Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive319

User:The Master reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 724742292 by Alexbrn (talk) Per discussion, the article is not to be about Stone's ideas. Please reach consensus on talk."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 724741538 by Alexbrn (talk) Revert whule talk page discussion ongoing"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 724739250 by Jytdog (talk) Revert per discussion on talk. It discusses Stone's ideas. Stop edit warring or you may be blocked from editing."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 724738979 by Jytdog (talk) Please stop edit warring"
 * 5)  "This is not what was discussed on talk. Also fails WP:MEDRS"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

This grew out of this talk page discussion, in which The Master expressed dissatisfaction with prior removal of extended content about Stone's ideas, which had been removed per COATRACK. They got support to have ~some~ more discussion of Stone's ideas; The Master took that as license to restore the entirety of the rejected content. I reverted that edit since it was not what they had support for (and was still under discussion), and obviously in retaliation (and like the 3RR report below) The Master POINTY-ly removed well sourced info required by PSCI. This is disruptive edit warring and is blockable in my view. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Lies and misrepresentations, as usual, from the above editor. Jytdog regularly abuses guidelines to preserve articles in his preferred version and whenever he's about to hit 3RR, Alexbrn magically appears to continue reverting (this has happened repeatedly and across multiple articles and involved multiple other editors). Earlier, he said he didn't want anything in the article about the subject's ideas, citing WP:COATRACK, which was fine with me. Except that now he does want a paragraph about the subject's ideas because this one is negative, while the others are neutral, and Jytdog wants to push his POV. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz and User:208.81.212.224 reported by User:Evrik (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: 14:02, 6 June 2016 Preferred version of the article: 15:51, 9 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:33, 7 June 2016 - first edit after protection removed
 * 2) 01:16, 8 June 2016
 * 3) 13:11, 9 June 2016
 * 4) 19:29, 9 June 2016 - reverted edit where disputed source had been removed and cn tag put in its place

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 12:22, 2 June 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia:Reliable sources
 * Talk:I Predict 1990

Comments:

This is not the first go 'round for this disagreement. This is really a tempest in a teapot, but more than the content difference, I don't appreciate the bullying behavior exhibited by Walter Görlitz and his IP 208.81.212.224.
 * User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Evrik (Result:Full Protection)

Let me state the facts as I see them.


 * Prior to 11:22, 31 May 2016, the article and been static for about 3 1/2 years.
 * My in initial edit was reverted.
 * My second attempt to insert content then became an edit war on the reliability of the source, which resulted in a one week protection.
 * After the protection ended the whole thing started up again.

I admit, the few other editors involved don't think it's a great source, but even after I removed the disputed source in an attempt to meet half-way, I'm being reverted. I will admit to using Pinocchio to comment on the truthfulness of a statement, but I don't deserve the insults: Thank you. --evrik (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Being told to shut up.
 * Having my competency questioned.
 * Being called a dick.
 * So he did not list his own reverts, against WP:CONSENSUS. One editor here indicated that he believe the source was not reliable. Two at RSN have stated it as well, and of course, since the start, I have claimed the source is not reliable.
 * After the first RSN editor commented and I replied and there was a lull, I removed the content at the article.
 * evrik said that it should be taken to RSN on the article's talk page, I indicated that it had been and part of his response was "Really though, I would say that the commentary in the blog is good enough to substantiate one line of text" essentially saying "I don't care, I'm going to use it because I think it's a good source for its purpose". At that point, he restored the content with the unreliable source to the article.
 * I continued to remove it explaining why each time and discussing on the article's talk page as I did. All this was over the course of two days.
 * Now I am really digging into the issue and have discussed the other salient point on the discussion at article's talk page: why does this one song need to be mentioned at all when there are nine others that are on the album. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, I use this IP while at work and the registered account from home. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have seen this feud before, can't remember where from, but I think it was a thread on WP:ANI last week. Anyway, I would recommend that everyone on the talk page calms down a bit, and the current state of the article as I look at it now does not look obviously problematic. I can't see any immediate need for protection or blocks, as there's not enough activity on the article to justify it. The only real thing I can suggest is the dispute resolution noticeboard. In any case, since I have had a finger in this debate, I am going to declare myself WP:INVOLVED (particularly since I think I expressed an opinion that the blog wasn't good enough to be used as a source) and let another admin take the decision on what to do with this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – Unless I misread it, there was no support from anyone else in the RSN thread for Evrik's desire to use empoprise-mu.blogspot.com to make a point about 'cult of personality'. Evrik should not count his own opinion as being enough to decide the matter. I urge User:Evrik to let this matter go unless he can find another source for the point he wants to make. For him to include the 'cult of personality' wording with *no* source is not meeting anyone halfway. It goes against WP:V. (Contentious material that is challenged and can't be sourced should be removed). Some people have engaged in personal attacks (as pointed out by Evrik) and that should not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and thanks for not using a WP:BOOMERANG. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out, that any change I make to the page. ANY change is reverted by either User:Walter Görlitz or User:208.81.212.224. They also keep leaving messages on my talk page like this one. --evrik (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the WP:BOOMERANG is now in order. Doesn't understand that the messages are warning templates. Doesn't understand that wikipedia is not a battleground. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that Evrik is now angry that that things are not going his way and has decided to become WP:POINTY in the article and talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not angry. If I am making a point, it is to show that whatever edit I make is being reverted. This is the best example, I removed the disputed citation, left a tag on the text saying it needed a better citation. That too was reverted. I don't believe that Walter Görlitz is editing in good faith. I also don't appreciate the warning messages left on my talk page and the insinuation that I'm being a vandal. --evrik (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The point was made on the talk page: I have removed sentences about individual songs. However the qualitative difference between a sourced controversy and the meaning or theme of a song was not recognized. The last time you tagged the musical themes, I removed the tag as it was referenced in the liner notes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the edit that evrik linked is not the current issue, is. It removes a reliable source that indicates Taylor's concert tour in Australia was cancelled because of a controversy around a song he wrote. It is similar to  where he tagged the stylistic origins of two songs—relying on two classical pieces. http://www.allmusic.com/album/i-predict-1990-mw0000864119/credits supports that, in part, but not to the song.
 * No, my issue is that WHATEVER edit is made gets reversed. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talk page is around discussing the theme or thoughts behind the songs themselves. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the page has rambled from the quality ONE citation, to whatever it is now. The reason I have brought this issue here twice is the way that Walter Görlitz and the IP SOCK User:208.81.212.224 keep driving an edit war, using insulting language and abusing the term vandal to get what they want. --evrik (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I am not an IP SOCK puppet. I use the IP while at work. That use is declared on my user page. I won't go into the reasons why I elect to do so while at work, but there is a rationale.
 * Second, the discussion on the talk page has progressed from discussing the source to questioning why there needs to be a discussion about themes of individual songs. I'm sorry if that's perceived as rambling.
 * Third, there is no edit warring. What we're† doing is telling you not to impose your opinion on the article. At first, it was clear that you were ignoring advice that the source was not reliable and then continued to add the content without reference. You have yet to explain why, but I suppose that's not really important. There has been very little abusive language. The links explain what's going on. Again, I'm sorry you're reading the links such as META:DICK and WP:COMPETENCE and not following the links to the essays that discuss what's going on behind the comments.
 * Finally, I don't believe I have ever called you a vandal. If I have, it should not have been said. You are trying to improve the article, but you're going about it the wrong way. I'd be glad to fully apologize for calling you that if you simply point to where it was stated. If it's the warning templates on your talk page, they're not stating that you're a vandal. Disruptive editing, which WP:POINTY addresses, is not the same as vandalism. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * † The we here does not imply that I at home or while at work constitute two editors. Rather, all of the editors who have weighed-in have focused on your edits as being problematic, hence we. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't want your edits reverted, make good ones. Start by discussing the edits and waiting for other editors to agree or disagree. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AmericanExpat reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I had made proposals for change on the Talk page.  Not my problem if you guys don't read what seems such an important matter to you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 725207455 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Fixed citation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) uw-3rr
 * 2)   "/* edit warring notice */"
 * 3)   "/* edit warring notice */"


