Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive317

User:Yunder4 reported by User:Insertcleverphrasehere (Result: Warned)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

Editor has repeatedly added a large block of unreferenced material to Venom Vicious, despite multiple reversions by 4 different editors, and numerous warnings on their talk page. InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This user also appears to be a sock account of User:Afro55, who has created this article on three other occasions. See User:Afro55/Venom vicious and User Talk:Afro55. In particular looking at the edit history of User:Afro55/Venom vicious reveals the IP 68.134.110.149 which just tried to remove the AfD message from Venom Vicious.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: User:Yunder4 is warned against any more warring at Venom Vicious. I've semiprotected the article to prevent any IP socking while the AfD is running. User:Afro55 could be an abandoned account since it hasn't edited since 2011. If the AfD ends with delete we can salt the title. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:24.251.29.163 reported by User:Strawberry4Ever (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&type=revision&diff=719861767&oldid=719827943]

Initially the edit war was over categories. Later I made this edit to remove redundant maintenance tags and empty sections, which was reverted with the 3rd and 4th diffs below: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&diff=721555368&oldid=721536917]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&diff=prev&oldid=721444941]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&diff=next&oldid=721452119]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&diff=next&oldid=721555368]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Drew_Massey&diff=next&oldid=721648651]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A24.251.29.163&type=revision&diff=721689553&oldid=721546695]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADrew_Massey&type=revision&diff=721609550&oldid=713334123]

Comments:

also reverted my comment on the talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drew_Massey&diff=next&oldid=721609550]. Semi-protection of Drew Massey might avoid disruptive edits by 24.251.29.163, at least for a while. Strawberry4Ever (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I blocked the IP one month for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

User:87.3.91.177 reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: Semi)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None - these reverts are pure vandalism, look at the edit summaries.

Comments: Other IPs this individual claims to be using are:
 * 80.117.21.77
 * 95.252.92.104
 * 87.1.112.55
 * 87.3.91.177
 * 87.6.119.119

I think a range block might be needed. I've already requested page protection, but this IP seems intent on having a meltdown and hiding behind a range of DHCP addresses. I'll do whatever needs to be done to get this happening, if anyone can direct me where to go to get the ball rolling. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  21:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Talk page semiprotected one month. A range block would be impractical. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Venkat sagi reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 721828420 by Sitush (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 721828006 by Sitush (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 721824516 by Sitush (talk)"
 * 4)


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


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


 * Comments:
 * This is just repeating the same poor, puffed-up claims that led to semi-protecting the article in April. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Now another revert - see this. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * --regentspark (comment) 13:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:174.31.139.166 reported by User:Dhinawda (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user has various IP and has been causing vandalism to the Galkayo page
 * – 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

User:165.225.32.70 reported by User:Vorziblix (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Since this IP’s edit-warring concerned multiple articles with the same issue, I made the attempt at discussion and resolving the dispute on the user’s talk page rather than duplicating it across multiple article talk pages.

Vorziblix (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Nyttend. EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Poofdragon reported by User:CorbieVreccan (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: "Add mention of Mary Werbelow, with reference. The interviewer and Doors drummer Densmore refer to Werbelow as a major inspiration in the early Doors lyrics"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 721128561 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I put all my sources there. Be specific to remove ONLY what is not sourced not all the information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I sourced the added information."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 721122019 by CorbieVreccan (talk) I did put sources. Be specific of what isn't sourced before removing anything,"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 721066407 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow is well documented as as early girlfriend of Jim Morrison in books, articles, and documentaries."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 697163101 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Mary Werbelow was Jim Morrison's girlfriend in college. https://madameask.com/2014/10/06/interview-with-paul-ferrara-doors-photographer/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison . (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Jim Morrison. (TW)"
 * 4)   "ANI"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Mary Werebelow or whoever she is */ BLP concerns from this SPA"


 * Comments:

User has refused to engage on their talk page, on article talk page, or at ANI. User inserts bare URLs to google results, blogs and fanzines and deletes stable content sourced to major publishing houses. User is a SPA who has only edited this article. User hits "undo" and calls it "sourcing" in edit summary. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: User finally responded at ANI, wanting to argue about the girlfriends of Morrison's youth. The issue at hand isn't what love affairs of a notable person should or shouldn't be footnotes in their bios, the issue is with this SPA's edit-warring, the unusable, WP:BLP-vio text, the non-WP:RS sourcing and refusal to engage with other editors. The SPA continues to just hit "undo" and is now removing stable text to put in complete crap. I know fan-driven disruptions like this drive good editors away and it's happening now. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have responded many times and did not get a response. User:KoshVorlon responded and acknowledged that I had properly paraphrased and sourced my information. Ping}} [[User:KoshVorlon] ] [[User::CorbieVreccan removes information without explanation and in this case a simple search would prove Mary Werbelow was a documented influential relationship for Jim Morrison. Here is what CorbieVreccan removed: CorbieVreccan said: "Reverted to revision 697010607 by Ptb1997: Take it to the talk page. This was here in past then deleted. It needs more sourcing than just one statement/interview by someone no one else seems to have heard of. ." Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV by removing "allegedly": Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV altho a simple search would show that the couple obtained the marriage license on a visit while the band was on tour: CorbieVreccan repeatedly has wiped out fact-checked relationship information: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_Morrison&diff=583017737&oldid=583017404 Here CorbieVreccan is inserting POV with and removing good information with:  "Jim liked to read about Natives. I care about Jim, but he didn't know anything about the Ghost Dance ceremony." Can CorbieVreccan verify what Jim knew?: Poofdragon (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC) NOTE: This issue was resolved so I put the sourced and paraphrased information back. Here was the resolution: Poofdragon (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-Warrior_at_Jim_Morrison

The proof is here that I sourced and paraphrased correctly: "Heck no, what he's posting, for example | this link you pointed to in your post above is referenced to a reliable newspaper, and he's accurately paraphrasing what's in that article, as he did in the Jim MOrrison article. I think a boomerang is due. KoshVorlon 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)"


 * Nothing was resolved. Long after passing 3RR with the bare URL dumps and 4 hits on "undo", long after being reported here and at ANI an uninvolved user - who seems unfamiliar with the material - made a comment. That is not "resolution" as this requires admin intervention. More recently, this SPA has started dumping long, confusing rants here and at the talk page. None of it helps resolve anything as the user still does not understand how to properly source or write an article. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 17:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the history of Jim Morrison as you say, you would know how influential Mary Werbelow's relationship with Jim was to their music as he claimed the first two albums were about her besides she is well documented. This is easily searchable.

This page is about Jim Morrison not Patricia Kennealy who is the only person claiming their was witnesses at her apartment for a late night "hand-fasting ceremony" and she is the only witness that he called her his wife nor have any letters she claims to have been made public. (Sole source/Self-reporting at a later date/No collaboration with Morrison's family,band, or friends). If you want to promote her point of view then you must mention that in her autobiography where she claims there were witnesses she also shows a picture of the certificate with "blacked out" names where the priest and witness's names would be' so no there any proof that anyone other than Patricia performed this ceremony or she had seen him more than a handful of days before the ceremony. She made claims to be his wife much later when she started using Morrison on her book that came out 20 years later. The Doors or the family of Jim did acknowledge her in any way. There is only one picture of her and Jim where she cropped someone else out that was at the office with them. There are plenty of accounts of woman who knew well. Kennealy seems to have only seen him a handful of times since meeting in January 1970 and the ceremony in June 1970 which she stated she did not think he took it too seriously with "probably not too serious". Poofdragon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This link shows that CorbieVreccan has a history of removing this same information that I added back with a book reference and they removed again. Who really is the "edit warrior"? They added unspurced information and a blog. I see CorbieVreccan has dozens of edits at that same Wikipedia page but on Jim Morrison's page there needs to be a fair representation of who he actually was his girlfriend or wife versus who he dated. Poofdragon (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Poofdragon doesn't appear to know the difference between including a link to a BLP's official site/blog, and relying on fanzine blogs as sources in other articles. Reliable bok publishers vet their content with their legal teams, and it's rather offensive to a reputable publisher to sprinkle "alleged" on some content and not on others, due to POV pushing.
 * But again: any discussion about sources should have happened on the article talk page. This noticeboard and report is about Poofdragon's aggressive violations of 3RR. Productive editors get driven away when aggressive SPAs are allowed to disrupt like this. Usually, we find other, connected issues with SPAs and I expect this situation will be no different. Clearly not enough productive editors have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the skeleton armies that cluster round fan-attracting articles like this one. It's unfortunate. Maybe protecting the article would be better if no one is willing to act on the 3RR violations. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jwe345 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rewrite section then readd, reduce length."
 * 2)  "will continue to remove sexuality section until the content is rewritten in less rambling, conspiratorial fashion"
 * 3)  "/* Sexuality */ Until a rewrite can be conducted with a beginning, middle and end, this section needs to be removed from the article. Out of order anecdotes need to be put in order or removed entirely. If section reintroduced, condense"
 * 4)  "/* Sexuality */ Removed the entire section on sexuality. Section is rambling and poorly written. Section should not be added until sources reevaluated and are removed. Considering the work/life of the figure, sexuality section is too large in scope"


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


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


 * Comments:

Section opened on talk page: Talk:J. Edgar Hoover - MrX 01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

- Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 05:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am willing to block as the User:Jwe345 has clearly violated 3RR. Their last edit was one minute after the final warning. However, it is possible that they didn't see the final warning till after they made that revert and they have not edited since then. If they revert any one of the multiple people who have reverted them, I support a block and, if needed, will do it myself when I'm back on. For the moment I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if they will accept the obvious consensus here. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 04:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They did it again, twice, CorbieVreccan. 1 2: That is too bad. MisterRandomized (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Gentlejackjones reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: left on the user's talk page (not mine)

Comments:

User has the interesting idea  that I am edit warring by removing his repeated unwanted comments from my own talk page. The article edits he was initially warned for had been discussed on his talk page, and I had left notice that I would open discussions on the talk pages of the articles being discussed The Hunger Games (novel), The Hunger Games and Suzanne Collins. After being told twice to stay off my talk page and  he restored the edit twice more on my page, and then left a further comment. Meters (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now a false notice of an AN3 case against me Meters (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * for edit-warring/harassment on Meters' talkpage and edit-warring to insert BLP violations.  Acroterion   (talk)   07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Meters reported by User: Gentlejackjones (Result: Complainant blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Too many to place diff for each.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Extremely unfriendly and hostile user who garbs themselves in the apparent authority of an admin and set the tone of me for this interaction by accusing me of disruptive editing and threatening a block. A true internet bully who has already chilled the speech of many others. See the abuse of warnings here:. I tried to reason with this user, and their harassment only continued. See:.

I wanted to avoid y'all having your time taken up by this, but in retrospect, this user is a true problem user and should get an official sanction for their repeated violations of Wikipedia's salutary policies of openness and inclusion. I truly hope that someone reviews User:Meter's conduct and lets them know that they are acting to the community's detriment. If corrected, I think the user's apparent time investment in the site could be a benefit to Wikipedia and its community.

