sources is this edit totally misrepresenting this  source which states his words as a warning (not a statement) and is about the reasoning behind the warning, and misrepresented this  source which is all about the reason for the statement - and then coatracking and adding a totally different reason from other articles. I mentioned this problem in edit summaries - and I will not go through every example now. Here  IP called me  a acolyte of the subject. I will give ip last word.Caseeart (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well you accused me of manipulating and misrepresenting the point of the sources, I invited you here to change any inaccuracies, my quote was "If you don't like the information, then provide the balance. If you think the sources are manipulated then, amend them but don't wholesale delete them." So why didn't you change the text rather than wholesale deleting them? That's the issue here! YOUR FAILURE TO ENGAGE AND COLLABORATE, WHICH IS UNHELPFUL AND VERY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO IMPROVING THE PAGE OR BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.
 * My quote was "This isn't the ICC, so it'd be good for people to change the broken record with third rate lawyerisms. I think it's time to stop the narcissism, lift the censorship life jacket and unleash the beast! I have added some information to try and balance the page up, hopefully one of his acolytes don't delete it." Where is your name mentioned? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 86.154.254.204: you really need to step down here. There are some fixed rules on Wikipedia; one is that IP´s DO NOT edit in the Israel/Palestine area. Get yourself an account, and play by the rules....or anyone can (and eventually will) block you. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to admin: above user was just canvassed into this discussion, and the discussion of subject article. Caseeart (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Caseeart, yes, I was; I´m trying to get the IP to "play by the rules": I´m not sure I´m succeeding, though..... (Obviously; I don´t think you did anything against the rules, here.) Huldra (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:86.154.254.204 is blocked 72 hours for this edit which adds material to the article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Per WP:ARBPIA3 IPs are not allowed to make such edits. He has also engaged in conventional edit warring by attempting to add the same material several times since April 21. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jacques Darrow Carr reported by User:Yamla (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, but note every edit to the user's talk page is a warning about these edits.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (note this is the user's talk page, not the article talk page; user's edits were in violation of NPOV and were uncited)

Comments:

Note that I am an involved editor, having reverted the user's edits twice ( and ). I did try to explain why the edits were inappropriate by leaving messages on the user's talk page. User's edits were also reverted by three other editors who also left messages on the user's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . The user is so new I'm not sure he knows he has a talkpage. Unfortunately, if he hasn't seen the warnings, I guess the only way of getting his attention is a block. Once he responds (=finds his page), he should be unblocked IMO. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Rachman227 reported by User:Crisco 1492 (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Indonesia
 * 1) diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
 * 2) diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
 * 3) diff (need to be an admin to see the diff)
 * 4) diff (different day)


 * Jakarta
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff (different day, reinserting an image added with this edit and removed by this edit)
 * 3) diff


 * Malay race
 * 1) diff (rev 1)
 * 2) diff (rev 2)
 * 3) diff (rev 3, for a different edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff for Malay race; since then he has stopped on that page, but his tendencies on other pages have continued.

Comments:

Recently registered user has been edit warring over three different articles. He's been careful to avoid violating the 3RR, at most hitting 3RR in a day. However, attempts to discuss things with him have been ineffective. He has thrice removed warnings from his talk page, left by three different editors (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3); once he left some minor comments before removing the comments, but the other two times the warnings have been removed without comment. Based on some of the edit summaries ("Yes, all due respect, Indonesia and Jakarta wikipedia pages are ours (Indonesia), for all people. Not yours" and "1. Who are you may I ask? 2. I bet you're not even Indonesian 3. We Indonesians are not spamming. 4. If you just going to delete all images and people's work, you're vandalizing") I'm concerned that the editor is showing nationalistic WP:OWN tendencies, which makes the situation a bit more contentious. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Crisco 1492, thanks for reporting me. Yes I'm new to Wikipedia and you are so much longer staying here, but I'm just trying to be a good contributor in Wikipedia. If you don't like me, don't threat me like a 10 years old child. No_personal_attacks, WikiBullying, Harassment, Don't be obnoxious. Your talk contributions have been added to my Archive page, User_talk:Rachman227/archive, because I just learned how to do so. See Personal talk page cleanup; moved to talk/archive. I'm not deleting your comments, since everything in Wikipedia is archived cannot be deleted. And remember Crisco, if Wikipedia really are your life, then okay, but I have other things to be cared about other than Wikipedia. I don't have time for your hatred towards me for no reason. Rachman227 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Attempting to communicate with you and try to build a consensus regarding the use of images is not a personal attack, nor is it bullying (accusing one of not having a life outside Wikipedia, meanwhile...). Likewise, leaving a polite message that your behaviour is liable to get you blocked is not "obnoxious". You are new, and people recognise that you are unfamiliar with the policies of Wikipedia (no matter how much you like linking to them). We are trying to educate you. And yes, part of education is letting you know that there are punishments for digressions.
 * As you state, your talk page archive was created after the most recent warning. That does not change the fact that you have not replied to the concerns brought up at your talk page. Adding too many images is problematic. Adding images which are copyright violations (though nobody has brought these up yet) is problematic. Calling edits which aren't vandalism "vandalism" is problematic. Edit warring is very problematic. WP:OWN-ish behaviour is likewise very problematic. An unwillingness to discuss concerns regarding your behaviour is extremely problematic. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for disruptive editing. Reminding you of well-established Wikipedia policy should not be described (above) as 'hatred towards me for no reason.' Asking you to seek consensus is not abuse. Your changes over the last seven days have been reverted by many different people but you continue anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:87.254.64.8 reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718457886 by Olowe2011 (talk) Editor is unaware how templates work; yet still feels justified in reverting others work. DO NOT REVERT UNTIL YOU HAVE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT ARTICLE."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 718455940 by Olowe2011 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 718456140 by 87.254.64.8 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 718456170 by 87.254.64.8 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 718455680 by Olowe2011 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718455680 by Olowe2011 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Samsung Galaxy S7. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Samsung Galaxy S7. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * comment Hello, I would like to revoke my report for this user after I have just noted that their edits are most likely made in WP:GOODFAITH. The issue is that when the user implemented a certain code to restructure the infobox he ended up shifting the infobox title to just above the articles description which of course does not conform to WP:MOS. I am going to revert my own warnings and recommend that the editor pays closer attention with regards to the results of his edits and hopefully get him to fix the infobox title position. Thanks. Olowe2011  Talk 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Daithidebarra reported by User:Wikijan2016 (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