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


 * Comments:

The editor in question has responded to warnings regarding edit warring and BRD with claims that he doesn't require consensus []

Personal attacks []

statements that if he doesn't mind if he has to get blocked to get his way []

more personal attacks []

and a response to accusations of sockpuppetry stating "Let's say I am a sock puppet account. What of it? " []

So, not only edit warring. Incivility and a general lack of respect for any rules that all editors are required to follow. WP:NOTHERE would be an apt description Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This article has been plagued with what appears to be years of inflammatory opinions, bias, bad citations and insubstantiated claims. There appears to be several editors, who perhaps have had some unpleasant personal experience, who seem bent on retaining the bad quality of writing on the article with the excuse of "consensus prevails."  That is rather like the proverbial three wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for dinner with the consensus prevailing.


 * The article page will not be edited to any extent without some adversarial conflict such as this. So be it.


 * Yes, what if I answered accusations of sock puppetry with "what of it?" Why does the editor not actually respond to the enumerated points of concerns on that same section instead of fulminating about my "fucking" edits and accusations of sock puppetry?  Was the plan to ignore my concerns and engage in vituperative exchanges to delay and thwart attempts at conforming the page to Wikipedia standards?


 * As stated, the editor, unprovoked, accused me of being a sock puppet and started off the acusation with the word "fucking."  So the claim of personal attacks seems a bit rich.


 * AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional - Despite this being a new account, this editor has been editing under more than one IP in the past, so I'm assuming he is more than aware of 3RR rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You are ignorant on this matter and you have raised the issue so I think you shuld leave it there. I had one other IP address, which I had been using for very minor Wikipedia edits.  I stumbled upon this disasterous article under the IP.  I raised some concerns but it became apparent that the editors were intent on keeping the incendiary and biased tone of the article, not to mention illegitimate citations and outright inaccuracies.  So I created the current account to make an official complaint with the Help desk.  I freely stated there that I had made changes (under the previous IP).  So this claim is ridiculous and unfounded.


 * AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Also - "Fixed citation" is a highly deceptive edit summary. It was a mass removal of content  (-2,660) with a summary of it being merely fixing a citation? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a citation fix in addition to reverting back to my edits which instilled neutrality and objectivity to the article. I am sure anyone semi-intelligent can tell the motive was not to deceive other editors.  Almost all of the citations in that introduction section were in need of removal or moving to another section.


 * AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised no one has started an SPI, since this new account's edits are similar to the recently blocked sock User:Cleftetus. One of their first edits to the page was to propose renaming to Ethnic Issues in South Korea, the same title Cleftetus favored, complete with a capital "I". Random86 (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Good call. I guess as soon as I get a moment free in my (not very busy) workday, I will be filing an SPI report as well. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I find it very amusing that this editor takes the same ("similar"?) edit suggestions on a very controversial article and presumes it must be one person making the same suggestions. I think it shows lack of judgement, curiosity and intellectual honesty.


 * By all means, please do file the report. AmericanExpat (talk) 09:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin, please be advised there is a request for an admin oversight on this page. It really needs to be rewritten and completely overhauled. It is far below the quality standards dictated by Wikipedia. AmericanExpat (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was pinged here by (thanks). I warned AmericanExpat about edit warring, but unfortunately that seems to have been ignored. Having said that, I'm not without sympathy for the editor, I myself found the tone of the article deeply disturbing and near-racist in tone. I've avoided editing it myself in case I needed to use the mop, but it really needs some serious oversight Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right. But, that's a content issue, and certainly no excuse for edit warring, especially when you have been warned and you combine it with a "go ahead a ban me, I don't care" attitude .If you don't like content, you follow BRD then try the vast array of options we have for discussions, resolutions and third party opinions. I might have some sympathy if he had tried every avenue and eventually got sucked into an revert war...but the account's first ever edit was a revert. [] - which kinda shows he is here to revert, not discuss. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All the more then- the SPI should be interesting! Muffled Pocketed  14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No. One, my first edit was not a revert.  Two, there appears to have been many attempts to tone down the language on this article and you guys through "consensus" shut them all down.  The last AfD was dismissed with "change the content, if need be."  Did it change?


 * You guys have the most ridiculous and asinine statements on there. You take some stupid article, like the BLOG STORY on one black person who (along with a white person) did not get a job interview and you use that to cite for "black Americans are frequently denied jobs."  What kind of joke is that?


 * You make claims like that the US expressed concern over "the widespread nature of racism in SK," then you link to some unpublished article by some imbecile who teaches English just because he submitted his UNPUBLISHED document on a DOE affiliate site. It wasn't even reviewed by an editor.  The site is open submit to the public.  But being on that website makes it "US (not even the Dept of Education but the US Sec of State or something) expressing concern over widespread racism" in a foreign country.  Like the US really cares?  Doesn't the US have its own problems?


 * Then you have some idiot who pretends to be a foreign policy expert on South Korea but who is, in fact, just a lit professor (that was his PhD). He self-publishes (wow, that's got to instill confidence) and true NK policy experts all pan his books.  Yet, somehow, an OPINION EDITORIAL he wrote is a legit reference for "Koreans believe that they are the least inclined of all people to commit evil," and that's why SK didn't believe a warship sinking was perpetrated by NK.  As I stated, do you not think SK witnessed horrific evil, maybe unprecedented evil, committed by the Communist North?  Really?  And that gives you the perfect segue into, "so Koreans denigrate foreigners by calling them filthy and unclean"?


 * And that is just the intro and the first paragraph of the main body. It is a disgrace.  You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If you don't like Korea, just don't go or live there.