On the issue of The Hunger Games, I'm fine with the present version as edited, and I was only trying to present the controversy in a manner commensurate with the fanfare it received in the media. I no longer care about the Hunger Games issue and simply don't want to be bullied by Meter, because all my life I've stood up to bullies and tried to support the underdogs.

For the record, one can immediately discern that at no point did I violate the 3RR. Instead, I admitted that my first edit was not neutral enough, changed it considerably and apologized for using Buzzfeed as a source, then reposted the corrected text. I think all I was guilty of is disagreeing with this bully.

It is true that I re-added my talk with Meters to their user talk page, but only because I was worried that you guys wouldn't see her continual trouncing of my repeated attempts to de-escalate the conflict. Each time I offered an olive branch, I was firmly and rudely rebuked. This whole interaction saddens me.

Thanks and sorry for taking up your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlejackjones (talk • contribs) 06:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry for taking up your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentlejackjones (talk • contribs) 06:27, May 25, 2016‎


 * I'd ask for a boomerang for this farce, but this is already covered in the previous thread.


 * 1) Gentlejackjones' supposed edit warring warning says nothing at all about edit warring.
 * 2) The supposed attempt to discuss the edits was a retroactive addition to an hour-old thread that had long since already been answered by me and then again by him.
 * 3) I was removing Gentlejackjones' repeated unwanted postings of the same material from my own talk page (see previous AN#), which I am allowed to do.
 * 4) As I already pointed out, I told him on his talk page twice to stop posting the material.
 * 5) I am not and have never claimed to be an admin.
 * 6) This AN3 was not opened until after I pointed out above that he had left an AN3 notice without opening one, and almost 40 minutes after notifying me.
 * 7) The abuse of warnings he complains about wasn't even a warning. It's an explanation of what was going on.
 * 8) The supposed continuation of my harassment is actually a diff of one of his edits. Meters (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * for harassment of an editor who has made explicit objections on BLP grounds.  Acroterion   (talk)   07:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Urutine32 reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:58, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,109 bytes) (-503)‎ . . (Details about US unfit for this worldwide article)
 * 2)  13:01, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,791 bytes) (-503)‎ . . (Because I have justified my edit, Clubjustin4 should explain why he disagree for reverting it)
 * 3)  15:20, 1 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,791 bytes) (-821)‎ . . (That "international statistics could also be included of course" is not a counter argument to my 12:58 edit summary. That "I think it's valid info in that section as it stands anyway" is petitio principii. Give real arguments in the talk page.)
 * 4)  08:12, 3 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (144,610 bytes) (-703)‎ . . (→‎Movements towards non-painful execution: See talk page)
 * 5)  07:37, 23 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (142,475 bytes) (-716)‎ . . (Undid revision 721630856 by Signedzzz (talk) See talk page)
 * 6)  18:57, 23 May 2016‎ Urutine32 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (142,501 bytes) (-716)‎ . . (Undid revision 721688506 byMr Serjeant Buzfuz --- I have already explained this and refuted you in the talk page. Stop this edit war without giving argument other than petitio principii)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Capital_punishment, User_talk:Signedzzz

Comments:

This is not about 24hour-3RR, this is edit-warring and general disruption. User has reverted 3 other users, including 3 reverts after being warned. Claims to have "refuted" everyone. zzz (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Read attentively the two (short) talk pages, to see how Signedzzz completely avoided to answer my arguments, with bad faith, and now issue this false report to avoid continuing discussion by lack of serious argument to maintain outdated domestic data in a worldwide article. Urutine32 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not the first to complain about Signedzzz, an administrator do so recently. He had been blocked four times the previous two years by four different administrators, me never. Urutine32 (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs 1 through 6 seem to show a pattern of long term edit warring by User:Urutine32. They may be able to avoid a block if they will agree not to remove this material again until they have obtained consensus to do so on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Urutine32 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they remove this material unless they have previously obtained consensus on the talk page. This statement is possibly a concession to the opinions of others, though there is no implication he will wait for agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:84.112.219.188 reported by User:Mike1901 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "adding citation"
 * 2)  "/* External degrees and validation */"
 * 3)  "/* External degrees and validation */"
 * 4)  "vandalism, Undid revision 722015204 by John Maynard Friedman (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Degrees */ outbalancing pros & cons"
 * 6)  "vandalism, restoring portions blanked out"
 * 7)  "vandalism, restoration of blank-outs"
 * 1)  "vandalism, restoring portions blanked out"
 * 2)  "vandalism, restoration of blank-outs"


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


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


 * Comments:

Constant restoration of non-NPOV text about a barely notable connection that finished 2 years ago. Multiple attempts made to steer the user to the Talk page, both in edit summaries, on their talk page, and on the Talk page itself. Mike1901 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that I've blocked this IP editor for the legal threat below. No real comment on the merits, except that the description of the situation above seems pretty accurate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (procedural) Katietalk 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Vwanweb reported by User:Melcous (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

comments User has been reverted by multiple editors with edit summaries asking them to take it to the talk page but they have not engaged and have continued to revert.

Melcous (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 16:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User: Mike1901& John Mayard Friedman hacking wikipedia (Result: Filer blocked)
The users have repeatedly been blanking out sections of The University of Buckingham wikipwdia article for bribes, similar to a robot, to lure people into the University of Buckingham, since wikipedia is seen by many African and East Asian countries as first source, while statements on the particular page are false. Further measures will involve corruption cases against the perpetrators Mike1901, Dexter and Friedman. Wikipedia is asked to ban these hackers from operating on the charity platform for bribes and using the media for illegal activities! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.219.188 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Filing IP is now blocked per Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Rohitlukkha reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed Offensive Content"
 * 2)  "Removed Offensive Content"
 * 1)  "Removed Offensive Content"
 * 2)  "Removed Offensive Content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hari Parbat. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps warring despite warnings, violated 3RR. No edits to other articles - most likely SPA / NOTHERE. — kashmiri  TALK  22:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Nimisha singhania reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * 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:

This is clearly edit warring, and I'm honestly surprised that the user didn't get warned/blocked six hours ago. They seem to have a clear case of OWNership and I'm concerned they're going to keep trying to remove the edits made by other contributors. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * . User:Primefac, you never warned the user about edit warring, so I don't see how they would know there's a rule against it. Please always warn, especially new users. However, I've blocked them for persistently removing the AfD template from Leema Dhar despite the very clear notice that it is not to be removed. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Yeah... I really shouldn't have done that. I'll make sure to follow proper procedure next time. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

User:161.72.97.71 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not a reason to revert. stop vandalising."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 722203831 by Amccann421 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 722201880 by Amccann421 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 722195000 by Fitindia (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Black Dahlia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Black Dahlia. (TW)"


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

Attempted to talk with IP user on his/her talk page. Continues to revert edits without reason and accuses me of vandalism.
 * Comments:


 * Result: Page fully protected one week. Amccann421, can you use the talk page to explain your desire to link a common English work ('posthumously') to Wiktionary? Do you think that readers of this article are likely to have difficulty with it? EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:178.149.95.134 reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (edit summary);  (edit summary)

Comments:

Borsoka (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected 3 days by User:MelanieN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The IP subsequently complained about the semi-protection at my talk page, and I warned them against edit warring. At least I think that is what they were complaining about. I got the feeling their English abilities are limited. Anyhow they haven't edited since then. --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Me, Myself, I and DAVE THE DRAGON reported by User:HLGallon (Result: blocked)
Page: The Battle of Turnham Green

User being reported: Me, Myself, I and DAVE THE DRAGON

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:

single-purpose account, repeatedly inserting patent nonsense, "supported" by self-produced web pages.


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 21:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Bunco man reported by User:Acidskater (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a history of edit warring and specifically when it comes to the topic of Austin Petersen. Even though a discussion is taking place with multiple users contesting his edits (which violate WP:NPOV) he still reverts the edits claiming they are sourced. The sources he provides do not support the information he is putting in the article and violate WP:WPNOTRS and WP:SYNTH. Acidskater (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I created the section in question with well-sourced material. Acidskater deleted my material and added his own. He is a political fan of Austin Petersen and has been trying to discredit me. Bunco man (talk) 05:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Page with original revert violations was speedily deleted but user is now trying to delete messages I put on his talk page in direct violation of WP:TALK. Talk page revert 1 and talk page revert 2. Acidskater (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant edits are at Draft:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016 now and the diffs should now work. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could someone (probably an admin) restore the relevant discussion (that I coincidentally started) that was deleted at Talk:Austin Petersen presidential campaign, 2016? Thanks. FallingGravity (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * PLEASE NOTE: Most of this bickering is based on politics. User Acidskater is desperately trying to stop people from adding factual material to any of the Austin Petersen articles. He is falsely making accusations against me, and I'm not wishing to let him attack me. My information is well-sourced, no matter what he says. I am hoping the editors in charge of this investigation can see exactly what's going on here. Bunco man (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

User:60.49.75.221 reported by User:Ricky81682 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campbell_Shopping_Complex_fire&diff=next&oldid=722285657

Notices:
 * 1)

Comments:

See also the editor's attacks here and here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The editing has continued with this IP address but the warring of course has stopped since the page says "Interesting Facts". No discussion of course. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring and unsourced changes by IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

user:Jobas reported by user:Xtremedood (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been warned by other users in the past about edit warring: ,

Comments:

user:Jobas broke the 3RR. Xtremedood (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * He has four within 26 hours, which I could act on but he's the only person actually trying to discuss matters on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:141.241.26.20 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 722353929 by Clubjustin (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 722353805 by Clubjustin (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 722353679 by Clubjustin (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 722353548 by Clubjustin (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Comparison to Chabahar Port */ This may I remind the Indian editors is about cpec not some 0.5 billion dollar port in Iran please add all this information on chabahar article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


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

So what was wrong with my edit Justin? 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

As I said, you are removing sourced content. Clubjustin Talkosphere  15:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If this was any other article, I'd block both of you for edit warring. However, since discretionary sanctions apply:
 * Still, you were very close to getting blocked as well.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:86.173.237.249 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

This is a sock-puppeting anon IP in the 86.173 range making the same non-standard edits, flouting WP:BRD, and refusing to discuss his edits.