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

The user has a political agenda to make it appear as if the Bellevue Group has a financial stake in the separate entity Bellevue Place Education Trust (organisation has separate wikipedia page) and has more involvement than is the case, through an aggressive use of tone and language. It is inaccurate and there is a clear and non-objective agenda in the user's tone and language. There is also links to a source who has published unproven allegations against the group, and have broken UK media law in publishing these and based the blog on stolen material with no links to the group. I would urge wikipedia not to encourage such behaviour and allow this user to again post inaccurate and illegal allegations with a clearly aggressive tone and language.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [Daithidebarra:An3-notice/doc] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bellevue_Education&action=history

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

Comments:

User:Wikijan2016 has removed an allegation made in the Sarawak Report (referenced to http://www.sarawakreport.org/2016/04/how-1mdbs-stolen-money-funded-top-uk-private-schools/ and based in turn on the Panama Papers}, that money from the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal was used to fund Bellevue Education. There is an obvious disagreement with another user, but no violation of 3RR.

Wikijan2016 has also added the comment that "Bellevue Education has no financial stake in the Bellevue Education Trust" which is not obvious in the reference, http://www.bpet.co.uk. Especially in view of the rather complicated ownership structure of these organizations, this specific comment would not be directly relevant to the allegation made.

Wikijan2016's other contributions also suggest a singularity of purpose in editing the articles of other Bellevue schools. I hope that User:Wikijan2016 can confirm that they have no conflict of interest in editing pages either about Bellevue or about the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal, or, if we are discussing the Sarawak Report, about dishonest financial transactions in general.

I find Wikijan2016's edit summaries, and remarks above, to be somewhat chilling in nature.

I note that to date Wikijan2016 has not posted on the talk page.

In addition to any administrative actions that may be required, it would be useful to have comments on the reliability of the Sarawak Report as a source for us. Personally I rate it reliable in this case. Hunc (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose to sit this out for a bit and await other people's comments. However I would point out that the material under dispute, together with the associated use of the Sarawak Report as a source was not mine but originally drafted by another editor. I am just the latest to get involved. Also, for what its worth I am not aware of breaching 3RR.Daithidebarra (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer is warned not to make statements that could appear to be legal threats: "the applicable processes will be taken with wikipedia to ensure wikipedia is not misused to promote incorrect information". There was no 3RR violation by Daithidibarra. Since the filer, Wikijan2016, does 'exhibit a singularity of purpose' and has no edits outside this topic it's possible that a posting at WP:COIN would be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Listofpeople reported by User:79.177.137.186 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Here I copy the message that I wrote to an administrator about this issue:

"Today, it's been the most surprising day to me on Wikipedia. Recently, I have been editing the page Circassians with valuable contributions. I rescued many dead links, fixed typo, grammar, styling, and did a clean-up in general.

This was my final version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=prev&oldid=718577605

and I insist that this is the best form that page ever was in.

However, suddenly an IP and then another user came and reverted all my edits, so all those saved links with web.archive pages and others are gone. All the sources are gone. When it was first reverted by an IP, I didn't mind, but when a rollbacker did that, I was more than shocked.

Moreover, I did not remove serious information from anywhere in the article at all. All I did, at best, was moving some paragraphs. For instance, I moved a sentence about religion in the introduction to the religion section, and removed the template "Islam|Related topics". ??? What does that template have to do with that article? And right below the infobox? Also, I noticed that some information about the population estimates were either unsourced or sourced with a link that directs to an inactive webpage. That's why I found many sources as much as I can, and I was going to keep doing that. For any of the changes I made, I am ready to elaborate why I did. There's nothing to hide on my side.

I would really appreciate if you could take your time to review my edits which are "super clean". Please tell me if you find any one of them that looks like vandalism to you. I was accused of being so by a IP user, and more surprisingly, by someone who has a anti-vandalism badge on his user page. This is ridiculous. I believe there is a serious mistake, and the worst thing is that I felt really bad because I didn't know who to talk to and where to write. I see that you are an administrator. I want my edits to be reviewed by an administrator so that I can keep contributing with valuable sources on that page and others. It was extremely disappointing to see such warnings on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Listofpeople

Regards," Listofpeople (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please, just a wise person come here and tell which one of the versions are better:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&diff=718578336&oldid=718577605 (Here's the comparison between my final edit and the version of the user that reverted all my edits. Because of that reversion, the page is now full of sources with dead links that directs nowhere, external links of websites that were closed years ago and even some false information. I am not even mentioning the grammar mistakes, typos, and other styling issues again.)