 * I find it really curious how my Talk points have been up there nearly a week and not a peep from any of you except one to accuse me of being a sock puppet doing "fucking" edits but the minute the suggestions get implemented, all you so called so-busy people come out of the woodwork to defend complete drivel. How very curious!
 * AmericanExpat (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Admin, please note how some people in the general public do not understand that Wikipedia is an open source reference material. There is a Reddit thread discussing racism in South Korea and the OP starts, "How's racism in (south) Korea doing? Wikipedia says it's not doing so well, unless they're mistaken?" And s/he goes to link to the article in question and explains how the citations checked out. Really this article needs to be completely overhauled. It is really embarrassing. AmericanExpat (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * . Don't bother filing an SPI. AmericanExpat is ❌ to .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Bbb23, thanks for the heads up, regarding the SPI. It saves me wasting more time on the seemingly millions of Massyparcer socks accounts, that I've had to report. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

71.217.109.105 and 79.75.109.90 reported by User:Gladamas (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Users being reported: —

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:
 * 1) ...and another forty-one fifty-one more reverts:

I (Gladamas) am a completely uninvolved user relating to this topic. I saw this hours-long edit war involving two anonymous editors while patrolling on Huggle, and thought it would be better to bring the issue straight here rather than to the talk page. –Gladamastalk 13:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Semi-protected 1 month. Neil N  talk to me 14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:64.151.2.245 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Semi)

 * 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 not in the letter of WP:3RR (though edit-warring is not restricted to violating 3RR), but the user in their edits     has insisted on making some character descriptions in the article that are broken into separate paragraphs into one paragraph, without explaining why. Warnings are on their talk page, all in this month, and user has not made any effort to discuss their change after reverted. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've re-added this report as it was prematurely archived. Unresolved. Amaury (talk) 04:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. User still does not get it, and continues to make unconstructive edit . Still not violating the letter of 3RR given the difference in time between their edits, but nonetheless edit warring. I decided not to revert this edit for now, but having the article their way with the descriptions each in one paragraph does not improve it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP has previously been blocked three times and never uses the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bender235 reported by User:Jujutsuan (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this revision

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has more than violated 3RR and refused to initiate a discussion per other editors' request (not me, someone else). Has been warned not to start an edit war by another editor via edit summary.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * No one suggested to "initiate" a discussion. BrxBrx reverted my edits claiming that the issue in question had been addressed on the talk page already, which it had not. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – The latest diff is from June 13 and this is a very active article. If there actually was an edit war involving Bender235, it must be ancient history by now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:100E:B141:37A0:1104:5BA7:5438:C3CF reported by User:Aloha27 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 725446968 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 725446831 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 725446627 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 725446202 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 725445451 by Aloha27 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Quack, revert."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP sock of blocked User:Who R U?   Aloha27   talk  18:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to add a 3RR report for a sock. Just report to WP:AIV instead for obvious socking or ask an admin who's familiar with the master. Neil N  talk to me 18:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:B137 reported by User:Berkserker (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page as well as user talk page:

Comments:

I found this page to be under constant violation of this user (and some others) for several years, presenting personal beliefs, citing irrelevant sources, synthesising and fabricating facts. Tried to reason with the user, but the user prefers to avoid communication and reverts despite numerous warnings. The article is a complete mess, its only purpose is to debunk the facts with factoids and fabrications. The reverts are so fast that even caused me to make an edit conflict error while I was in the middle of my revision. The page is under constant supervision by the user and any changes by any user are reverted within minutes. I could date activity back to 2011.


 * I have responded to all your messages and discussions. The lead of the article relies clearly on the koppen classification. But there is well publicized evidence of falling short of a tropical climate, including the plant hardiness rating, documented cold spells, and occasional freezing weather. Not only did you effectively section blank, you removed relevant images. B137 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While my earlier edits were of more questionable quality and I used to confront deletion and editors, I would say approximately my most recent 20,000 or so edits have been of objective quality. I create and add a lot of content to articles, including a few good articles. I have not been mired in any kind of significant controversy for several years. I recognize the lack of credence that may be asserted by my redlinked user page. It's been long deleted, I have little interaction with editors, and have enjoyed the stability of my contributions since raising the quality bar for myself. B137 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with your redlinked user page. In fact I support equality for all kinds of accounts and ip addresses. As for the content, it needs scholarly articles to question climate categorisation. According to what we have since the 1800s, as well as two revisions in the early 20th century and the later new classification systems proposed by other climatologists such as Trewartha, there is a consensus and all have the identical definition for tropical climates. The criteria have been revised for other types such as the threshold for the continental climates. The additional climatological revisions and new systems have been proposed to define mid latitude climates better, tropical and arctic climates have never been questioned. The limit set in all classification systems for tropical climates is 18 degrees Celsius for the coldest month and the city you are questioning has a mean temperature of 20.2 degrees Celsius, it is well above the threshold. There have been instances when numbers have been rounded up, for instance 17.5-18 degrees being considered for tropical climates or 0-0.5 degrees being questioned for continental climates. The thing is I was ready to discuss these with you on your personal talk page or the article talk page, however you chose to skip the argument, giving evasive answers instead and kept reverting. In order to cope with your methods the only method is to revert and edit-war, which is something I don't want to do, so you gave me no other choice to report the activity. It isn't my intention get anyone "punished", however on both your personal talk page and the article's, you didn't want to collaborate and discuss, instead you evaded my questions and comments and insisted on your synthesis of news articles, which have nothing to do with climate classifications. They are just proof that all cities/regions in the world experience record highs and lows, which is why extremes are documented by meteorological services for each locale. Otherwise extremes have nothing to do with climate categorisation (not only for tropical climates). If you have read about a scholarly article or publication contesting mainstream science, you are very welcome to present that. It would change the climates of the world we know as of today. However there is no such debate as of now, and the climatological community is in consensus with tropical climates for centuries. There are debates still going on for other types, such as continental and arid types. The thing is, this page (admin board) isn't the place to discuss these, if you had openly talked to me on talk regarding these topics, I would very well have explained you the same things, like I tried to do with other details both on your and the article talk page. Also I already explained why I removed some of the images, the article doesn't have enough text after the change, to support as many images anymore. Berkserker (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have been fairly busy in real life but let me just break the fourth wall here and say this is a ridiculous overreaction. The article starts out with and only includes that is is a tropical climate according to Koppen in the first paragraph. But to say a place that has recorded snow flurries and has had multiple instances of freezing weather, as well as weather that kills tropical flora and fauna, and then you add to that that it is literally outside the tropics and is also landlocked to the north, allowing occasional cold fronts that align just right to have little modification from water as Key West sees and even Miami Beach sees, enough for their all time record low to be five degrees Fahrenheit over Miami's. And when I say the data has recently changed. I mean that Miami (and much of the United States) moved up a half step in plant hardiness rating for the 2012 update, so if anything climate chage/AGW is now relevant to the discussion. The monthly averages chart has increased over the past five years as well.
 * http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/yos/resource/JetStream/global/climate_max.htm Frost is mentioned for some climates but for tropicals there is no mention of frost danger.
 * This USDA research center is title "Subtropical Horticulture Research" http://www.ars.usda.gov/main/site_main.htm?modecode=60-38-05-00 - The only mention of [not sub]tropical research is for their location in Puerto Rico.
 * Even tourism and advertising sites (who try to spam the great weather) refer to Miami as subtropical: http://www.miamihabitat.com/Miami-Weather_en.asp
 * http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-01-21/news/fl-thin-blooded-floridians-20110121_1_community-blood-centers-south-florida-blood-thickness You can do your own Google searches and determine what, or how much of what, passes as sufficient evidence, but I suppose you may only tout Koppen, who painted the world with a broad brush going by a single climate metric. B137 (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. You could ask for more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Miami or at WT:METEO. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 725166439 by Moriori (talk) WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Fyunck(click) (talk) to last revision by Bloodofox. (TW)"
 * 3)  "RV: Stop with the pseudoscience. Read WP:UNDUE. Folklorists study folklore, which the loch ness monster is a prime example."
 * 4)  "No, "cryptids" are a concept in the pseudoscience of cryptozoology. In folkloristics, there's no such term—for a reason, as it's an academic field. Enough with the bullshit."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Loch Ness Monster. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * This guy. Welp, first of all, this is the anti-climate change guy that popped up waving a flag over at the cryptozoology talk page some time ago . He's got a problem with science and academics generally, as that diff will make clear.