Previous version reverted to:  18:09, 25 May 2016  (as 86.173.238.19)]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  22:16, 26 May 2016 (as 86.173.237.249)
 * 2)  22:27, 26 May 2016 (as 86.173.237.249)
 * 3)  10:40, 27 May 2016 (as 86.173.238.156)
 * 4)  17:40, 27 May 2016 (as 86.173.238.156)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (86.173.238.156),   (86.173.237.249)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I asked for page protection, and remarkably, despite the clear edit warring, that protection is not forthcoming. These IP sock-puppets have been edit-warring to add non-standard, non-consensus formatting so that some citations to a database are given one way and some are given another way in the same article. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not really much else to be done. Hope you don't mind full protection.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Imeldific (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "→‎Wealth"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 722321171 by Cagliost (talk): Revert vandalism from single purpose account. . (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 721681501 by The Madras (talk): Revert edits from a blatant single purpose account. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * : Spacecowboy420 hasn't violated 3rr. You've also been reverted by a second use (which puts you closer to edit warring).  You do indeed appear to be a single purpose account.  Although I wouldn't go so far as to call your edits vandalism, they certainly do go against WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant reported by User:HappyValleyEditor (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), which is a revert of []
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (I'm not sure I completely understand what is being asked by "diff of edit warring")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I was a bit late on getting to the talk page, but I did get there. I would like nothing more than to stay away form this editor. I 'banned' them from my talk page, but they came to it a couple days later, ignored my request that they stay away, and started playing nice asking for help. I did not answer, I suddenly find my pages being stalked by this editor. I really want nothing more than to be far away from them, but they insist on interfering in my work. The reference removed is a very, very good ref! The Institution in question bought the artwork that the ref refers to, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers. I knwo their process-- they have an actual team of due diligence people. That kind of ref is gold in the art world. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * NoW that I read the policy above, I may have reverted too many times as well (3). In any case if there is a method for getting this editor to stay away from my pages (is it not common sene to do so when there are repeated disputes?) I would appreciate that as well. I know that when I see their user name I do try to walk the other way... unfotunately not today though! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a template, I'm not being captain obvious. Also, please read WP:OWN.  They are not "your" pages.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am aware they are not "my" pages--poor choice of words. What about the 3RR Rule?HappyValleyEditor (talk)

Secondly, this reporting user also reverted three times. I asked him on the second revert to go to the talk page per brd and he did not. He just blindlessly reverted me again. This user is angry with me because of an incident where he was personally attacking an editor, so I called him out on it and warned him. He denied the attack on my talk page and attacked the editor a second time. I warned him again. An observant administrator observed this and went to the reporters talk page and gave him a final warning. After that the reporter here has been mad because he thinks I reported him when I did not. HappyValleyEditor has been sending unwanted emails that are scaring me. I want him to just leave me alone. He is also angry with me about me helping editor The reporter has been stalking his edits and trying to delete most all his articles. I was attempting to help Jzsj about policies and how to fill out an AFD discussion and vote. HappyValleyEditor emailed me then and tryied to bully me into stop helping the guy because he was a Jesuit. He said You need to disengage from him OK because he is Jesuit. I din not respond, but has emailed me again. The emails are scaring me. I feel that HVE is harassing me, and now he is trying to have me blocked, probably so I cannot collaborate wth Jzsj in trying to help save some of the articles he created. Again, I only made 3 reverts certainly not 4. HVE is being misleading on that and putting forth a false report. I patrol new pages daily, so if HVE writes I new page, it will likely be in the que. If there are misspellings and grammar mistakes (like there were today)I will correct them like on all other new articles. It is nothing personal. Thank you. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 09:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, the above report is misleading. I reverted three times not four. The first diff listed above is not a revert, It is a simple edit
 * The editor interaction analysis shows you are following me around, which is wikistalking. ONE QUESTION: what is it goign to take for you to leave me alone? I am not angry, I want to be left alone by you. the two emails said that, and I encourage any admin to read them as they were sent in the Wiki system. Please drop the stick! Leave me to my editing.  HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is explained easily since I was going around to all of the article pages created by which you have been systematically been gutting, prodding and AFD'ing, so when I am at those articles to evaluate them and try to improve them, we will obviously be at the same pages. Also you and I both patrol new pages, so it is likely we may be at, or edit some of those same pages. Do not try to change the subject though. You accused me here of doing four reverts. Not true and quite misleading. Can you not admit you were wrong about that?  Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant  09:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the subject here is 3RR and your four reverts are above. That is all I am going to say. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This diff you list as a revert is a simple edit. See here: 07:53, 28 May 2016‎ Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,959 bytes) (-200)‎ . . (→‎Work: removed press release being used as a reference, unreliable please see WP:RS)

Here is the diff from above you listed as a revert = Not a revert, you cannot admit you are wrong when it is in black and white right before you. 09:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, for having come to my defense. I appreciate that the system does work, and that you along with the administrator have brought about what should be an end to what seemed to be editing targeted at my work. It appears that HappyValleyEditor just began editing a few months ago, and should come to understand the spirit of consensus and sweet reasonableness in policing and discussing Wikipedia business. From the start I've gotten somewhat different advice from different editors and have had to decide for myself what seems right. As I mentioned to HVE, Wikipedia is bemoaning the drop in users since 2013, and we should keep our larger audience in mind when placing tags and removing articles, not placing 3 or 4 tags when 1 or 2 will do and certainly not leaving ourselves open to any charge of prejudice which will turn away whole groups of readers for a lifetime! I hope that your discussion above has led to a reasonable resolution of this whole affair.Jzsj (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ai yai yai! this isi a 3RR Report, not a section of violins at th orchestra!HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:81.36.240.108 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert change to less correct"
 * 2)  "revert back to grammatical biosynthesis. keep correct of nesbitt change"
 * 3)  "changes were explained. seeking PP from editing warring IP editor since I cannot bring 3RR"
 * 4)  ""is biosynthesised" is not English"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: can't warn or communicate with them as their talk page is protected.

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

Comments:

I think this user's first language is not English, as they are restoring incorrect grammar and syntax among other things. They have not really explained why they are undoing my changes, just stated that they are going so. Only concrete objection they have raised to my changes is their claim that ""is biosynthesised" is not English", which is obviously not true. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have explained in every edit note and had already requested page protection here. As I noted here among other times, yes"is biosynthesised" is not English. Biosynthesized is English. And the article Talk page is quite open to you, IP.  Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Note that the user requested semi-protection, which is generally used only when a page is afflicted by repeated vandalism. They claimed "Edit warring IP that can't spell", thus making personal attacks while themselves edit warring excessively and violating the 3RR. 81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am realizing that you are applying UK spelling to a US spelling article. See WP:ENGVAR. This was a truly stupid edit war. Jytdog (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that edit warring over a spelling that you were simply ignorant of was truly stupid. You haven't tried to explain any of the other changes you were undoing.  81.36.240.108 (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears we have resolved almost all of this at talk and the PP request was denied as we were finally talking. Jytdog (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog is continuing to edit war, with a fifth partial revert:. Talk page discussions exist but they obviously do not give this user the right to keep on violating the 3RR. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * / broke 4 reverts first. Looks like we have the pot calling the kettle black. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly did not. If you somehow believe otherwise, perhaps you should post links to all four reverts that you think I made.  88.10.64.44 (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No block or even warning to the user who broke and continued to break the 3RR? And the article protected with his most recent edit intact?  I guess the days of the 3RR being a "bright line rule" are long gone.  88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog self-reverted his fourth revert, which is enough to prevent blocking under 3RR. clpo13(talk) 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And he then re-reverted. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

IP has requested I provide the evidence for them breaking 3RR so:
 * 1st


 * 2nd


 * 3rd


 * 4th

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first one is my original edit to the article. That is not a revert, is it?  What is your problem here exactly?  88.10.64.44 (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. You reverted existing text. Hence, you edit-warred. Cheers mate! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Top trolling.88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice if people would stop having a go at me and instead warn the person who actually broke the 3RR that they shouldn't have done that. 88.10.64.44 (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I warned both of you if you read my first comment. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're lying again. If one does read your first comment, ones sees that it said that I "broke 4 reverts first. Looks like we have the pot calling the kettle black."  That's not a warning, either to me or to the guy who actually broke the 3RR, is it?  And it is still obviously not true.  The first edit I made to the article, most people will readily grasp, cannot possibly be described as a revert.  88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this folks - most of the IP's changes were good - I got hung up on the UK spellling thing and the move away from WP:PLAIN and have apologized to the IP. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How childish to pretend now that you were edit warring over a UK/US spelling difference. You were edit warring because you didn't know the English language, and you made personal attacks while doing so.  Edit warring IP that can't spell, "is biosynthesised" is not English  You made 5 reverts within 24 hours and continued to edit war long after I'd reported your initial violation.  It's outrageous that you haven't been blocked for your disruption.  I guess you have pals amongst the admins.  88.10.64.44 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

User:98.185.19.13 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (made after the initial report and warning)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 08:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:E1e10p reported by User:Oshwah (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 722677380 by Oshwah (talk)"
 * 2)  "Cultural slur removed, replaced by more accurate designation."
 * 1)  "Cultural slur removed, replaced by more accurate designation."
 * 1)  "Cultural slur removed, replaced by more accurate designation."


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


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


 * Comments:

See [this talk page creation by the user]. Clearly a content dispute. Made an additional reversion after I warned for 3RR.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: user has continued to edit war even after receiving the notice. A block, and possibly page protection is now in order. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a section to article Talk page explaining origins behind the name and showing that it was valid. I also reverted another disruptive edit by user. It was reverted again within minutes. User is highly disruptive and not seeking to find a solution. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree and also believe that WP:NOTHERE can also be considered.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nthep (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:174.23.160.130 (Result:Boomerang block for warring )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

So just as the above paragraph of hidden text says, it takes 4 of these in a day to have broken 3RR, but this user is still warring against perfectly good improvements (the removal of stray hyphens, the forming of proper s-ending possessives, the removal of an obvious redundancy, improving some kludgy wording, and acknowledging that people have more than one spinal disc).

He/she seems to think he can WP:OWN that article even though all of my editions are valid improvements, as if he had written it (but I know he didn't) and believes it's "his property not to be changed," although that specifically breaks WP:own. For some odd reason he wants to maintain errors and poor wording, and I don't get it. Please instruct this user not to wp:own and block him or her for a while.

174.23.160.130 (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [He/she hasn't posted anything to the talk page; see edit summaries.]

Comments:

I have nothing to say other than 174.23.160.130 is a highly likely ipsock of User:Who R U?, who was blocked for edit warring. We are allowed to revert edits made by blocked users and their puppets. Here is the investigation: Sockpuppet investigations/Who R U?. Their rangeblock has expired recently. Sro23 (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The article history suggests that the IP editor has been reverted by about four different editors. Is there any chance of WP:BOOMERANG.--  Toddy1 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sure, of course because you all have name accounts and are likely in some kind of clique, you should try to figure out any way you can to gang up against this "lowly IP-based editor" to make the report bounce off yourselves and stick to me, shouldn't you? Perfect example of being wp:uncivil. 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not involved, but I am an admitted grammar...stickler. I would note that our possible IP sock friend is correct about the hyphens and possessives. I would do it myself if I didn't fear getting caught up in this dispute. I must ask what, precisely, is the benefit to the project of reverting on sight here? Pinging, since he too was involved. MisterRandomized (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Not an IP sock; my service is dynamic. You've never heard of that? I saw 2 editors reverting purely reasonable edits until just now when their apparent sock friend (or at least meat, probably because they have their little clique and called on him to come and form a funny little "consensus" against the IPer) came by to support their clique work.