I request the undoing of this revision back to my final edit.

I can't believe that an IP reports me without any logical reason, and without questioning and having an idea about the ethnic group at the stake, a rollbacker reverts all my valuable edits. There's nothing to be modest about this issue. I am very confident with my edits, and I accept any kind of investigation about my edits. Please an administrator review all my edits and tell me if I did anything that looks destructive.

Thank you in advanced.Listofpeople (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Listofpeople is continuing his disruptive edits, same article, this time against another Wikipedia editor: link. 79.177.137.186 (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? David.moreno72 reverted my edit just because of your misleading and unjust report. That's the surprising one, because without reviewing my contributions to that page throughly, David.moreno72 reverted it without any explanation, thinking that what I did was wrong while it's the opposite. I am afraid the one that should be reported is you in the first place. I hope David.moreno72 undos his this action, revert it back to my final revision.
 * I am the one who was wronged, and this should be compensated. I repeat that I kindly request an objective user/administrator to review all my contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circassians&type=revision&diff=718577605&oldid=718576629 Here's the link again. I can also make the comparison here one by one. Needless to say, anyone would agree with me as everything is quite obvious.Listofpeople (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. It's not enough to be well-intentioned, you also need to listen to the other editors and try to reach agreement. You have never posted to the article talk page. Your edit summaries about 'blatant vandalism' are not correct; it's just a content dispute in which you are not listening. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Tbacon143 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
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:


 * SQL Query me! 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:IndianBio reported by User:Navyiconer (Result: Declined – malformed report)
He thinks himself the owner of Wikipedia. If you research you can see. What does he wants on these pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna_albums_discography and all Madonna articles. But I can't do. He blockes me all the time. I'm not doing wrong anything. I don't break the rules. Please research. Ray of Light's sales standing on Madonna albums discography for 2-3 years. But he changing now. why? beacuse he just want? please block him. He is very harmful for wikipedia —Navyiconer (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SQL Query me! 22:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Tbacon143 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718633003 by Dbrodbeck (talk)"
 * 2)  "Re-inserted paraphrase from democratic chairwoman. Clearly non pic."
 * 1)  "Re-inserted paraphrase from democratic chairwoman. Clearly non pic."
 * 1)  "Re-inserted paraphrase from democratic chairwoman. Clearly non pic."
 * 1)  "Re-inserted paraphrase from democratic chairwoman. Clearly non pic."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent changes to the lede */ it really still does not belong, especially in the lede"
 * 2)   "/* Recent changes to the lede */ please don't edit war"


 * Comments:

I have discussed with this editor on the talk page, explaining a couple of policy based reasons for excluding this edit, but he/she continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And see below, now there seems to be a tit for tat thing going on. I have not exceeded 3rr.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 22:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Zoupan reported by User:Crovata (Result: both sanctioned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor Zoupan continues to remove sourced and related information to the article's section now titled "Ethnic origin", renaming it "Anthropology", with sub-section named "Vlachs", which by article style and correctness is wrong. Also previously by his will renamed the article title, ignoring the discussion (as well the one previously held). As seen the talk page, he has a specific personal POV which affects his neutrality in editing (denies ethnic origin of the Vlachs, or twists the terms making them specifically the focus and not the tribes). I started the discussion to see his arguments, but think he did not bring one valid for the removal of sourced and related information. He calls upon NPOV, yet there's no such rule to call for. The discussion was not over, there's no intention from his side to correctly (neutrally) accept the scholarship viewpoint, and continued to revert by his will and "arguments", resulting in edit-war from both sides.--Crovata (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Goes both ways. BRD failed. synthesizes subsets of anthropological studies and unconnected biological studies to push his POV, that all tribes are ethnically Vlach (which is what I am "denying"). The subject is not "ethnic origin of the Vlachs" (which has become the focus "thanks" to the user). This is in line with Croatian nationalist scholarship of depreciating Serb ethnogenesis, which the user also maintains on other articles. By placing a section named "ethnic origin" at the top of the article (which is not about an ethnic group), adding one-sided arguments, the user has made it clear that he follows these views. By origin, it is meant to comment on the origin of the social/geo-political units, overall, not of individual tribes, nor "genetic origin" of the modern population. He has transformed the article into an ethnic battleground, far away from WP:NPOV. If I was to follow his example, the article would only get infinite and farther away from the subject (which the user neglects). I kindly ask users to read the comments at the talk page.--Z oupan  19:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Typical Straw man - twists and puts his words in my mouth and mind to direct the issue to editor and Croatian nationalism with which the topic has nothing to do. What he talks about can be read at Vlachs of Croatia. His "denying" is viewpoint mainly held by Serbian scholarship (but still not all Serbian scholars), influenced by historical-cultural-political ideologies among South Slavs. The topic is discussed by international scholars and our job as editors is to cite them without personal interference of some "denying". Again, every group of people, including a tribe, makes a group with specific ethnic identity. The user "denies" this by twisting the meaning of the word "origin" to only "social/geo-political". This is already argued in "Organization" and "Culture", and needs to be further. The article is not "ethnic battleground", the topic is controversial in the Balkan due to Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro, but that is not an argument for censorship, and discriminatory viewpoint towards notable scholars sources and studies which are mutually connected as talk about the origin of the Montenegrin people from both historiographical (cultural) and paleo-anthropological-genetical (biological) standpoint.--Crovata (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Both editors sanctioned due to repeated edit warring within an ACDS area. -- slakr  \ talk / 04:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Navyiconer reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718640035 by Homeostasis07 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Commercial performance */ you can't find source for 25 million because doesn't exist. and i added 11 source for 20 million. face it. this is the fact"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 718630439 by IndianBio (talk) stop TW there is countless source for 20 million"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718630439 by IndianBio (talk) stop TW there is countless source for 20 million"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Madonna albums discography. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on List of best-selling albums. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Inspite of explaining countless times of long-standing consensus about the album's sales in the talk page, the user goes on reverting and deleting all warnings. Coupled with NPA and battleground mentality. — I B  [ Poke  ] 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:95.135.111.186 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (by 46.211.253.152)
 * 5)  (by 95.135.111.186)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP has reverted two editors, myself and Nigej. The number of reverts isn't excessive—he has only violated 3RR by one edit which ordinarily I wouldn't consider block-worthy. However, the IP originates from the Ukraine and so does 46.211.253.152 (who conveninetly jumped in for the 4th revert), so there is a strong suggestion of IP hopping (to potentially circumvent a potential 3RR violation) or meat-puppetry. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. User Betty Logan want to take an advantage over ip user using this request. Steve Davies retired, see . This is a fact. Another user confirm this fact. User Betty Logan removed this sourced fact from the article, I don't understand why. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. Only three reverts were done by me (btw, Betty Logan did also three). "Fifth" edit was about related category only (there are no any descriptions from Betty about the reasons of removing the category)! 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Two experienced editors have reverted the edits by this editor with clear explanations for their actions. Are we really expected to believe another editor from the Ukraine just happened along and took the IP's side when he was on the brink of hitting 3RR? The snooker articles aren't exactly swamped by editors from the Ukraine. I don't regard the number of reverts to be a particular problem; however I do consider socking to be a problem when it used to bypass 3RR restrictions. Betty Logan (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan many times removed the related category from the article List of world snooker champions without any descriptions. "Very experienced editor" BettyLogan removed the fact that Steve Davis is retired from the snooker tour. Very-very good-good. Block him please for the war against ip user. The root of his problems is in the article World Open (snooker) and reverting of my correct edits there, I think. His requested move proposition is without any consensus. 95.135.111.186 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I removed the category in accordance with WP:SUBCAT. The article is already a member of Category:World snooker champions which in turn is a sub-category of Category:World Snooker Championships so the parent category is not required. There is a clear competence issue here. The IP has also broken a couple of hundred links across the snooker articles by manually splitting content out of an article as I outline at Requests for page protection. There is so much damage to repair I don't know where to start. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to read WP:EPON first (before Subcat rule). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am already familiar with the guideline, but since the catgeory is not an eponym for a list of people who have won the world championship (that would be World Champions) then it is not applicable. Anyway, this report is not about me remvoing a catgeory it is about you using a sock to avoid a 3RR violation. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB reported by User:Baking Soda (Result:Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ".(((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)))"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 718742976 by Baking Soda (talk)right - and again not in evidence from citation"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 718745747 by 2600:8800:FF04:C00:E53C:D908:2301:35CB (talk)actually i have a better one"
 * 4)  ".(((WP:BLOCK EVASION edits removed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spliff_Joint_Blunt/Archive)))"
 * 5)  "not in evidence of citations"
 * 1)  "not in evidence of citations"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2016 May 4 ‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Portal:Current events/2016 May 5. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Removing cited information, across many pages. Accusing me and many other editors being socks, please see user contributions. cc: Baking Soda (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 17:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User:Ракал violates the rules for editing. He edits based on unreliable sources:
 * 1) used map as the source for edit
 * 2) source not provide for changes
 * 3) edit without source on basis of his own judgment
 * 4) add object without source on basis of his own judgment
 * 5) edit on based not the crediable sources

User:Ракал was recently blocked for violation of the rules of editing. But this user not want observe the rules of editing and almost all of its changes are not justified and violated the rules for editing. He provokes war of edits and conflicts between editors. As said User:Ermanarich and User:Tradedia said him that need follow the rules and not do unjustifed editings but his ignored all appeals. Actions of this editor do great harm to the article, and this must be stopped. Also must be punished new editor User:Լրագրող because he violated 1RR when try fix unjustifed changes of User:Ракал SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ракал Intentionally commits the unlawful acts and violates the rules of editing. This editor is not able to give benefit for articles in Wikipedia only harm. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * New unjustifed edits from User:Ракал:


 * 1) edit without source on basis of his own judgment
 * 2) used map as the source for edit
 * User:Ракал not want follow the rules and he must be punished. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. After a 3 day block for edit warring (that expired 2 days ago), this user found nothing better than to edit war some more on the module, breaking 1RR. As a background, it should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block a few days ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring... In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia... Tradedia talk 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - slakr Protect pag-It is not the solution of the probmlem, because when the defense will be charged User:Ракал will again continue violate the rules for editing. As said  Tradedia  that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block a few days ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring. In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. So User:Ракал must be punished for vandalism, deliberate violation of the rules of editing, unjustified editing and he also several times provoked the war of edits. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * - slakr I ask you put ban of User:Ракал  for edit all articles about Syrian Civil War. It will be the best solution. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Subtropical-man reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Warnings)
Page: Multiple templates