 * Next, that last diff isn't a revert but a modification of his fourth edit. He's again inserted cryptid, but this time decided that it has something to do with folkloristics (or the general concept of folklore, who knows in his case). The diff to "resolve dispute" is apparently something that doesn't even involve me.


 * Finally, we've got a general problem with these articles getting hijacked by cryptozoologists despite WP:UNDUE. I recommend more eyes on the article to keep the pseudoscience at bay. For that matter, the whole thing needs to be rewritten from reliable secondary sources, i.e. academics that study folklore—folklorists—publishing through peer reviewed sources. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This did not start with me. It started with reverts of administrative editor . I asked user Bloodofox to self revert because he had reverted 4x. he refused with a "bring them around" request. So here we are. His edits on my own talk page about the subject may not cross over to outright nastiness, but they were not exactly friendly either. He does not own the article and he certainly needs to learn what edit warring is. He needs to self-revert this pronto. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nah, that fourth "revert" is me modifying your inaccurate edit, not a revert. And actually, this guy has been ignoring WP:UNDUE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, and WP:FRINGE for some time to promote cryptozoology concepts. See edits like this one and his leaning on cryptozoology sources here: . &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You had best read up on edit warring because you are wrong. You are also woefully inaccurate about my beliefs of climate change and cryptozoology, so please stop spreading lies and focus on your own poor choices. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Outside of those edits, I don't see how anyone could otherwise interpret this edit . &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just checking on the status before undoing the 3RR violation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Laser brain  (talk)  03:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure this is noted as a very poor decision by an administrator. There were at least two of us being reverted (one was another administrator), I'm not the one who reverted 4x in 24 hours.... I backed off to let it stand... I'm not making personal attacks. I just want to make sure this is noted for future reference. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: He's been blocked for breaking 1RR before.

Comments:

First revert he changes annexed to occupied, second revert he reverts another editor changing Palestine to Land of Israel.

Comment by Debresser
Wait a second. These are completely unrelated edits. Also, the second was a very tiny partial revert at best (worst). Thirdly, in view of the misleading edit summary of the the previous editor, as I mentioned specifically in my edit summary, the one word I reverted was close to a deliberate disruption. Fourthly, please notice that my edit has not been reverted, including by you, meaning that editors agree I did the right thing. Lastly, I am willing to self-revert, if an uninvolved admin here will tell me to do so.

However, in view of the above, I think that telling me to self-revert would be a futile exercise in bureaucracy, since my edit seems to be acceptable to the community and is correct in and of itself, not to mention that in just another few hours I can repeat it. In any case, I definitely had no intention to cause disruption with a 1RR violation, and as said am willing to self-revert. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Debresser See what an admin tels you. But here is my comment: Even if you undo a ridiculous edit, or even if you undo vandalism, though there was no "edit warring" just reverting two edits - I would say that you should self revert just to show that you respect the 1RR (which could very often be mistakenly violated). You could specify in your edit summary that you are ONLY doing so out of respect to the Israeli Arab arb and request that another user should undo your edit). CaseeArt Talk 20:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser, the way the 3RR/1RR rules are written, it doesn't matter whether you revert the same material or, as in this case, completely different material. It appears you have violated 1RR. Since yours was the last edit, I would recommend that you simply follow Caseeart's advice: self-revert with an edit summary that indicates you realize you violated 1RR, and wait for another editor to restore your sensible edit. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 21:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. MShabazz, as I showed above, the second edit reverted one word out of a whole bunch of other things, while that change was not even mentioned in the edit summary which was misleading, and this is all very farfetched, but I have no problem being on the safe side. I do want to stress, that I think my edit was completely correct and necessary, and I fully intend to repeat it by tomorrow morning, if no other editor has done so by then. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ha. Academic. Took no more than 2 minutes. Just comes to show... Debresser (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Debresser has shown his good intentions by self-reverting, as recommended. As his original edit was sensible and an improvement, I've restored, still in line with the recommendations. I don't think there's more to do here, and certainly nothing to be gained from blocking Debresser who has shown good faith. Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The violation was unintentional, and it has been self-reverted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; since the user self-reverted, it seems reasonable to consider them warned. Everybody gets one. *slings web and flies off*. :P -- slakr \ talk / 05:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AesopPeep reported by User:RolandR (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 725316855 by RolandR (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 725317262 by WikiPedant (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 5)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 6)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 1)  "/* Lyrics */"
 * 2)  "/* Lyrics */"


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


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

This editor is continuing with the same disruptive behaviour, even after being informed of this report. They have now repeatedly reverted, and been reverted by, three separate editors. RolandR (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * This editor is becoming quite a nuisance. He has ignored the explanatory edit summaries of more experienced editors and persists in exactly the same practice. A good blocking is in order here. -- WikiPedant (talk) 02:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; although the user was already blocked by another admin (31h), they evaded with a sock (now blocked) while still blocked themselves. -- slakr \ talk / 05:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:VLP + NP reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: protected, warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Inspector general reports and statements */"
 * 2)  "/* FBI investigation */"
 * 3)  "/* BlackBerry phones */"
 * 4)  "/* Initial awareness */"
 * 5)  "/* May 2016 report from State Department's inspector general */"
 * 6)  "/* Initial awareness */"
 * 7)  "/* Classified information in emails */"
 * 8)  "/* Initial awareness */"
 * 9)  "/* FBI investigation */"
 * 10)  "/* FBI investigation */"
 * 11)  "/* Classified information in emails */"
 * 12)  "/* Initial awareness */"
 * 13)  "/* Classified information in emails */"
 * 14)  "/* Classified information in emails */"
 * 1)  "/* Initial awareness */"
 * 2)  "/* Classified information in emails */"
 * 3)  "/* Classified information in emails */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Napolitano */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Wikileaks */ WP:PRIMARYWP:SELFPUB"
 * 3)   "/* Wikileaks */ r"
 * 4)   "/* Wikileaks */ r"


 * Comments:

WP:SPA. No engagement on user or article talk. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ditto from me: same edits over and over, we have to revert all of them, no discussion with us. MikeR613 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (semi; as an WP:ARBAP remedy), user properly of 3RR and WP:ACDS. Feel free to reopen here or at WP:AE if they continue. -- slakr  \ talk / 07:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:77.93.29.14 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:blocked 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: It's a sock puppet, user fully knows the rules

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

Comments:

Straight forward 3RR violation by a sock puppet of an indef banned user. See. Semi-protecting the page would also be a good idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And how did you reach that article other than WP:STALK? I made an edit restoring neutrally worded version. And why were your 3 reverts legitimate, even if they restored non-neutrally worded offensive wording with zero sources? The same goes for your revert warring at (also 3 reverts:, , ) or these 2 no-brainer blanking reverts at Human rights in Ukraine: , . 77.93.29.14 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note they're not even denying being a sock puppet of a banned user.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, seriously. As if your ES on "Human Rights in Ukraine" didn't give you away, Lokalkosmopolit. Your disruptive spirits have been lifted by the emergence of other block evaders there for the past couple of weeks. You're perfectly aware that multiple reversions by VM are sanctioned when it comes to socks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * , since I blocked yesterday another reincarnation I do not see why this one should be allowed to continue editing.Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:49:4001:97A5:F8F7:FF5C:6109:CEB5 reported by User:Drmies (Result: )

 * 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:

Article history is obvious. Ping as well. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm mobile--can't do diffs. Ha, I can barely see what I'm typing. If Noah's ark was on this screen I'd miss that too. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

To top it all off, the user logged in to continue this War For Pseudoscience. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've warned the new account and done some more editing. Since there is an account now, perhaps we can wait and see. Doug Weller  talk 08:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Dhinawda reported by User:71.217.109.105 (Result: Declined – malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galkayo&diff=725408552&oldid=725408304
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galkayo&diff=725437678&oldid=725416693
 * 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 keeps deleting cited content with credible sources such us UNHCR and International Crisis Group


 * Katietalk 12:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Dhinawda reported by User:71.217.109.105 (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user keeps reverting content with credible sources from UNHCR and International Crisis Group


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:NeilN. There is so far nothing on the talk page about this dispute. If either party is hoping to win support for their changes, it would be helpful if they can explain themselves on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cardinalfan24 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. The user may be blocked the next time they remove the scandal-related material unless they have first obtained a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:02, 13 June 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:14, 13 June 2016
 * 2) 18:28, 14 June 2016
 * 3) 20:39, 14 June 2016
 * 4) 15:52, 15 June 2016
 * 5) 18:18, 15 June 2016

Comments: Seeing this edit-warring happening from the sidelines, this needs to stop, admins should give a wake up call to the editor with some sort of block for obvious violation of 3RR.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 22:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Phew! I am sorry for destroying the viewing pleasure of from the sidelines. But I don't think this is edit warring. This page is one among a myriad pages that are on my watch list for defending against vandalism and sanity checks. When I realised that there is a disagreement, I opened a talk page discussion, inviting both of the other editors. A discussion followed, another editor  joined and an agreement has been reached. The last edit was a copy-edit, not a revert.  However, I wonder what Sheriff's interest is in this dispute. He has never had any interest in this page or any related page. This is a low-traffic page at this time and shows no sign of "heating up." It appears to me that Sheriff is just interested in hounding me. Frankly, I am disappointed. This is not what I expected out of a member of WP:INDOPAK. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There seems to be agreement indeed. What's the use of this report?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I missed to add the initial revert which I have added now. It can be clearly noted that the fourth revert is an example of WP:GAME as it is done just outside of a 24 hour window.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 03:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are joking! Do you imagine that I sit here watching my clock to see when the 24 hours expire? Discussion was initiated at 20:52 and an agreement reached at 05:45, in between which I made no edits. By the end of it, what happened yesterday was history, and I wouldn't connect the new edits with the old ones. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If I am not mistaken, I don't see an agreement over there. posted at 5:45 on 15 November that he changed the lead and removed the reference to "fringe theory" from the lead which he did at 5:35 but instead of continuing discussion you are reverting two of his edits in the diff number four above calling them WP:OR. You did not continue with discussion so an agreement can happen, you waited long enough so 24 hours can pass and then reverted Lorstaking. Is that not gaming the system if nothing else?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 10:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no case against Kautilya here. Sheriff, better luck next time.:-) --Ghatus (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a clear violation of 3RR, what else you need or we should make certain editors exempt from following the policies?  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 21:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Urutine32 (Result: nominating editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  17:56, 15 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,011 bytes) (+648)‎ . . (restore last clean version from 11:29, 31 May 2016 before unilateral deletions) (undo | thank)
 * 2)  14:14, 17 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,425 bytes) (+514)‎ . . (restoring article version 01:27, 16 June 2016 (per talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 3)  18:22, 17 June 2016‎ Signedzzz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (143,425 bytes) (+514)‎ . . (Undid revision 725763244 by Urutine32 (talk) What part of WP:BRD do you not understand?) (undo | thank)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User seems to believe that I can no longer make any contribution in this article without his prior agreement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Signedzzz

Comments: As I have explained in EdJohnston talk page, these three changes include deleting much new text and references and some uncontroversial changes from User:Skynden and User:Motivação. Signedzzz wrongly uses the WP:BRD (which is indeed optional and not a rule) to justify this abuse, while is outgoing a discussion (about only some of these changes indeed) during which I agree not to remove his added contributions.

Signedzzz also said personnal attacks against me, accusing me two times to "troll".

Urutine32 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will just comment here to correct whatever you want to call your above statement. The edit summary in the second diff, (as well as my explanation on article talk) makes it perfectly clear that I was only deleting your edits. Also, "during which I agree not to remove his added contributions" - you were warned already on this noticeboard 2 weeks ago not to remove those "added contributions". zzz (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * What is important is not what you said in the edit summary but what you did in actuality.
 * It is not because I am warned against something you can do the same, to the contrary.
 * The WP:BDR say "BRD is never a reason for reverting" and "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work".
 * Urutine32 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It really appears to me that both Signedzzz and Urutine32 are engaging equally in an edit war here. See here and here for clear examples by Urutine32, but I would recommend that anyone thinking of evaluating this report should look over the entire recent revision history (2+ days) for this article to get an overall feel of what has been going on. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Urutine32 has been edit-warring with multiple editors over the same material for weeks. Every editor commenting so far disagrees with his edits. zzz (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly long-term edit warring / disruptive editing. -- slakr \ talk / 03:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:Knowledgebattle (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:05, 16 June 2016‎
 * 2) 01:07, 16 June 2016
 * 3) 01:36, 16 June 2016
 * 4) 01:55, 16 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mother Teresa#Kodak

Comments:


 * As user was reverting edits, I was fixing edits I made previously. One objection by the user was that the article was written in British English, so I conformed to that objection, and resubmitted. After several times, user still reverted the whole thing, and demanded consensus. Edits were not of such significance that the user should be demanding consensus, as the meaning of the overall edits had not changed, but made more clear.