174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sock of 174.23.160.130 or Who R U? but an interested observer. You are correct about Sro23. The irony of all this is Sro23 is likely a sock of a former user, and there is also a clique among certain editors who are actively protecting him. 175.101.8.46 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, 175.... 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 07:09, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Toddy1
 * 06:42, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Sro23
 * 05:51, 30 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.130 reverts Ebyabe
 * 21:24, 29 May 2016 IP 174.23.160.146 reverts Sro23
 * 07:27, 28 May 2016 IP 174.23.107.42 reverts Favonian over word "Glendale" and adds new changes.
 * 18:04, 26 May 2016 IP 174.23.173.58 reverts Sro23 over word "Glendale"
 * 18:03, 26 May 2016 IP 174.23.173.58 reverts Sro23 over word "Glendale"
 * 23:09, 25 May 2016 IP 75.162.213.245 reverts Ebyabe over word "Glendale"
 * 21:30, 23 May 2016 Newname0002 reverts Toddst over word "Glendale"
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Uhuh. Apparently something is "wrong" with editing the redundancy "Glendale _____ in Glendale" out, right? Okay, haha, "good one"! 174.23.160.130 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is for user conduct, not for content. Whether your edits are right or wrong should be discussed on the article talk page, not here.  I notice that though your edits summaries demand that other users discuss your edits on the talk page, you have not posted anything on the article talk page.


 * IPs 174.23.160.146, 174.23.160.130, 174.23.173.58, 75.162.213.245 are all based in Utah (USA), and are probably the same person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand... you've never heard of dynamic IPs either, then?

This is only about conduct? Oh, okay, so you can see why I brought up sro's edit-warring conduct then, can't you? And if that's so, then why are you so concerned with what the edits say?

Of course, I asked that you take your little reversion to the talk page. You were the next guy in line from your little clique to make a ridiculous reversion, so why should I be the one to start the talk on the page instead of you? And then if the wording is your only issue, why are you reverting all the other work I did with it? 174.23.160.130 (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have made nine reverts over seven days; four of them within 24 hours. You have broken the three-revert rule.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:129.194.252.43 reported by User:331dot (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable alumni */ Stop reverting to prose!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on SOAS, University of London. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is attempting to duplicate at least part of List of School of Oriental and African Studies people at the main page, has been reverted by four different editors (me,, and , and has not brought the issue to the talk page despite warnings(page history provides a better picture)  May also have edited under 46.253.189.247 which claimed to be "Official SOAS Comms Dept." here; another user 77.57.158.50 restored the edit as well, but does seem to be a different person.  Has not brought the issue to the talk page despite my request here and my final warning. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Has also said "you'll get tired before me" indicating they will not stop here. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Another reversion just now. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Commonsenseyes reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked for socking, warring, legal threats )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Those are the true facts about Mr.Nowak."
 * 2)  "I will keep deleting "Chairman" section and others because is false. Mr.Nowak may seek a legal action if you will keep posting untrue informations they are detrimental to Mr.Nowak. I will strongly suggest to stop this immediately."
 * 3)  "I can read polish links you referred too and facts are that Mr.Nowak took Konin to Bydgoszcz in 2000 as KP Konin and as KP Bydgoszcz in 2001 finished playing in all competitions in 2002. Mr.Kasalik never worked for KP Konin or Mr.Nowak."
 * 4)  "Again, Mr.Nowak wasn't Chairman of Gornik Konin ever !!! Please stop using Jerzy Kasalik as Coach for Konin. Mr.Nowak never hire or fire Jerzy Kasalik. It's just a lie!!"
 * 1)  "Again, Mr.Nowak wasn't Chairman of Gornik Konin ever !!! Please stop using Jerzy Kasalik as Coach for Konin. Mr.Nowak never hire or fire Jerzy Kasalik. It's just a lie!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Making legal threats on Piotr Nowak. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Piotr Nowak. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Commonsenseyes continually reverts the removal of their edit that removed information they considered undesirable from the article; had also edited while logged out to do so(already reported). Has not made efforts to resolve the dispute; made slight legal threat as well. 331dot (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reported at WP:ANI for legal threats. I expect that venue will move more quickly, but if the user hasn't been indeffed by the time an admin gets to this report, you may wish to head over there. ~ RobTalk 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've already blocked indef for the legal threat and two weeks for the socking and warring. Admin are encouraged to review my actions and modify as they see fit.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dennis's closure. I looked at a few of the references to see if Commonsenseyes had any backup for what they were saying in the edit summaries. But the broad outline of what the article is saying appears right, so there is no obvious BLP issue. Whether Piotr Novak ever hired or fired someone named Kasalik doesn't seem fundamental, so I hope that those who read Polish can comment. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Georgie1995 reported by User:Georgie1995 (Result: Blocked)
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]

I am reporting myself for engaging in a revert war in 2 months, so I need to be blocked in advaance Comments:

Georgie1995 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked as a troll (technically WP:NOTHERE).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2601:19B:4002:671B:1566:4172:B12C:E86F reported by User:Oshwah (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "MEssage"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hush (2016 film). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Capitalization of "deaf" */ new section"
 * Semi-protected for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:50.32.163.124 reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Information on different articles that have to do with the same brand"
 * 2)  "/* Family Chrgd */"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 4)  "Information on different articles that have to do with the same brand"
 * 5)  "/* History */"
 * 6)  "/* Family Chrgd */"
 * 7)  "Something that had to do with the brand"
 * 1)  "/* Family Chrgd */"
 * 2)  "Something that had to do with the brand"
 * 1)  "Something that had to do with the brand"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Obvious sock of User:50.32.245.81 (or vice versa). Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Not sure the relationship of the two IPs, my guess is meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry given the interleaving of edits, but I blocked this IP for 48 hours. might want to peak a little closer at them and determine if they are likely the same person and take appropriate action if needed.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Jennyriarchi reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor concerned has refused to engage in discussion on article talk page, and has now described another editor as a "cunt" -. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidRThomason reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Editor is ignoring advice about the need to demonstrate notability and continually reintroducing material without sufficient sourcing. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit warring continues. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This is a learning process, but thanks for the corrections. The difficulty here began with another user removing content simply because no Wikipedia article existed. I tried to add independent sources to back up the entry, however, others simply claim that these aren't independent sources. There is a problem of knowledge outside an editor's area of expertise and his or her subjective sense of quality vs. quantity of sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRThomason (talk • contribs) 22:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see my replies at User talk:Vaparedes, . It is more about lack of significant coverage than the independence of the sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've indefinitely blocked DavidRThomason as a ✅ sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Plugee reported by User:Ogress (Result: Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 722926183 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 722924789 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 3)  "Hebrew origin of Amal, coherence of text."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Amalia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2016 */ personal attacks"
 * 3)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Amalia (given name). (TW)"
 * 4)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Amalia (given name). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Ogress; I start a discussion
 * 2)  Plugee
 * 3)  =Ogress
 * 4)  =Plugee
 * 5)  = Ogress
 * 6) "Dealing with disruptive editors" = Plugee (personal attacks against Ogress); at this point, Plugee begins spamming reverts
 * 7)   "/* Arabic, Greek */ reply"


 * Comments:

is engaging in personal attacks and using bad-faith edits. He cites works that do not support his position but rather the opposite and despite ongoing discussion on the talk page, he decided to claim I'm an islamophobe (I'm Muslim btw) and engage in edit warring without even using edit summaries.

User also added this passive-aggressive thing to my talk page today as well.

This is no way to edit an encyclopedia. Ogress 23:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I,, have added several edits to Amalia (given name) in order to give additional, well-cited information about the origins of the name. These also included several edits to bring the article up to the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. has consistently removed my edits without providing any justifiable reasoning. I would like to remind Ogress that Wikipedia is built on knowledge and respect, and not on opinion and prejudice.

Respectfully,

Plugee (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to add that I choose to be editor because I am passionate about what Wikipedia stands for. I have no interest in abusing or spamming this website. Plugee (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Plugee continues to edit the page without addressing the issue of the edit-warring. Ogress 19:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Can the page please be rolled back to before the user's contested edits? Ogress 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Plugee is warned they be blocked if they make any more personal attacks against Ogress, or revert again at Amalia (given name) without getting a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not make a proposal on the talk page for the version you favor? The article could use some better sources. There is an Oxford work called A Dictionary of First Names that might have good information if anyone can get hold of it. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. Plugee (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

All edits that I have since added have been well-cited, and they go beyond the origin of the name, also having to do with formatting in the article. These edits have no justification for being reverted. Plugee (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is literally the source of the edit conflict and is already indicating intransigence. Your edits, Plugee, are literally not well-sourced; your claimed sources DO NOT SAY what you claim they do, as I have repeatedly noted on the page you are engaging in bad-faith editing. Ogress 01:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, for example, request a WP:Third opinion. If you ask outsiders to look into it, one problem is that the talk page discussion is hard to understand. It would help if each side would spell out what sources they are using for their position. If you want, you can get advice on the usability of sources at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been in edit wars about content; this isn't you're typical one. Plugee gives a sample cite on the talk page. The cite does not say what he claims it says. How can I possibly expect a third position when he is literally lying about the sources, then when called on it, moves into personal attacks (for which he has not, I note, apologised). His additions to the page are in question and should not be added until we can find a source that supports his (rather radical) position? Ogress 02:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Motivação reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts: One steady stream of reverts since May 28 with no discussion all doing the same thing
 * 1) 28 May 2016  diff, reverted by User:Dennis Brown
 * 2) 28 May 2016‎  diff reverted by User:Doc James in part then User:Johnbod for the rest
 * 3) 28 May 2016‎  diff reverted by User:Neonorange
 * 4) 28 May 2016‎ diff reverted by me
 * 5) 28 May 2016‎ dif reverted by me
 * 6) 28 May 2016‎  dif reverted by User:CFCF
 * 7) 31 May 2016‎  dif reverted by me
 * 8) 31 May 2016‎ diff reverted by Neonorange
 * 9) 31 May 2016 diff where the article stands now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif and follow up

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

Comments:

Their Talk page is a string of complaints from other editors about random changes, test edits, not talking. If you look at their contribs and their edit history, they have never used a talk page. They just make disparaging edit notes as they continue to try to push their random, unsourced changes into articles. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. On Wikipedia, if your edits repeatedly contradict those of others on a controversial article, you are expected to participate in discussion. So far we have no discussion at all -- just an occasional edit summary. User is also marking most of his edits as minor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:108.34.150.59 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723121204 by Clpo13 (talk)Is anyone going to get consensus?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723121075 by Vensco (talk) no consensus for addition. Go to talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723120848 by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 723120188 by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) take it to talk. Contentious material with no consensus. Also your the one inserting the info"
 * 5)  "Removing VLP violation. Official records say otherwise"