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Obvious resumption of "agenda-driven reverts at multiple templates". I noted it is not his place to decide what is necessary for a template, and in one light this is authoritarian behavior. Also left a nonsensical message on my user page that made no attempt to address the questions I raised. He is also continuing to strut about my contribution history and revert even after posting on his talk page. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * User:CaradhrasAiguo, you are a very inexperienced user (~500 edits in Wikipedia), your application do not meet the standards and principles of the WP:AN/3RR. I one revert at page is not edit warring. Your diffs show one revert in Template:Cincinnati_weatherbox, one revert in Template:Columbus_weatherbox, one revert in Template:Olympia,_Washington_weatherbox and one revert in Template:Seattle_weatherbox and this is not four reverts in one page. Your application is joke or incompetence.


 * CaradhrasAiguo, bold edit in one to few articles are ok but you doing mass changes in dozens of templates, without any consultation with other users. Per Wikipedia:CYCLE - if you want add more informations (after reverts by other user/s), must to be discuss and consensus first. Before User:Politoed89 reverted your changes (for example and many other), you reverted User:Politoed89's edits and continued own changes. So.


 * I tried to argue with you, but you behaved like a troll . Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  (en-2)  16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who's reverting two users (me and Koopatrev) now? Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So? You understand the rules of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring? Please read Wikipedia:Competence is required.  Subtropical -man  <span style="display:inline-block; margin-bottom:-0.3em; vertical-align:-0.4em; line-height:1.2em; font-size:85%; text-align:left;"> talk  (en-2)  17:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Warnings. There is no violation of 3RR here, though an edit war may be starting. It looks like the filer, User:CaradhrasAiguo, wants to stuff more numbers into each weather template, increasing the size by as much as 50%: for example, from 4,000 bytes up to 6,000 bytes. Both parties are advised to get consensus at a central place, for example Template talk:Weather box or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology. See the advice in WP:Dispute resolution if the two of you can't find agreement. Blocks are possible If reverts continue without a proper effort at finding consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Sock puppet indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 10:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 3 Revert 3 10:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 4 Revert 4 11:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim

Comments: User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim not provide sources for edits only provide his comments:


 * Edit 1
 * Edit 2
 * Edit 3
 * Edit 4

User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim So can said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Kurdistan Regional Government). But no one can't impunity break rules. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim still do revert and broke 3RR:


 * Edit 5 Revert 5 17:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 6 Revert 6 17:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

and here the some new unjustifed edits without source:


 * Edit 5
 * Edit 6

User:Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim must be blocked or put ban for edit of all articles about Iraqi war. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have indefinitely blocked Türk kadınlarının amını sikeyim as a ✅ sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:185.97.214.100 reported by User:Qpalzmmzlapq (Result: Both blocked, semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 718826235 by Fcxxhlla (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 718825328 by Fcxxhlla (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please Cite your references, all references is saying .sh is the replacement of the .io"


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

Nobody has gone to the talk page. — Qpalzmmzlapq T C 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

"Both" meaning the IP and Fcxxhlla, not the reporter. The page is also semi-protected for 3 weeks so that warring won't continue after the block lifts, since both editors are not confirmed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

User:ThatPerson903 reported by User:LL212W (Result: Declined – malformed report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:58.147.172.251 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

IP user repeatedly adds unsourced and speculative "Upcoming television stations" section to list.

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:

,, and I have all tried to educate and engage the IP editor on their talk page about these additions of unsourced speculation and similar edits to related pages List of television stations in Bangladesh and List of Bengali TV channels, all to no avail:

Comments:


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 03:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Optimus edit reported by User:Terrorist96 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Have tried to inform user that his edit is incorrect. The law in Minnesota allows for open carry of long guns if you possess a pistol permit. He has refused to engage and only reverts edits.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Chiswick_Chap reported by User:128.40.9.123 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

In addition to repeatedly reverting all edits to the article because there is one that he does not like, the user is making repeated highly insulting claims that the edits constitute vandalism. The most recent revert appears to be because he does not like the position within the wiki markup of a hidden comment. 128.40.9.123 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry, indeed ashamed, for my part in the confused situation last night, which concerned a four-year-old footnote about the spelling of a word in the article's title, "coloration". In retrospect, this very minor matter would best be resolved with a hidden comment rather than a footnote: if this is what the IP editor wanted, then he was correct. I'd however be happy with any reasonable solution, and have said so on the article's talk page. Whatever is decided here, I will not edit the article again, and have removed it from my watchlist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:112.202.13.178 reported by User:Zaostao (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

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:

I have attempted to discuss these edit disputes on this IP editor's talk page, but they have not responded and instead reverted both pages in question again:

Comments:


 * Widr (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:RealGryphon reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 719109149 by Clpo13 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Cast and characters */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 719107836 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 719107549 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warned here.
 * Warned here.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * No attempt made to discuss on talk page, though RealGryphon did engage with AlexTheWhovian at User talk:AlexTheWhovian. Despite Alex's reply, RealGryphon continued to revert to their preferred version.