 * User eventually did respond in the Talkpage, and I responded, but due to 4 reverts by the user, and ignoring my request for conversation prior to the reverts, the user has not shown himself to be amenable, as I had attempted to be, in response to their objections.
 * KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 07:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You're both in violation of the three-revert rule, and you could both be blocked by continuing (and possibly added to WP:LAMEST)... though Knowledgebattle's additional revert despite talk page input from another editor against it (as well as "not concerned with discussing it with you, any further") is increasingly placing Knowledgebattle in the wrong here a la WP:BOOMERANG. Also, Afterwriting, "WP:STATUSQUO" is neither a policy nor a guideline. Seek dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 06:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually just to correct you, I'm not in violation of the three-revert rule, as it's stated in the 3RR that the 3-reverts must occur within 24 hours, and that reverting your own edits does not count. My 3rd revert was a revert to my own edits, within those 24 hours, so it doesn't count. (3RR exemptions, point #1) Now, please address User:Afterwriting. Thank you. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually 1 2 3 4 are all variations on the original. Of course, even if you didn't violate the 3RR&mdash;that I hope you realize and figure out you so totally violated&mdash;you're clearly edit warring, and considering you're convinced that you're not (to the point of reporting someone and challenging a patrolling admin's review, a block will happen if you so much as make a single additional change to the same content over the next week or two without gaining clear consensus for it. This is your last warning. -- slakr \ talk / 08:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So, you figured out that editing an article is a "variation on the original", huh? Way to change the topic away from your original accusation, that we were "both in violation of the three-revert rule", instead of just saying, "My bad, you're right." Oh, and just as you pointed out to Afterwriting that WP:STATUSQUO is neither a policy, nor a guideline, I'd also like to point out that WP:BOOMERANG is neither a policy, nor a guideline. Do a better job from now on, and have a fantastic day.
 * KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 21:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly you feel I'm inaccurate in my interpretation of the policies and guidelines with which, over the course of a decade, I feel I've become intimately familiar. I mean, there's at least a chance that you're right&mdash;that I've, like, gone totally mental and have no idea what I'm talking about. It'd be an interesting turn of events in my life; it's great dinner conversation: "So... you finally cracked?" they'd inquire.  "PURPLE!" I'd respond, feeling the utmost lucidity of thought and certainty that it was the appropriate response in-context. I'd be believing I was right.  So I guess if that's actually the case here, then you'd have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, I'd strongly recommend heeding my words and at least considering the possibility that I'm spot-on in everything that I've said. Your choice; I've got other stuff that needs doing. :P  Best of luck. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, facetious ridicule; love it. I do disagree with your conclusion in this specific case of 3RR (as even professionals are not 100% correct, all of the time); nonetheless, that response was fantastic. Fine, I'll ignore the article. For a while. And future edits will not be bold, nor will they be done without consensus. And, you too. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 03:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:112.215.124.169 reported by User:Random86 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Excessive addition of redlinks or repeated blue links on Heo Ga-yoon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nam Ji-hyun (singer). (TW)"
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nam Ji-hyun (singer). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This editor's IP has changed a few times, but they won't stop overlinking and adding dates to the infobox, even though I have told them this goes against the template documentation. They are making similar edits to other members of 4Minute. My talk page warnings and message were also ignored. Random86 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Ebyabe reported by User:2601:681:500:5BC2:64E4:73C5:78E5:3465 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Remember that one need not break the 3RR rule to still be edit-warring. 2601:681:500:5BC2:64E4:73C5:78E5:3465 (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Please note other editors have reverted this IPs edits. And the other IPs that have made similar edits. Which appear to all be part of the User:Who R U? brigade. The possibility of WP:BOOMERANG is strong with this one. Cheers. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 09:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As someone has already seen, your suspicions are not always correct. And you don't have to be the only one in the revert cycle to be considered as edit-warring. 2601:681:500:5BC2:64E4:73C5:78E5:3465 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * An administrator will come to their own conclusions based on the evidence provided. By both sides. I am sure they will make a fair and equitable decision. Cheers! -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - State of the Union  ‖ 09:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, because you've got everything all figured out, huh? Wow. 2601:681:500:5BC2:64E4:73C5:78E5:3465 (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected by . Katietalk 20:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:71.35.135.148 and User:88.108.215.103 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Blocked 31 and 24 hours)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: I'm going to skip adding diffs because the article's history is now such a disaster that linking to it should suffice:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have made no such effort since I'm not involved. Both primary users have been warned.RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * For that matter, at least one of these people has switched IPs and I think both did. I would seriously go through the several articles they're warring on and semi-protect each for at least a week. Please see Afgooye, Mudug, Habar Gidir, Abdullahi Yusuf Airport, Tawfiiq, Galkayo, Surre (clan), and Harardhere. Those appear to be the extent of it but I could have missed things. RunnyAmiga (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's hold on the page protection to see if the timeouts have any effect. Katietalk 21:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:101.160.150.218 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

IP User also using: User:121.220.34.132
 * and User:120.144.145.90
 * and User:121.219.13.214
 * and User:121.220.112.129
 * and User:101.160.17.224

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Many edits over the past three days but in the last 24 hours:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:121.220.112.129 and User talk:101.160.150.218

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FIA Super Licence

Comments:

Persistant refusal to co-operate. Persistant reversion during discussion and using revert comments to express their rejection of others. Apparently has a history with the article coming back for months. --Falcadore (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 72 hours by . Katietalk 21:04, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Caseeart (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 00:51, 30 May 2016 (removal of material previously added by another user)
 * 01:54, 31 May 2016 (Clear revert of same material)

Comments:

< This is a 1RR page.

Sepsis II was gaming the system by reverting the same edit just after the 24 hour period. This happened two weeks ago but it is important for the following reasons (in part as a WP:BOOMERANG).

This whole behavior needs to be stopped. CaseeArt Talk 05:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That same day, May 31, Sepsis II was edit warring against user GHcool across a few articles. |On Sepsis II then reported GHcool for breaking the 1RR and got GHcool blocked. That same day Sepsis II also violated the same rule by reverting GHcool's edit on another article.
 * Now Sepsis II is reporting other users Debresser for breaking this same rule that they just broke themselves.
 * When Debresser reported another user - Sepsis II tried to invalidate the report by saying "This isn't dispute resolution, trying to get your another editor blocked simply so you can have the version you prefer is highly frowned upon" - Sepsis II did just that on May 31. This is in addition to (apparent) personal attacks against User:Debresser but I won't get into that now.