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


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

IP editor insists that consensus is needed to insert some information into the article. While that may be the case, they have edit warred to remove that information despite multiple warnings. clpo13(talk) 04:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Also reported to WP:AIV due to obvious WP:VANDAL nature of edits (attempting to insert factually incorrect information). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So has prostentic.... But alas you only report the IP. If this was a BLP, what would you say then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit history (see this diff as an example) indicates the IP is either a sockpuppet, or a coached meatpuppet. Humorously, the information they are attempting is wrong even by the standards of Kyle's autobiographical claims - before the actual, authoritative military records were released Kyle had claimed 5 Bronze Stars, the authoritative military records show only 3, the IP is claiming SIX... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you pay attention to the discharge papers? Or are you incapable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear IP sockpuppet/meatpuppet: a DD214 is not authoritative, nor is Kyle's autobiography. Per Navy policy, "The Navy considers the individual service member’s official military personnel file and our central official awards records to be the authoritative sources for verifying entitlement to decorations and awards". Source: Lt. Jackie Pau, Navy spokeswoman. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...The navy is investigating the discrepancy between public record and the discharge. One explanation given by other sources cited by the other editor show that those operations could have been in secret. I know you hate Chris, but seriously he is dead. Find some else to spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.150.59 (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, this is all the sort of discussion that should be happening on the article talk page. clpo13(talk) 04:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, it's pretty obvious we have either a sockpuppet or a coached meatpuppet here. And the "sneaky vandalism" aspect, trying to change numbers to numbers that didn't even match Kyle's book (which would at least be in good faith, though still incorrect by the authoritative records), is really quite telling of what we are dealing with. That's on par with the vandals who go around randomly changing years and days in various dates on pages, hoping they'll slip a change through that won't get caught. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected the article three months. The talk page is open for anonymous editors to make their views known. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:DHeyward and User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Keri (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Content dispute. Both sides convinced they are right. Refusing to actually build consensus on talk page. Edit warring on namespace instead. Keri (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This posting is inappropriate. See two notices above, issue was and is outright vandalism by an IP editor. See User:108.34.150.59 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi) Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I have no violations. I am not edit warring.  Please break out the diffs.  These diffs are all from other editors, namely User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has reverted multiple editors, violated BRD and LEAD with a drive by edit that is not mentioned on talk or the article body.  No one can discuss this until the chnage is proposed and they have refused to put it on talk.  The editor in violation is argumentative anf incorectly characterizes content disputes as vandalism.  A trout to Keri for not fleshing out the diffs.

None of these reverts involve me and there certainly is not a 3RR violation by me. I've made only 4 non-consecutive edits in 3 days which is not a violation by letter or spirit considering the below is within 1 day. Note that User:Keri has supported Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz edit warring with their own revert without a talk page comment. I have requested it be brought to talk as it's difficult to understand this lead violating edit with an unreliable source.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

--DHeyward (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * by . Katietalk 13:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723046337 by Tnguyen4321 (talk) avoidance vandalism + deletion of WP:BLUE material (see talk page)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 722859873 by Tnguyen4321 (talk) avoidance vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Warning to Dino Nam
 * Warning to Tnguyen4321


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


 * Comments:

User:Dino nam and User:Tnguyen4321 have been reverting the same, single or tag back and forth on the Battle of Ia Drang article since mid-May, despite both receiving warnings for it. (An earlier 3RR report from a couple of days into the edit war was never resolved.) Discussion seems to be ongoing on the talk page, but they're still reverting the article every day. McGeddon (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also the articles at Battle of Lao Cai and Battle of Cao Bang histories are a littany of the same two editors going at each other with hammer and tongs. I tried to sort it out a while back, but it got too complex. I expect that's why it's happened for so long. Madness! Muffled Pocketed  15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this incident but I know nothing else to stop user:Tnguyen4321 conducting vandalism. His removal of OR tags on Battle of Ia Drang without any consensus or explanation on the talk page on the talk page clearly constitutes avoidant vandalism. About his editing on Battle of Lao Cai and Battle of Cao Bang, I have not many things to say. No explanation, no consensus, no RS, no basis from Wikipedia regulations, that is vandalism. If you have any suggestion for me to solve this, please say it. I've refered this on the OR noticeboard once but no one has intervened. Dino nam (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Beware: Dino nam is a wolf in sheep's clothing (sock puppetry: 113.190.165.78, 222.252.55.135, 117.6.88.137, 123.24.194.104, 222.252.32.116).Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It is fairly easy to sort things out by looking into history of my positive contributions versus Dino nam's negative contributions (taking into his initial disguise with multiple IPs). Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the edits and the above statements, it looks to me that both parties should be blocked. Removing an OR tag is not 'vandalism.' There was previously a discussion at NORN but nobody commented except those two. (On that noticeboard, Dino Nam was using IPs). It is hard to summarize what they are disputing over. It seems to be subtle points about the battle. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Usual ethnocentricity.Looks like a fair few blocks have been dodged so far. Muffled Pocketed  20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Removing afd, copyvio and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content." (WP:VANDAL)
 * Well, if you don't agree with my above quote from the VP:VANDAL regulation, at least please explain why. Dino nam (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User Pizzaandchips11 reported by Weweremarshall (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 

User Pizzaandchipps11 has participated in harmful editing on the page Khalifa (mixtape) and is in clear violation of the 3RR. I pointed him to the talk page where a discussion thread was created for the issues, which the user ignored and have also informed that if this behavior continued he'd be reported for violating 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Protected one week. There is currently no consensus on the talk page on whether this is a mixtape or an album. Is there a Wikipedia rule that nothing is an album unless physical media are sold? If that is a rule, where was it agreed to? Consider asking WT:WPMU for advice if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The page protection still doesn't change the fact that the user violated 3RR. Weweremarshall (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only a time machine can fix that. Willondon (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually a block can fix that rather well. And a 24-hour block is very standard for 3RR violations, though I'd personally suggest a longer one since the user in question has shown a clear disregard for the guidelines and policies that all editors are expected to follow. Weweremarshall (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amamedli reported by User:MorbidEntree (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you need to stop this. We need the community to weigh in, and your comment is a childish banter. show some respect and engage in a conversation. trust me you will loose the debate. trust me"
 * 2)  "who are the judges? we'll await consensus, so far I have provided evidence, while History and Aragon have not. So provide evidence and stop bullying people"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723194571 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 4)  "Please stop ignoring. I have provided rationale for Azeri coming before Persian.   Extensive debate doesn't make this right. We will have to see evidence of Persian being spoken by the Shirvanshahs of that period. Bullying of another user doesn't count."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Palace of the Shirvanshahs. (TW)"


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

This issue has been going for some time, though previously with a different user. Its regarding the inclusion of the Persian translation in the lede. Even though the initial user who was against it ("Interfase") failed to post any counter-sourcing to prove that the Persian translation for this Persian dynasty should be excluded, as of literally today, this "almost brand new user" ("Amamedli") started to hold an exactly similiar stance on the issue, disregarding the already held discussion on the talk page, as well as ignoring the sources listed there, apart from those that are present on the main page of the topic (Shirvanshah). The user in question shows absolutely no willingness to cease making these unsourced/WP:OR edits, and using his self-made pseudo-historical theories in this matter which is also, I sincerely believe, the very reason as for why he blatantly violated WP:3RR as of some moments ago. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * response from Amamedli:

"almost brand new" is true enough but I don't understand the relevance. The fact that another user has argued the same point and lost only means that they have failed to substantiate their points. I have been lead by two users LouisAragon and HistoryofIran to believe that the sources and arguments are to be posted on the talk page, which I have done. Three respectable sources directly demonstrate that Persian language was not the primary language in Shirvan in the 15th century. I am more than willing to debate these points, but users have offered no counterarguements, no explanations as to why they view my sources as unreliable. Yet they have instantly declared my edits as inadmissible. They point me to prior debate, which I have read and don't believe those sources refute my case. HistoryofIran's reference to Iranica article only shows that the Shahs were Persianized, however I am not debating their cultural affiliation. Seljuks and Timurids sustained varying degrees of Persianization as well, that does NOT mean they spoke Persian. Incidentally all I changed was the order, putting Azerbaijani transliteration of the title first and Persian second, instead of the other way around as above two users adamantly insist it should be

I also strongly object to the 'street talk'. It is absolutely unnecessary to dispense with accusations such as the ones made here (self-made pseudo-historical) as well as on the talk page. I have been advised by HistoryofIran to "go read a English dictionary". This is not only unnecessary but also shows absolute lack of good will and intent to improve the article. These comments demonstrate undue motivation to retain certain references which amounts to Anti-turkish sentiment that belongs in intra-Iranian politics, not on Wikipedia. This is unreasonable. I ask for an intervention. Amamedli (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. I'm also alerting the editor to WP:ARBAA2, since they have taken an interest in our article on the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Moscowconnection reported by User:MugiMafin (Result: No action, per discussion)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=677383737&oldid=677382507]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=692331734&oldid=692330926]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=713793794&oldid=710878875]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=715702060&oldid=715694361]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=717422755&oldid=717399302]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=722096406&oldid=722091199]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=722544557&oldid=722483348]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Japanese_idol&diff=723026151&oldid=723023226]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_idol#There.27s_more_than_just_the_.22cute_teenage_girl.22_kind_of_idol]

Comments:

The reported user continues to act uncooperatively regarding my concerns about the definition used in the article's introduction. I've offered several new versions on the talk page by now, and my last edit took all his previously mentioned concerns into account and was properly sourced, but he still reverted it without giving proper reasons for it. He himself hasn't offered a single new version taking my points of concern into consideration. It's almost as if he sees himself as the owner of the article and doesn't want anyone to change his definition.