 * Comments:

Edit warring over inclusion of a certain character in the cast list. clpo13(talk) 17:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I've just added another diff as it was a reversion of this earlier edit. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Just in case it wasn't noticed, RealGryphon inexplicably removed my last post from this page.

@AussieLegend. My sincerest apologies for your loss. I tried to respond and must have accidentally deleted your insightful comment. Let us move forward and make Wikipedia a better place for all. It will not happen again.  Real Gryphon  —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . Trolling here doesn't do anything for your case either. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Makeandtoss reported by User:79.177.137.186 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: preferred; link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * WP:3RR applies when there are four or more reverts in a 24 hour period. That doesn't appear to be the case here. clpo13(talk) 22:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 719146101 by General Ization (talk) Please feel free to check for yourself that this was added only May 4., so reverting to a consensus version means removing this."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 719131507 by General Ization (talk) Attribution is given in the template. Do not repeat edit that is not customary, or you'll be reported as well."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 718946281 by Meters (talk) No quotation marks, so no quote. One more revert, and you will be reported."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 718838636 by Meters (talk) Completely irrelevant. See talkpage consensus." Too old.

struck. My mistake. The original undo was to the stable version. Meters (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Debresser has been warned by other users about this. There is discussion on the talk page at Law of Moses, but despite that, Debresser continues to revert. clpo13(talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The 3RR allegation is incorrect. I made one edit 18:22, 6 May 2016‎, the next 22:15, 7 May 2016‎, which is more than 24 hours later.
 * Contentwise, I am reverting to the consensus-version from before the introduction of the contested material on May 4 in this edit.
 * The fact that there is an ongoing discussion is not a point against me, but a point in my favor, because until there would be a clear conclusion in that discussion to the contrary, changes to the consensus version should not be made. It is therefore User:Meters, and after he decided to look into my arguments a bit better, User:General Ization, who edit war.
 * Please also notice that in the discussion on the talkpage, User:Meters has already stated he feels the need to review his position. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Regardless, edit warring even without breaking 3RR is disruptive. clpo13(talk) 23:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I struck the oldest diff. I incorrectly assumed Twinkle would only show me diffs within the past 24 hours. clpo13(talk) 00:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser is correct. His first undo was indeed to the stable version. I was mistaken to cite WP:BRD in my undo and to later issue a 3RR warning rather than an edit warring notice. My apologies. I still think the second reason I cited, MOS:QUOTE is applicable. We are using a direct quote and I son't think that readers should have to click through a link to find out what is being quoted. Despite Debresser's claim that I stated [I] feel[s] the need to review [my] position I think it's clear from what I wrote that I am simply willing to accept whatever consensus occurs or evidence of prior decisions is this matter. Debresser's actions may not have broken 3RR but still appear to be edit warring. Meters (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There was some heated editing, but we have come a long way, and are all partaking in the discussion, and I am confident this issue will resolve itself amiably on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Breaking 1RR:


 * Edit 1 Revert 1 08:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit 2 Revert 2 08:49, 8 May 2016‎ (UTC)


 * Edit 3 Revert 3 09:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. After a 3 day block for edit warring, this user found nothing better than to edit war some more on the module, breaking 1RR. And the user again being reported has been placed notice And now this user again, breaking 1RR. As a background, it should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. The block a week ago did not seem to affect his behavior at all. Maybe he is a sock made just for edit warring... In any case, he doesn't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia... So on basis all these facts User:Ракал must be baned for editing of all articles about Syrian Civil War. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . The diffs listed are three consecutive edits and count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 Ok, if in this case User:Ракал not break 1RR but four days ago he is do this but was not punished for it. Only page was full protected. And Tradedia  said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). User:Ракал also several times provoked the war of edits and again he is not was punished. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Civciv5 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I can keep doing this until you relent, there is nothing wrong about my info, and the main article name is still Hittites, so it doesn't violate the common name thing"
 * 2)  "It is incorrect to refer to them that way, as Hittite is a Biblical term which is used nowhere else than in the Bible"
 * 3)  "Reversed, and I added two other sources, you obviously did not see my original source"
 * 4)  "I don't see a conflict here, the term Hittite is still the title of the page, so people typing that name will still end up here, I don't see a problem with adding such info in the lead. And the word Nesili was not only used to denote their language."
 * 5)  "This is not a personal opinion, Neshites is the anglification of the the term nesili, which is what the Neshites or "Hittites" called themselves. I added a source,."


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


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


 * Comments:

Tried to explain on editor's talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:The Wikipedia Messiah reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Automatic Revert, as prior Revert did not provide any explanation of their Revert, and thus I must conclude their revert was Vandalism. Undid revision 719301773 by Clpo13 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Fixed-- This is notable and does not fit RECENTISM as you claim. Edited the text for significant improvements to reflect the revival in interest in White Supremacy thanks to Trump's advocacy for Supremacist political views and issues"
 * 3)  "Tweaked wording. This is of world-historical importance. Your Lord still loves you even though you work for Stormfromt"
 * 4)  "Thou Shalt Not Kill. Please rv selectively. Top content here. ndid revision 719299037 by The Almightey Drill (talk)"
 * 5)


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


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


 * Comments:

Has not participated in discussion on the talk page. clpo13(talk) 21:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reported this user for his provocative name, and he is a likely sockpuppet of User:Kingshowman, also obsessed with Trump and Nazism and a user of grandiosely-named socks &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obvious sockpuppetry. Widr (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Cosmicgirls reported by User:Random86 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "An expression is not a source and it has not been backed up. Stop spreading misinformation about f(x). Art Pop was never included on this wiki until recently and it shouldn't be here."
 * 2)  "Is not a clear source, but an expression and is in reference to something that the user doesn't seem to understand."
 * 3)  "Somebody keeps including misinterpreted information. Claiming "queens of art-pop" is an actual source when it is in reference to the album concept and the art film accompanying the album."
 * 4)  ""Queens of art-pop" is not a source and it is an incredibly tiny source that has not been confirmed."
 * 5)  "Pop Matters is not a reliable source. Pop Matters is in fact the only source provided. No other music critic has labelled Pink Tape as art-pop because if it was, it would be factually incorrect and misleading."
 * 6)  "Please provide a source for including art-pop as a genre because it has never been listed as such."


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussion was attempted at my talk page and User talk:HĐ, but Cosmicgirls doesn't seem to understand no one is agreeing with him/her and continues to edit war. Random86 (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Cosmicgirls just reverted again, after being told to come to consensus first by . Random86 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The user needs to be blocked, they apparently do not understand how it works.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Redmen007 reported by User:BlackAmerican (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   03:30, 8 May 2016‎
 * 2)  05:21, 8 May 2016‎
 * 3)   21:56, 8 May 2016‎
 * 4)  22:34, 8 May 2016‎
 * 5)  22:44, 8 May 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   Said to take this to the talk page in the comment section

Comments:


 * I've just reverted Redmen's removal again. They are still edit-warring after this report was filed. epicgenius (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * . was also edit-warring. At least they stopped.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Andreastewart reported by User:Fyddlestix (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user seems hell-bent on returning to a 3-month-old version of the page that was the product of both sockpuppetry and (likely) COI editing. They've been asked to engage on the talk page and to stop reverting, but so far their only edits are to restore that old version of the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User has made several more reverts since being notified of this discussion. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is probably another sock. See Sockpuppet investigations/JimSmith123/Archive. Past attempts to negotiate with these editors have not been successful, so an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked them indefinitely since after ample warnings they refuse to communicate. SmartSE (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:99johnsaint reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked indefinitely, sockpuppet)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Rather than edit warring, this looks more like straight blanking of page content. User has already been warned for unexplained blanking of content. I'm actively monitoring. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also apparent sockpuppetry; see report. RolandR (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Per RolandR's observation. —C.Fred (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:OpenFuture (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

has added the word "unsophisticated" to the article in violation of an earlier RfC:. He reverts all attempts of removing this, and violated 3RR in those attempts here, by making the same revert 6 times in 24H:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

then tried to tag the article as POV, but Eric Corbett reverted that as well, twice, for a total of 8 reverts in 24H, 6 of which occured in less than 15 minutes.
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Eric Corbett is a long established user who doesn't need warning. But it has been pointed out that he has been edit warring multiple times on the talk page, by several editors.

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

Comments:

Eric Corbett is in addition frequently rude, and refuses to discuss the issue in a constructive manner:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

--OpenFuture (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also note OpenFuture has been gaming the system. Clearly indicating "using my last 3RR for this" then waiting and starting again here and here. The RfC was "Should the term "simple islanders" be used ..." - please read the comments as the word "unsophisticated" and several others were suggested by commentators. And also note Eric has not edited for over 12 hours now. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was reverting a vandal who refused to interact constructively, but stopped after three reverts (even though reverting vandalism doesn't count towards the 3RR rule) to prove good faith. How is that "gaming the system"?
 * Yes, one user suggested "unsophisticated" early in the discussion, before the RfC. Nobody suggested that later or during the RfC, and several pointed out in the RfC that pejoratives like this was not acceptable. Multiple editors have pointed out after Eric Corbett's changes that "unsophisticated" is not OK. This is not a content dispute, there has been an RfC whose result was unanimous, there is a clear consensus, and Eric Corbett is violating it and edit warring to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the second time you have referred to Eric's edits as vandalism, which is clearly unacceptable - first time can be seen here. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is vandalism. He is intentionally edit warring against a unanimous RfC. There is no good faith. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not alter your comments after they have been replied to  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 10:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to raise the issue of inflammatory language used after only two reversions here, where "edit-warring" is used against Eric Corbett. This could not have helped the situation at all, it happened right at the start of this sorry situation, and I think OpenFuture needs to reflect upon this a little. DDStretch   (talk)  11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How cute—it's someone else's fault that Corbett's editwarring against the consensus of an RfC that was unanimous against him. Why not stop beating around the bush and just declare, "Corbett gets to do whatever he wants, so stop reporting him"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is by no means "the start" of this sorry situation, it has been going on for a long time, with edits like these:, , ,.
 * Directly before I asked Eric Corbett to stop edit warring he first made a change saying "change back if you don't like it", which I changed back, because it violated the RfC, which he then immediately reverted with "Don't do that again". He also later, followed that up with "I wasn't talking to you". He had also, just before I made the revert you link to, called my arguments on the talk-page "Unadulterated rubbish".
 * So, I do not, even on further reflection, think I'm the one using inflammatory language here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Qblue53 reported by User:Banedon (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