 * That was over 2 weeks ago and not even a violation. Any personal feelings against the editor?TMCk (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC) But of course, if you don't mind getting scrutinized yourself, the needless drama board is that way.--TMCk (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with --TMCk. Yes, it is obvious that Sepsis II is actively gaming the system and maybe that would be an issue for arbitration enforcement. As for 3RR, though, I see no need for action for a violation almost three weeks ago. Jeppiz (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If you want to have a discussion about this editor's work on an ARBPIA3 page, WP:AE is thataway. Katietalk 12:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While I won't argue with Jeppiz that the "violation" is old and thus may not require a block - on the other hand TMCk's comment that there was no violation is not accurate. The three revert rule specifies that additional reverts just outside the 24-hour could be considered edit warring - not to mention the other behavior. The second comment is even more inaccurate since this is my first time coming across Sepsis II, - and I obviously never made inappropriate comments to Sepsis II like they made to Debresser.  CaseeArt Talk 13:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There was nothing to revert until close to 24 hours later so that part can hardly be seen as deliberate.--TMCk (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to comment too much more on a closed case, but we see the double standards by TMCk and Sepsis II - when certain users are reported - they immediately come to invalidate the report by falsely accusing the reporter of bias (without any evidence) and by trying to impose new rules that you can't report a user in which you have a content dispute.
 * But Sepsis II is exempt from all this - as they constantly report users which they clearly have bias against and which they actively edit warring against them. CaseeArt Talk 05:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:100E:B10C:88D0:5CA8:BC3E:4B59:C3EF reported by User:ATS (Result: Blocked for two weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 725981790 by ATS (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reverting ebyabe's meatpuppet edits of sro23."
 * 3)  "So what?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 725977325 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 725974679 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "No matter how cooperative I've been with sro on other articles, he feels the demented need to be a douche-bag shit-head back.)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 725974679 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Just because sro's a big dick hole for no good reason, Clpo."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 725974679 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "No matter how cooperative I've been with sro on other articles, he feels the demented need to be a douche-bag shit-head back.)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 725974679 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Just because sro's a big dick hole for no good reason, Clpo."


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


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

Well, you're wrong. I'm not "nothere." I try to make the Sinbad (comedian) article more accurate by saying that his stage name is a screen name because he's mostly on TV and in movies. But when clpo13 disputed that told me to talk to him on the talk page--"the d. stage on the t. page," (the discussion stage of B/R/D on the talk page), nobody's willing to talk it out with me even though he just told me to do it. Is that MY fault they're so two-faced? 2600:100E:B10C:88D0:5CA8:BC3E:4B59:C3EF (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins: see also the edit history of . There's zero doubt of sockpuppetry in my mind, involving several IPs. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  05:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And then you make personal attacks towards other editors. Because that's the way to convince other people towards your point of view. Is it any wonder no one wants to talk to you? -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract  ‖ 05:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Also 3RR at Louis C.K. ad engaging in personal attacks. The user also is being accused of sockpuppetry. &#128406; ATS /  Talk  05:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Falsely accused, yes. 2600:100E:B10C:88D0:5CA8:BC3E:4B59:C3EF (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You wish ... &#128406; ATS /  Talk  05:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * . As well as edit-warring, there are other problems, such as personal attacks on other editors, and the fact that this is clearly "Who R U?" evading blocks on numerous sockpuppet accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I now see that the same editor has used a large number of related IP addresses for the same kind of disruptive editing, on a number of articles, so I have placed a range block on the range 2600:100E:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ... and 2601:681:500:5BC2:0:0:0:0/64 too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:173.184.111.110 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: )
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1 2

Diffs of the user's reverts: -Now the other article.
 * 1) Létourneau 1
 * 2) Létourneau 2
 * 3) Létourneau 3
 * 4) Létourneau 4 - This included the correct version by Sherdog, which he reverted back to his wish.
 * 5) Létourneau 5
 * 1) Calderwood 1
 * 2) Calderwood 2
 * 3) Calderwood 3
 * 4) Calderwood 4 - As the article above, this version included the correct version by Sherdog, used via consensus.
 * 5) Calderwood 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP's talk page.

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

Comments:

IP disruptively edited both pages and the event, prompting the latter to be protected due to his edits. He refuses to accept policy and straight up updates based on his desire. I've warned him previously on the IP's talk page. I've stopped reverting as I checked the amount of his reverts. It's just a matter of him edit warring and me and other users trying to preserve the article. This is the consensus which I used as soon as the fighters' Sherdog page was updated. IPs sometimes can be reckless and this user only has such updates on his contributions. He dedicated his time to disrupt other editors that were trying to keep the articles as the WP:MMA orients us. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cheeto Jesus reported by User:Yash! (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 726086822 by Adam9007 (talk) Please stop interrupting the healthy discussion with your games."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 726086668 by Adam9007 (talk) If you lack literacy, please do not edit here. Do not blank pages with a deletion discussion current, and do not blank sourced pages"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 726086452 by Adam9007 (talk) Are you incapable of reading? The template you added applies to "WHOLLY UNSOURCED" pages ONLY"
 * 4)  "Please stop blanking. This is not UNSOURCED, and should not be blanked, and the discussion should be allowed to run its course."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Appreciate the congrats for being right on Islamic terrorism. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * The article was deleted as an obvious coatrack. Cheeto Jesus warned for clear-cut violation of NPOV, which is the central issue here.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is a sock come to haunt us. clpo13(talk) 23:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * They seemed familiar, there hae been so many socks of that kind. In any case, I'm blocking based on the username, now that I made the connection there, and WP:NOTHERE.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Jack Bauer 2016 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Latest diff as of 18 June - Similar edit has been repeated in longterm edit-warring form over the past few weeks, as part of a larger disruption, for which the reported editor has been repeatedly blocked.
 * Longterm edit-warring patern
 * Diff on 15 June
 * Diff on 4 June
 * Diff on 3 June
 * Another diff on 3 June
 * Diff on 2 June
 * Diff on 1 June
 * Diff on 27 May
 * Compare to IP sock 83.168.44.19
 * Diff on 17 June by IP sock
 * Diff on 19 June by IP sock edit-warring
 * Personal attacks
 * Diff of 4 June PA in Spanish
 * Diff of 3 June similar PA in English
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

After a week-long block, this user has started edit-warring into the lead the same meaningless statistic he has been adding as an SPA on Cyprus for the last few weeks. To clarify, the statistic is "Cyprus is located just 64 km to the south of Turkey" and variations thereof, such as "Cyprus is located just 40 miles to the south of Turkey" or "Cyprus is located just 75 km to the south of Turkey" etc. He has also resorted recently to using socks as, which has performed a single edit, identical in form to the examples stated just above. This is longterm edit-warring disruption by an SPA. Dr.  K.  21:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * - Last block was for a week, and it had no effect at all. Also semiprotected Cyprus. Since the editing is so blatant, it may be time to open a new sock case. All the red-linked accounts in the recent edit history of Cyprus are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed for ending this disruption. The IP is Bauer but two of the redlinked new accounts are recently blocked socks of LTA troll and are unrelated to Bauer.  Dr.   K.  03:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Rural Legend~enwiki reported by User:67.149.186.215 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Warned user on their talk page, created space on article talk page to discuss the issue, user has been warned before about edit warring but edited the warning. This page falls under an arbitration committee ruling from the gun control case according to its talk page.

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 04:02, 14 June 2016‎ from  &  (& others).
 * 17:36, 14 June 2016  (Plus additional consecutive revert)
 * 22:47, 14 June 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Please note that this report about edit warring without a 3RR violation.