The talk section has become a huge wall of text by now with several repetitions of arguments, but the comments starting with this post might give a sufficient idea of what's going on: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_idol#Response_to_third_opinion_request] MugiMafin (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This report is a response to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And I'm just returning the definition to the previous version, the version that hasn't drastically changed since 2008 or so. MugiMafin, on the other hand, has already changed it in several different ways without asking anyone. I'm even afraid to look at it now. Cause anything can happen any moment and I will, yet again, have to do something about it. Some of his versions were completely different from each other. He just doesn't like the first sentence, that is the only thing he appears to care about in the whole article. And look at this discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Oshwah proposed to add another definition. I said okay, let's try, how can we do it? And this is what MugiMafin proposed:. This is something (in my honest opinion) almost incomprehensible and something that simply destroys the first sentence. Why the first sentence? Why again? I think this constitutes a failure or refusal to "get the point". I support a really long period of full protection. (MugiMafin has already make the article worse a little bit, but okay... I just want to have some peace and do other things. I planned to be really busy in the Russian Wikipedia, but now I have to be here. I don't want to see this anymore. I don't want to have to come to the article to check if something terrible has happened. If MugiMafin wants, he can create a sandbox and rewrite the article here. Then we will look at his work and we will see what we can add and change and how. [He will write a better article and invite Nihonjoe and me and we will also place a notice on the WikiProject Japan talk page and I also have an idea to invite a great user from the Japanese Wikipedia.]) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC) "This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use" — You proposed this version just yesterday and it's just a bad idea, it won't work like this. You just added "but some people say" and repeated (or, rather, copy-pasted from the source) more or less the same thing all over again, but without the word "cute" and with expressions of doubt everywhere. It's confusing, unreadable. The more you try, the more I see that the current definition is good and there's no reason to change it. You're just making it worse. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC) If I were you, I would have already written a big paragraph that describes different types of idols. It could include different definitions, whatever. But you just return to the first sentence, why? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Yesterday morning he seemed to say he just wanted to add the word "typically" in front of "young" and I was't letting him to. Do you think it will make the definition better? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC) (Correction. Oh, no, he basically said he wanted it to say "typically young", "typically manufactured", "typically cute". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)) (I hoped MugiMafin would do something great with it, I would look and say "Great, we'll add this thing to the definition. That's a great source!".) Okay, we'll see what state the article is in in three months or so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually got the alert about your post when I had already been editing this report for about 10 minutes. Kind of a weird hivemind situation but understandable considering our exchange on the talk page of the article and your last revert. MugiMafin (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The main problem seems to be User:MugiMafin, who has made repeated unsourced changes to Japanese idol. But it's unclear if a block of only one party could be justified from a review of the talk page. Another option is a really long period of full protection. That would imply that changes could only be made with consensus. If we had some kind of discretionary sanction for this topic area, it would be something to consider, but we don't. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The situation has changed since the reverting started though. We're at a point now where my changes get reverted even when they're properly sourced and explained in the talk page. See diff 5, 6 and 7. MugiMafin (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * MugiMafin is the only person who wants to change the definition. See this comment by Nihonjoe. (And also see 's comments on the "Japanese idol" talk page.)
 * . It started to worry me that you called me a "party". Cause there's simply one user (MugiMafin) who comes to the article and makes non-consensual changes. That's all. No one else wants any changes to be made. I personally consider this a torture. (One user in the whole Wikipedia with enough energy to waste on attempting to change one sentence he doesn't like. And I think it's this one user who should stop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is really just one sentence it should be easy to use WP:DRN or open an WP:RFC for the sentence. Offer your version on Talk, MugiMafin can offer their version and then others can give opinions. Can you specify which sentence that is? EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the very first sentence of the article. I like the current version. MugiMafin has offered several versions, but the current version is better. There have been already a third opinion request and on 27 April I placed a notice on the WikiProject Japan talk page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My different versions were attempts at eventually reaching consensus. I thought the more I offer, the more likely it is to find a compromise. But what makes finding a compromise so hard in this case is that Moscow Connection is unwilling to move away from his version and towards a compromise. For him it has to be his version, exactly the way it is at the moment. Anything else gets reverted, for reasons such as "I don't like the way your version sounded". In that other noticeboard discussion he linked above, I offered either just adding a simple "typically" to his definition to account for counter-examples, or using something along the lines of "This is one definition some people use, and this is another one other people use". He didn't accept either. MugiMafin (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At some point I thought we were getting somewhere, but you came and did this (changed the definition to something rather different). Then  came and as I can see he doesn't think that there's any reason to change the definition cause it is reliably sourced. I've still been waiting for you to come up with something, but all of your versions basically imply that idols aren't cute or aren't young and you add all these "ors", "buts", "typically" that make it hard to read.
 * At present, it seems correct to say that *only* MugiMafin supports his version of the opening sentence. If User:MugiMafin will agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by a talk page consensus, this report might be closed. Others have been active, including User:Oshwah and User:Nihonjoe and I don't see them supporting MugiMafin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, I'm finding both of them to be a little hard-headed in this situation. They seem to be talking past each other instead of cordially discussing the topic. What we need to see there is, "Here's what I propose as a change: . What do you think?", and the other person responding to that. Instead, they seem to be focused on how the other editor is being inflexible and uncooperative, which never gets anyone anywhere. The walls of text from each of them certainly don't help, either. I think the sandbox idea someone mentioned is a good one, or just make brief proposals on the talk page, and make sure the proposals are backed up by reliable sources. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I agree with Nihonjoe. I will acknowledge the fact that they are discussing their grievances and disputes. As we see too often, editors quite commonly can't even accomplish that much without an administrator leashing them back. However, the manner in which they are discussing the issues isn't collaborative, it is argumentative as in "I like my way better and not yours because [REASON] ", back and fourth and without realizing that both of them are defining their own researched versions of the same term, which is why I suggested that they list each aspect that both of them found ("idol" can be defined many different ways; people have different opinions on who or what they "idol"). It seems like a no-brainer.... However, I have not seen an effort to have this happen. Instead, their discussion still feels broken and not structured in a manner that supports reaching a consensus together. Are they being combative? I'd say no, but I feel like it will likely become so if the status quo continues.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oshwah, when I read your suggestion to include both definitions next to each other yesterday, I actually immediately agreed and said so in the other noticeboard discussion. Moscow Connection is the only one objecting to it. If we got Moscow Connection to accept the two-definitions solutions, then that would solve the whole problem. MugiMafin (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not true. I said "okay, let's try it". And you proposed a version that changes the opening sentence yet again.
 * @Moscow Connection: Oh, looks like I got you wrong then. I thought you were against having two definition next to each other in the first sentence in general, not just against my specific version. But if you're open to having two definitions next to each other in the first sentence, let's move the discussion about how to best implement that to the article's talk page. I'm going to start a new talk page section tomorrow and ping you. MugiMafin (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, after looking at your version I am against having two definitions in the first sentence. And I don't think ever suggested to do that. It's simply impossible to implement. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just replying to his posts or his actions. Almost every time he returns, he changes the definition, so I have to write an explanation why I changed it back.
 * This is part of the problem: you both need to stop stating, "I'm just doing this" or "I'm doing this, but the other person is doing that". Stop focusing on what the other person is doing and instead focus on proposals. Make them very clear and concise, and don't comment on the other editor at all. Comment on why you like or don't like the proposal, and then offer any suggestions you have to move toward compromise. This may involve agreeing to something you don't entirely agree with in order to move things forward. That's okay. No one ever gets everything they want all the time. Focus only on improving the article. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You should look at the broader picture. What's best for Wikipedia. I was actually hoping Wikipedia would get a better article and then a better definition. While I was busy creating articles in another language. But...
 * @Nihonjoe: I know our talk page section has become a real mess, but if you read through it, you will see that I actually tried that several times. And I did it again in that other noticeboard post. But all of my proposals get shot down, often for illegitimate reasons. MugiMafin (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree to make no further changes to the article until they are supported by consensus, but I don't see how that will help us solve our problem. My concerns with Moscow Connection's version are that it ignores counter-examples that are already listed in the article (in this section ). His concerns with my latest versions on the other hand are that they don't sound nice enough for his taste. I doubt that counts as a legitimate concern, and reverting sourced changes is only justified if the concerns are legitimate. MugiMafin (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * MugiMafin - Thank you for understanding. For purposes of this edit warring notice board, this thread can be closed if no action is going to be taken for violating 3RR.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   20:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC


 * Result: Closed with no action, per the discussion here and the recommendation of User:Nihonjoe. Any administrator may issue blocks if the reverting continues. The way to avoid this is to get consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:SAMESURNAME, also her title is capitalized"
 * 2)  "/* Early life */ Not yet a Marcos"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */"
 * 4)  "/* Early life */"
 * 5)  "/* Early life */ split paragraph"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 7)  "/* References */"
 * 8)  "WP:SAMESURNAME"
 * 9)  "/* Early life */"
 * 10)  "minor tweaks"
 * 11)  "WP:SAMESURNAME"
 * 12)  "/* Legacy */ copy edit"
 * 13)  "details, details"
 * 14)  "modify word order"
 * 15)  "after punctuation"
 * 16)  "/* Wealth */ update on past net worth"
 * 17)  "/* Legacy */ Updates of play about her"
 * 18)  "/* Legacy */"
 * 19)  "/* Later years */ Update of her election victory for her final term as congresswoman. This may be her last political office."
 * 20)  "/* References */ WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION"
 * 21)  "Please discuss"
 * 22)  "2nd revert WP:BRD"
 * 23)  "please se Talk:Imelda Marcos]"
 * 24)  "Switched paragraphs per talk"
 * 25)  "copyedit"
 * 26)  "/* Legacy */ Here Lies Love, references from Playbill"
 * 27)  "/* Later years */"
 * 28)  "/* Later years */ election update. She won this has to be listed"
 * 29)  "/* Wealth */"
 * 30)  "WP:LEDE"
 * 31)  "WP:BIO:"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without wa"
 * 32)  "/* References */"
 * 33)  "/* References */ better order"
 * 34)  "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her awards are moved to List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos page"
 * 35)  "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her electoral offices are moved to Electoral history of Imelda Marcos page"
 * 36)  "Incorporating controversial statements comproise, please do not revert this"
 * 37)  "compromise"
 * 1)  "/* Legacy */ Here Lies Love, references from Playbill"
 * 2)  "/* Later years */"
 * 3)  "/* Later years */ election update. She won this has to be listed"
 * 4)  "/* Wealth */"
 * 5)  "WP:LEDE"
 * 6)  "WP:BIO:"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without wa"
 * 7)  "/* References */"
 * 8)  "/* References */ better order"
 * 9)  "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her awards are moved to List of awards and honors bestowed upon Imelda Marcos page"
 * 10)  "/* References */ Overcategorized. Her electoral offices are moved to Electoral history of Imelda Marcos page"
 * 11)  "Incorporating controversial statements comproise, please do not revert this"
 * 12)  "compromise"
 * 1)  "compromise"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Request for comment */ Comment: re her name."
 * 2)   "/* User:Imeldific */
 * 3)   "/* Request for comment */ "


 * Comments:

This has been a somewhat slow-burning edit-war, and having moved from the article talk-page, to editors' talk-pages, is generally being ignored, with the repeated insertion of personal cruft. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS have been the chief victims. Unfortunately a general inabilty to talk pervades this editing. Muffled Pocketed  22:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * response from Imeldific:
 * There was already consensus in parts of the disputed content in Talk:Imelda Marcos []. The previous user involved in the content dispute, Spacecowboy420 have more or less come into terms with me []. There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Imelda Marcos which I initiated. Proper Dispute resolution can be done there. Imeldific (talk) 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Commenting to note that Imeldific made and then withdrew a retaliatory AN3 report against . Diff with withdrawal can be seen here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The report lists six reverts over two days which shows a pattern of edit warring. This user periodically states they have compromised, but it is hard to see evidence of that. Continued promotion of the mononym 'Imelda' which does not appear to have consensus (see reverts #1, #4 and #6). There is no substitute for waiting for agreement on Talk. The user continued to revert while their own RfC was open. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723286089 by Clubjustin (talk) unexplained reversion, again. Isn;t that against the rules?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723285670 by Clubjustin (talk) reverted without reason, went on to threaten me"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 719914362 by Bonewah (talk) It's from his own writings. This page already has 19 refs from "juancole.com", delete them of you a re a hypocrite"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Juan Cole. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Clubjustin and Bonewah have been reverting me without explaining themselves and have not gone to the talk page after discussion was opened. Their only shred of a reason was that I had an "unreliable source", citing Cole's views from his own writings as has been done 19 other times in the article. I said "delete the other 19 or you are a hypocrite", meaning that they are not a hypocrite as the phrase was subjunctive. All these people do is threaten rather than have any logic. Their litany of unexplained reversions and lack of cooperation should carry a punishment itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr0p th3 pr3ssur3 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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: [diff] See comments below.