See also the edit history of the article. also performed the same revert multiple times. I'm inclined to invoke WP:DUCK, but I'll leave that to a neutral editor. We didn't try to resolve this on the talk page, but it is five different editors reverting two (or possibly one, if the IP is the same as Qblue53) editor, whose edit summaries do not exactly indicate that a constructive talk page discussion is possible ... Banedon (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

multiple people use this ip address I read the person who used this ip to edit post and I backed him/her up this is not edit warring I changed twice once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719523463&oldid=719521861 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719524191&oldid=719523478  and is false accusing this of duck because I agree with them really this is public ip and where I am online lots of people are up using computer online with this ip this is not duck I agreed with the person who used the ip to edit and that is it what so if multiple people use the same ip which most do and agree then that is reason for report what else was I supposed to put for reason for change if I agreed the other person I dream of horses said in my talk page before I deleted it that I have to put a good reason or something and saying that misrepresent what is written in article was not considered good reason https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719524240&oldid=719523481 so I typed what I agreed with specifically

Diffs of the reverts as by
 * 1) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719513007&oldid=719512858]
 * 2) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719515452&oldid=719513035]
 * 3) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719517378&oldid=719516685]
 * 4) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719520805&oldid=719520484]
 * 5) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719521861&oldid=719521016]

Diffs of the user's reverts as Qblue53:
 * 1) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719524191&oldid=719523478]
 * 2) [diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_%28slang%29&type=revision&diff=719526592&oldid=719525743]

Also has been edit warring on  I have requested BRD which has been ignored. Previous version reverted to: MILF (slang) Diffs of the user's reverts as Qblue53:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff

Evidence for WP:DUCK: Both the IP and Qblue do not sign their talk, do not punctuate their talk, are abrasive, spelling errors, and quickly erase their talk pages. Jim1138 (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

lots of people do not sign in to talk and delete there talk pages or do not have anything in user page you do not Branedon(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Banedon&action=edit&redlink=1) and as being abrasive have you been on the internet you are grasping at straws and I was not against going on talk pages I did not see a discussing about it going on there(my talk pages https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719529610&oldid=719528762) no discussing was going  on I am not against going to talk pages lots of people do not punctuate or use good grammar online when on forums etc. which they do because they are either 1 there grammer sucks or 2 they do not feel the need to I keep my grammer good where it counts in wiki the articles and I assume whoever using the ip to edit  depending on the person who dose use ip and not account dose the same thing Also ( has been edit warring on I have requested BRD which has been ignored). that is a lie first I requested the brd https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&action=history I put (cur | prev) 07:11, 10 May 2016‎ Qblue53 (talk | contribs)‎. . (6,325 bytes) (-1,427)‎. . (Undid revision 719525550 by Jim1138 (talk) I explained this before if want otherwise discuss in talk per wp:brd)) (undo) I typed in wr:brb and he (cur | prev) 07:12, 10 May 2016‎ Jim1138 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,752 bytes) (+1,427)‎ . . (Undid revision 719530604 by Qblue53 (talk) rv no. see BRD) (undo | thank I put in wr:brb first and reverted to mine then he did and reverted to his  these two just have something against me also what about this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jim1138 on his page it says vandalism 4.3CVS / 4.6RPM according to DefconBot I also did not find out about brd until I read this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719525188&oldid=719524240 I am still kinda new I read what brd was then on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cougar_(slang)&diff=719526149&oldid=719525743 asked bout where was the talk on the talk page it was not there no one was talking about it also apparently on ip talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk%3A75.138.187.114&diff=719517120 jim1138 deleted a comment he/she posted I thought you were not supposed to do that after I was warned once https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qblue53&diff=719525188&oldid=719524240 I did not revert again and on milf page he reverted a change I made on month ago with out a good reason his https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&diff=719525550&oldid=717187350 mine https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MILF_(slang)&diff=715212782&oldid=712127438 I am repeating myself but I did not do anything wrong i am being falsely accused i never had any problems before today sorry about walls of text i am just trying to defend myself sir i am not a sock and did not like being accused of one
 * I fully protected the article; looks like a content dispute to me, and in any case we do not need walls of text here. But obviously if sock suspicions get confirmed, the protection should be lifted, and socks blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Shishirkc reported by User:Sitush (Result:Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 719599280 by Sitush (talk) Re-iterating. Calling a community of people untouchable is a criminal offence. Stop or else legal actions will be taken."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 719598717 by Sitush (talk) Calling a community of people untouchable is a criminal offence in India and is considered casteism. Kindly refrain from using the term. I belong to this caste"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 719596232 by Primefac (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 719596232 by Primefac (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "wel and warn"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pasi (caste). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Once more unto the breach */ cmt"


 * Comments:
 * And now a legal threat. This is an old dispute being revived by a member of the caste. Wikipedia is not governed by the laws of India. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added the latest revert (with an ec here apparently). Primefac (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * * for legal threats.Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE reported by User:SimonP (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: , , ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719470693&oldid=719432110
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719505073&oldid=719494610
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719547418&oldid=719508159
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Epiousios&diff=719566202&oldid=719566086

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:2602:306:BC24:8C00:8563:E3B0:A906:11BE

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Epiousios, see also Talk:Lord%27s_Prayer for the same issue on a different article.

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected one month due to an IP-hopping revert war. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)