Comments:

I am trying to discuss something on the article that I do not agree with on the talk page and he keeps on removing it. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG... is correct to remove the content per WP:NOTFORUM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a forum discussion. Somebody wrote in the article that the person will not return next season without proof. My view is that is should not be included in the article without proof or source and that is what I am trying to say in the talk page. Anyway, it does not matter whether you are right or wrong in a 3RR violation. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Two more things: (1) user failed to notify Jim1138 (so I did ) and (2) this editor has quite an extensive warning and block history.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought he is automatically notified when I linked his username here.108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the red text in the red box at the top of this page. You are required to notify editors on their talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  05:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:The Almightey Drill (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

&#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (below) -- slakr \ talk / 05:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Part reported by User:Qed237 (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723247182 by Qed237 (talk) Attention Admin - please comment and resolve"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723237237 by The Almightey Drill (talk) unclear removal of referenced information which adds"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723234231 by The Almightey Drill (talk) Please see David Beckham, his parents are listed, no. of children - why is this an issue here?"
 * 4)  "full name re-added along with more info (both referenced)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 723222704 by Mattythewhite (talk) infobox updated with more info (referenced info)"
 * 6)  "infobox update"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clear edit warring against multiple editors to their preferred version of infobox in BLP. Qed237&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 05:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:GHcool reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Comments:

The editor is very well aware of 1RR and editing in the ARBPIA area, having been topic banned for long periods before> I let him know he broke 1RR, he acknowledged my message but refused to undo the second revert.

Response from GHcool:

As I explained to Mr. Sepsis, I did not revert. My action was consistent with BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Within five minutes of doing so [explaining my behavior to Sepsis], I took Sepsis's criticism seriously, edited the page in question, and let Sepsis know that I had done so. The claim of edit warring is untrue and this report is frivolous. I expect an apology from Mr. Sepsis. --GHcool (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC) Bold edit done at this time: --GHcool (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This looks to be a plain WP:1RR violation by User:GHcool. His defence is hard to understand. Both of these edits (within 24 hours) remove text added by the other party (including 'peace activists') so they are both reverts. A partial revert is still a revert, regardless of any good intentions. GHcool was warned and had the opportunity to self-revert but did not take it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of my defense is difficult to understand. I am happy to clarify if necessary.  I'm rereading BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and I feel as though this difference of opinion could have been solved in the peaceful way that it is outlined there.  If there a conflict between 1RR and BRD that I do not understand, then I will apologize for my actions, but as of this moment, I honestly cannot see the reason for this arbitration.  --GHcool (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation. WP:BRD is only an essay, not a policy. You have been around long enough that you should know these things. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HierSchniedelwichsen reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "htese are not opinions and sourced - you may not like them, check the sources."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723376697 by Billmckern (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723376221 by Billmckern (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 723373609 by Billmckern (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 723370824 by 38.110.155.101 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of defamatory content on Jeff Weaver (staffer). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jeff Weaver (staffer). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR */ new section"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to include very serious BLP violations. GABgab 18:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * for violation of username policy--regentspark (comment) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:223.197.66.178 reported by User:The Madras (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722508546

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723176459
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723171601
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=723116986
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luke_Woodland&oldid=722860222

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:223.197.66.178 under Luke Woodland

Comments: Given 3 warnings of differing severity, no message left either by unregistered user either on my or their talk page.

The Madras (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Gcook3354241 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 06:53, 31 May 2016‎ diff reverted by me
 * 02:18, 1 June 2016‎ diff semi-reverted by Rebbing
 * 08:14, 1 June 2016‎ diff reverted by me
 * 17:42, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by me
 * 18:29, 1 June 2016‎‎ diff reverted by User:McDoobAU93
 * 00:59, 2 June 2016‎‎ diff
 * 18:28, 2 June 2016 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: diff – This was an attempt on the user's talk page to address the issue on specific terms. The response from the user was uncivil: diff.

Comments:

In the midst of disruptive editing from several anonymous and/or new editors, page protection was requested and applied. Despite this, the edits from this particular editor persisted, hence the request for additional oversight at this stage. The sources the editor has cited (which have changed each time) neither confirm the claim, nor are they considered reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The most recent attempt appears to invoke the park's website, but when the URL is entered, it returns a 404 error. I manually browsed the target site and found what I presume was the intended page and there is nothing there to support the edit. -- McDoob AU93  13:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks McDoobAU93. Yes, I came up empty as well when I checked that source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I was willing to chalk up the activity at Lightning Rod to inexperience, but, based on his comment to GoneIn60 as well as his contributions, it's clear Gcook is not at all interested in learning how to edit constructively or play well with others. I think an indefinite block for incompetence or NOTHERE may be in order. Rebb ing  19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reported by User:Amitashi (Result: OP blocked)
Page:

Uses being reported: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Page:

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

Page:

Users being reported:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Amitashi (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reason I am reporting is my feeling of personal manhunt from User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 as well their violation of WP:NPOV in mentioned articles. In Self-determination articles User:Wee Curry Monster reverted two changes that fairly equated statuses of Crimean referendum and referendums in Eastern Ukraine. As I mentioned in comment on report about me there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but there is no same Crimea paragraph. I consider fair to mention both cases or no one of them. In Crimea article User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Toddy1 reverted neutral word in advantage of arguable and politically affilated point of view. User:Toddy1 is clearly politically affilated as her pro-Ukrainian page says. I remind you that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine topics are strongly controversial so I made improvements towards impartiality. Also I accuse User:Wee Curry Monster of slander because it is my only Wikipedia account in years and I never cheated being as he said "sockpuppet" which is clearly insult.


 * With regard to clearing out my talk page, see the notice at the top "If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia." And also, , .  Of the two reverts above,  removes POV laden paragraph added by Amitashi,  is restoring information removed by Amitashi per WP:POINT ie an act of simple vandalism.  Reverting vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR.  When he refers to "constantly edit my explanation post on Admins' page." he means reverting his editing of other people's comments per WP:TPG.  WCM email 08:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Running up to three reverts on two articles and five on another before reporting the editors only reverted a couple of times... Then complaining about someone cleaning up their talk page like they have no right to do so, after doing so not just once or twice, but three times within the past day... That's just far too hypocritical to leave unchecked. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

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:

I haven't included too many diffs from Ukraine as the editing is complex but the edit warring there includes reverting changes where a helpful editor had corrected his English grammar errors. The revert pattern there is spread over several edits so its difficult to present as a clean diff. Edits violating WP:NPOV, using unreliable sources and blanking his talk page anytime he is warned. Rather suspect this may well be the sockpuppet of an already banned editor as they seem remarkably aware of editing for a newbie. WCM email 22:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * On the article on the Ukraine, Amitashi made five reverts; the limit is three. The edits were as follows:
 * Initial edit.
 * Revert EvergreenFir
 * Revert EvergreenFir
 * Revert Rwessel and add citations to RT (unreliable source)
 * Revert Toddy1 and changed citations from RT to fake citations that do not mention the things Amitashi cited them for. This is discussed at Talk:Ukraine.
 * Revert Khajidha who had objected to the word "Cancellation" and replaced it with "Cancelling"
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC):Reason why I made edits was absence of info that would correspond to image in Ukraine article. First edit was reverted because it had no cites, I repeated edit with adding cites, but it also was reverted because Toddy1 didn't like the source, I made third edit to add respective sources (The Guardian and NY Times) and then did few grammmar edits that were not caused by me but by editors of my additions! In Crimea article I made edits with explanations but when I saw that my edit is arguable I stopped edits and added subject in discuss page! In Self-determination discuss page I found violation of WP:NPOV because there was paragraph on Eastern Ukraine considering it not self-determination but editors reverted my same Crimea paragraph saying it is not self-determination. There should be both or no one. I understand edit warring policy so if i'll face such thing in future I will use discuss page.


 * . Technically for the Ukraine reverts, but further reasons given below.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:35, 1 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:52, 31 May 2016 as User:208.81.212.224
 * 2) 01:17, 2 June 2016
 * 3) 09:37, 2 June 2016 - warning issued at 10:41, 2 June 2016
 * 4) 11:23, 2 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:41, 2 June 2016

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

Comments:

On May 31, an anonymous IP tagged a reference I put in the article as being unreliable on the I Predict 1990 page. I removed the tag put on by the IP and now Walter Görlitz is driving an edit war. I would like the user warned. --evrik (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are both at 3RR now. Frankly you both need to use the talk page more than a single time instead of pointing fingers because it looks like you are both equally at fault.  I've full protected the article for 4 days.  Since almost no one edits that, I don't see much collateral damage here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My user page makes it clear that I and the IP are the same editor.
 * Actually, removing a template to a dubious source is not acceptable. I'm surprised you walked away unscathed. The fact that you engaged in an edit war seems completely lost on you. Thanks . The discussion at ANI makes it clear that the source is poor and a better one must be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At AN3, the main focus is on warring, which it was bordering on. As to what content is best, that is why I locked the page.  That is a content issue, not really an administrative issue.  If a source is unreliable, WP:RSN is the place to has that out.  Here, no one breached 4RR, so no blocks and it isn't the right venue to judge sources.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:124.170.2.188 reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723512570 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - information being deleted is accurate and sourced/referenced"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723511699 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - "IgnorantArmies" clearly editing on behalf of McLachlin, deleting entirely correct & sourced information"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723510989 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - relevant information gone"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 723506098 by IgnorantArmies (talk) - deleted critical information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Hamish McLachlan. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Massive WP:BLP violations, but not really outright vandalism. Article has been the subject of sporadic but persistent BLP-violating edits (beginning in April 2012, most recently in September 2015), presumably this IP was involved with those earlier edits and has now popped up again to try and get that info back in the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was previously semi-protected because of these sorts of edits from April to July 2012. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for BLP violations and page temporarily protected. --regentspark (comment) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jauerback reported by User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See entire talk page - ongoing issue, consensus not yet formed. Edit warring resumed by numerous involved editors on page unprotection.

Comments:


 * Comment The links provided are not reverts. Also this User talk:Keri is not an attempt to resolve the issues. PVJ would do well to read what is and what is not a revert. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This has to be a joke. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 19:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . Consecutive edits. Read the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Seth Red Star reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: Blocked 1 week )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The reason I wanted to make this edit was because Disney XD is now back in Canada."
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "Something that had to do with the brand"
 * 1)  "Something that had to do with the brand"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

WP:3RR violation! This is the continuation of an edit war from two IP addresses for which both were blocked days ago. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I already blocked him a week. His last block was as an IP a week ago doing the same thing.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Epipelagic reported by User:Too Small a Fish to Fry (Result: No action. Gentle warning to one editor)
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:

Comments:


 * Note 's edits are hours apart; and in the meantime, has been reverted by multiple editors on theat article. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

NOPE! I only reverted epipelagic's edits, not the others. And that's only because he was being so ridiculous like editing for consistency "required a consensus."

And that number of hours doesn't change the fact that he was edit-warring. That's the same kind of thing that people told me while I was in IP mode. Remember, if your edit-warring even cross the line of breaking 3RR, those 4+ reversions can be hours apart but still be in the same day. And why reverted by multiple editors: for trying to be consistent or something like that? And then for trying to fix my wrong? Oh, give me a freaking break! Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've sent more edits total during this time, but that was only because they were partial (a few groups of similar edits; make some and then save, make a few more and then save; they don't count as multiple reversions). I can't say this editor has broken 3RR yet, but he is still warring in general.

Sometimes, back when I was just an IP-editor, I got a warning only after 2 edits, but nobody supported me by calling that warning "trolling." However, this editor and his little crony Ihardlythinkso (see my other report here ) seem to believe that my warning to him "doesn't count," and are calling it "trolling" even though he was edit-warring. Now how does that work?

And then when they tell me not to include the s of a plural into a link with a pipe, per WP-advocated way of forming a simple plural with a link, I go back to unform those then. But instead of praise or even just neutrality for fixing those back, what do I get? I get YELLED AT and reverted AGAIN, and even accused of "disruptive editing" for doing what they told me was the preferred WP way! What's that about?

Therefore I recommend blocking both of these editors (see my report of Ihardlythinkso for more detail about this guy, including his WP:UNCIVILITY to me in the talk page).

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 12:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should examine 's edits on that article. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  13:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. You'll see that I was just:

1. Fixing comma issues, making them consistent to what was already there, even according to the MOS,

2. doing a few other little things along the way, maybe (I don't remember for sure what),

3. thinking (but I see now that I thought wrong) that it was better to to contain the s of a simple plural within a piped link, and then making all those adjustments, then

4. responding to an instruction that that was against WP code by putting them back, and

5. making some edits in parts (meaning that multiples between other people's only count as ONE edit, really), and then

6. noticing that McGeddon has shown the difference between links that should be that way vs. ones that shouldn't, and leaving his edits in place.

Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see a 3RR violation so there is nothing that needs to be done here. However, Too Small a Fish to Fry, you need to tone down your rhetoric. Repeatedly using 'edit warrior' as a pejorative as you do Talk:Fish (not to mention the use of 'jerk') is not exactly conducive to getting positive attention from the community. You'll be blocked if you continue to do so. Also, while it is an essay and not policy, WP:BRD is not a bad thing to live by.--regentspark (comment) 18:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Uh, HELLOOO, RegentsPark, '''you do not need to break 3RR to still be edit-warring. The warning even says that. I already said in the report that I knew it was not a 3RR yet, but that it is still edit-warring'''. Why is it that there are so many times when someone can be blocked just for edit-warring that isn't 3RR yet but then you come along and don't see it as a violation until they've hit 3RR?

Why can we not call a person the actor of what they're doing (if they edit-war, then they're an edit-warrior, etc.)? And then why is it that if it's supposedly "not okay" for me to say that someone else is an edit-warrior, even ADMINS can call other people that only for doing this same thing like they sometimes called me while I was just an IP address here?

And why is it that I'm the one who gets chewed out for using the term "jerk" but nothing is said to the person who used it against me (Ihardlythinkso, whom I reported over at general incidents along with epipelagic, for incivility)?

Is there just something about you guys that make you think that the editors you believe have been here longer should get the upper hand and should get more immunity? What's with that? Too Small a Fish to Fry (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

^^^.
 * Too Small a Fish to Fry, a couple of edit reverts don't make an edit war. As far as I can see, no one is problematically edit warring on that page but you should consider the philosophy behind WP:BRD (in other words, you are on the weakest ground). About the behavioral issues, you can't go around calling editors "edit-warrior Epipelagic". You can accuse an editor of edit warring (along with evidence) but the way you've put it is not acceptable. My suggestions to you are well meant but, of course, it is entirely your prerogative whether you follow them or not. (You might also want to look into the virtues of brevity.) Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 01:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Clear per discussion till this mess is sorted out."
 * 2)  "/* Awards and decorations */ Remove per Compassionate727  and standard policy, since it's in dispute."
 * 3)  "Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."
 * 1)  "Remove per Compassionate727 and standard policy, since it's in dispute."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is exercising WP:IDHT and pushing POV through sweeping removals of content replaced today by myself as well as an administrator,. The content was replaced following edit warring and restoration of unreliably sourced content by the individual being reported here three days ago. Same editor has been edit warring at another Chris Kyle-related article, American Sniper as well as at the Chris Kyle article talk page,. He's been warned before about this behavior at the Kyle article and the article talk page and was brought here a few days ago before it was FPP'd. Further, he filed a bogus 3RR report on (seen here, above) today. The reversions he just completed were to revert what Jauerbach replaced.. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Look in a mirror Winkelvi. I stayed OFF the page when you started edit warring mere minutes after PP expired, described by another editor as ""a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming". Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG? Irondome (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why you think WP:BOOMERANG be appropriate, . I have not been edit warring at the article nor any of the other pages I mentioned in this report, so your suggestion that I should received a 3RR block for reporting PVJ is confusing to me.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am curious why you resort to the boards so much. Talk more, less drama is my suggestion. I will say no more. Please just reflect. Irondome (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you don't think the individual being reported has been edit warring and should not have been brought here? If that's the case, why has the page been full protected for a week by ?  No one else other than the editor reported has been edit warring at the article. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Withdraw your complaint and continue dialogue. This should be the last option, not the first. Advice. Have you ever voluntarily withdrawn a complaint and resumed dialogue? Absolutely my last word, as you deserved a comment. Irondome (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Dialogue has been ongoing with the editor for days, to no avail. I started an RfC so dialogue would occur.  The same individual was reported a few days ago for the same thing at the same article and they started up with it again today.  The article is now locked down for a week, a solution that is preferable to me.  I'd rather see the article FPPd than someone blocked as it forces dialogue to happen.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To review: Winkelvi discussing with another editor regarding collusion to not work with other editors and intent to begin the edit war again as he did. I'm not the only one noticing Winkelvi's pedantic and disruptive behavior either - it's been observed as "a blatant attempt to derail and bypass the discussion above where consensus was forming" (quote from ), and "This RfC is in bad faith and an attempt to ignore that discussion and should be struck... Furthermore, it is one of the worst examples of biased push-polling I have ever seen" (quote from same). Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably has much more to do with the IP editors, whether recruited from on wikipedia or outside wikipedia... plus the fact that admins are backlogged and I was one of the ones who helped REPORT the IP war that Winkelvi started several hours ago before I went out for a date. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was pinged here so I'm going to close this. I locked the page after an RFPP request, because there are way too many actors in this little drama, IP and registered. I need to note that I'll be mostly unavailable starting Sunday for the next two weeks, so any admin can remove the protection once the dispute is resolved. Katietalk 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked one week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 723628798 by Winkelvi (talk) Source is a gossip rag with no editorial trust; "Interview" claims fail as WP:SPS."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 723625039 by DHeyward (talk) please stop inserting nonsense with bogus sources."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 723617971 by DHeyward (talk) gossip rags don't count as "sources" for ridiculous and fantastical claims."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 723583730 by DHeyward (talk) seriously. What's your WP:COI personal connection to the subject?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Confirmed kills */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Confirmed kills */ comment"


 * Comments:

This is the third edit warring report filed on this editor in as many days with the second filed earlier today. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just another round of bad faith lying and misconduct by Winkelvi, the abusive personality. Getting tired of his harassment and trolling shit. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: removed this section twice 1 2 Jim1138 (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: the abuse by Winkelvi and DHeyward is getting downright silly. WP:TAGTEAM behavior, constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and roving around to find anywhere they can to push their POV about someone they have agreed to tag-team edit on in DHeyward's talk page. I'm not surprised that Winkelvi is trying yet another bad faith posting, it seems his go-to harassment technique to try to troll people. So you know what? I'm going to bed now because I know precisely what these two disruptive editors are up to and guess what, their troll tactics are having the desired effect - it's pissing me off that they continue to do this. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit warring and is getting old. This
 * "Undid revision 723583730 by DHeyward (talk) seriously. What's your WP:COI personal connection to the subject?"

and this


 * "Undid revision 723629464 by DHeyward (talk) do not remove templates properly placed. Especially when you're the most likely suspect for the WP:CANVAS issue."

These attacks and insinuations, including the canvassing template, keep coming even after his bad faith SPI was closed.

is just coming off a 3 month block/no TP access for similar personal attacks, edit warring and socking. Since that 3 month block ended in mid-May, he's already been blocked for edit warring. One year or indef seems appropriate.

--DHeyward (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

(rm personal attack) --DHeyward (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Their individual sub-par behaviour at American Sniper and Chris Kyle indicates that this group of editors are prepared to edit war and POV push until an admin fully protects a page to put an end to their nonsense. They are all veteran edit warriors, all should know better, and have been made aware recently that they should seek page protection and discussion rather than tit-for-tat reverting one another. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, DHeyward and Winkelvi are all equally at fault on these 2 articles and all equally deserving of a block to prevent further disruption should they persist in this infantile fashion. Keri (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This was more clear cut than the Chris Kyle saga, but here's a warning to all of you to cut it out right now. Katietalk 11:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Stevo1000 reported by User:Tony Fan123 (Result: Declined)
Sorry if I am doing this the wrong way, but the above user keeps reverting edits of 'The Trafford Centre' page. The citation clearly states that the official name of the centre has changed, but the user does not seem to understand this. Please could you rectify this problem?

Thanks.Tony Fan123 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . When reporting users at AN3, you need to provide the diffs (edits) that have resulted in the edit warring. Hope this helps! Vensco (T / C) 18:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, do you happen work for Intu Properties? Wikipedia is not an advertising service. It opened as simply the Trafford Centre and it is still commonly called the Trafford Centre. You only have to do an online search to see news outlets do not call it the Intu Trafford Centre - they simply refer to it as the Trafford Centre. I have cited WP:COMMONNAME on multiple occasions as Intu is not necessary. Stevo1000 (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot read the citation. Accept that you are wrong and move on. Yes it may have opened as the "Trafford Centre" but it is now no longer called that. It's new name is "Intu Trafford Centre" How is this making it an advertising service, when this is its official name. 2.125.3.219 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 20:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Mawlidman reported by User:81.157.92.125 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Undid revision 723538314 by VictoriaGrayson (talk) a notable controversy reported in many sources is worthy of inclusion (23:37, 3 June 2016)
 * 2) Undid revision 723595366 by Montanabw (talk) Liar! Both links clearly working (04:20, 4 June 2016‎)
 * 3) Undid revision 723649740 by 213.205.194.152 (talk) per previous reasons (12:05, 4 June 2016‎)
 * 4) Undid revision 723666680 by 213.205.194.152 (talk) "Wikipedia is not advocacy" is a baseless claim. Proof of advocacy not provided by disruptive editor (14:06, 4 June 2016‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: 4 reverts in 14 hours against 3 editors.


 * Yes indeed User:Mawlidman is reverting everyone and displaying WP:OWN.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 15:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 reverts in Hissène Habré adding the baseless claim that he is the first national leader convicted in the court of another nation; see Manuel Noriega for the counterexample. He has also displayed incredible rudeness on his talk page and has been flagged for disruption. Methinks he's WP:NOTHERE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:75.162.244.4 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I've already blocked the 75* IP for a laundry list of bad behavior. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)