I have noticed on previous occasions that VanEman is an edit warrior, who does not accept being reverted, and this is just another case. My first revert of his recent changes to the article gave detailed reasons. VanEman acknowledged implicitly in his first undo that he read them. In my second revert I stated specifically "Your edits were contested in detail. Please obtain consensus, BEFORE you repeat the edit. How many times do we have to explain this to you?!", and his subsequent undo also acknowledged implicitly that he read this, but willfully chooses to ignore the burden of proof. I am aware I have not discussed this on the talkpage, however, in view of my experience with him, and in view of the fact that he has read the edit summaries of my reverts, and refuses to obtain consensus, I see he is still not aware of the purpose of a talkpage and the importance of Wikipedia pillar of consensus. Since he has done this on previous occasions, and since I think editors like that are detrimental to the project, I am asking this noticeboard to temporarily block him, till such time as he acknowledges the need for him to proof that his edit enjoys consensus. Debresser (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

VanEman was warned for the same behavior recently by another editor:. He was also blocked for edit warring just a few months ago. And here he was for yet another case at this very same noticeboard also just a few months ago. Debresser (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't dispute resolution, trying to get your another editor blocked simply so you can have the version you prefer is highly frowned upon. Sepsis II (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of all that. Why would you think that is my purpose? The requested block is to impress upon VanEman that his behavior as an edit warrior will not be tollerated, and that if he wants to make a point, it is on the talkpage that he must do so, not through edit warring. I explained this above. By the way, you did notice that it is not me who is trying to push through a change here? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It doesn't excuse edit-warring by VanEman, but Debresser was edit-warring himself, as evidenced by these three reverts made within nine hours: — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I was reverting to the consensus version against an editor whom I know from experience to be a repeated edit warrior, as I explained above. When I saw that he is not stopping, and in order to not violate 3RR, I reported him here. I explained this above, and mentioned my reverts. Let's not confuse me with the edit warrior, please. Debresser (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not do three reverts and did not violate any Wikipedia rules. No one is required to get approval from others before adding up to date and well referenced information. If someone wants to voice an objection, that's what the Talk page is for. Another editor made a significant revision to the same article---deleting unreferenced information--- and was thoughtful enough to add to the Talk page, but didn't feel the need to cover the issue in advance. Debresser simply deleted my additions without first sharing on the talk page why he had any objections. He had previously objected to excessive info on Reform and Conservative Jews, but the section I just added did not mention them at all. VanEman (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If after all your warnings and blocks you still don't know that edit warning is a behavioral problem of certain editors, you included, and not the mathematics of making 3 reverts, then you should definitely be blocked, just to give you time to read up on things (if assuming good faith) or to reconsider if you are here really to contribute or to fight edit wars (if assuming bad faith). And please review WP:BRD (mentioned on your talkpage a few times, including recently) as well, for good measure. Debresser (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this at all; however, Van, take it from someone who was blocked indefinitely from chronic edit warring—it's even in my talk page archives as I have no shame. Constantly denying that you're edit warring just causes you unnecessary stress that you don't need. It can potentially reach critical levels to the point where you just blow up and are in full-out denial mode as well as getting mad at other editors who are trying to help you. I actually encourage you to check out my talk page archives and see all of the stress it caused me. Save yourself the headache. You'll have to do more than just admit you made a mistake as you've done it multiple times now, but it's not too late to change. Show other editors that you can change and discuss edits rather than edit war any time there's a dispute in order to peacefully reach a consensus. Amaury (talk) 05:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser is not a usual warrior.
 * VanEman who was blocked 3 times for edit warring (and warned over 10 times by users and admins) again broke the 3RR rule is continuing to edit war by reverting 3 times in 9 hours (modified) CaseeArt Talk 06:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser is in fact a warrior and his comments to me have been hostile and accusatory, directed at me personally rather than at the content of the edits. The first edit was to remove information from the religion in Israel article about the percentage of Israelis who are Arab. Not all Arabs are Muslim and not all Muslims are Arab. The article is about religion, not language. While he's worried that I'm adding well documented and non-controversial information, Debresser himself goes and violates the 3R rule. He needs to have a nice time out---that's not a punishment, but an opportunity to think about how to handle future conflicts.I suggest he do so respectfully, discussing the content of edits rather than personally attacking and threatening other editors.VanEman (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course my comment was directed at you personally. The simple reason is that edit warring is a behavioral issue, not a content issue. Can't hold that against me.
 * I did not violate 3RR, please strike that. Debresser (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Edits like calling the removal of two warnings from your talkpage "delete junk" today, and saying that WP:BRD is only "optional" two days after this thread was started, raise serious doubt in my mind that you plan to mend your ways. Debresser (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Exercisephys reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff (reverted me)
 * 2) diff (reverted me)
 * 3) diff (reverted me)
 * 4) diff reverted another editor

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Editor is convinced they are correct and is demanding "my work" stand even though I have raised policy concerns about it (it is dosing information which arguably violates WP:NOTHOWTO and which WP:MEDMOS generally warns against.) Editor is just denigrating other editors instead of engaging in DR. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * People kept acting offended and repeating "MEDRS", ignoring my argument for why this case is one of the exceptions MEDRS refers to. No one has really engaged with me on that except for Doc James, who seems like he may be satisfied with my explanation. I suspect that people are ignoring the actual discussion because no one else is researching oxandrolone, reading the reviews we cite, or working to improve the article. They're just trying to bring down the MEDRS hammer so that they can move on to punishing the next (perceived) misbehaving newb.
 * A quick look at Jytdog's user and talk pages make it clear that he has a habit of behaving aggressively and starting skirmishes for his own therapeutic benefit. Meanwhile, I'm trying to improve the oxandrolone article, which was total trash before I started with it.
 * I'm also having problems with User:CFCF doing damaging, careless, and unexplained reversions. This is the first time in a long time that I've been in medical land, and I am not impressed by the MEDRS Stazi. Exercisephys (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You're using sub-par sources to promote non-scientific diagnoses such as andropause. So far it is a proposed condition, and should not be stated as fact (if even at all, this is a WP:WEIGHT issue).
 * Despite these concerns being raised you continue to use poor sources on Androgen replacement therapy to promote statements such as "androgen deficiency is under-diagnosed and under-treated". This is not in line with scientific consensus, and you go against the outcomes of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to promote a fringe line with strong commercial interests.
 * You're not only at fault in that you cite sub-standard sources, but your editing is also (as has shown) in violation of editing policy and ignores valid concerns by repeatedly restoring what multiple other editors have removed.  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 08:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Admins this is kind of what I mean. Exercisphys won't hear it that I and others have policy-based objections to the specific content about dosing (not everything they are doing, most of which is fine).  This all-out ballistic reaction by them is surprising and disappointing. Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Exercisephys, it would be best had you listened to our objections, as they are based on policy--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Exercisephys has apparently given up on the issue after they were reverted again, so the content matter appears settled. Am still unhappy about the past behavior but there is no active crisis now.  Recommend closing with a warning. Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:95.180.98.187 reported by User:Jetstreamer (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 726088403 by Jetstreamer (talk)Ок, ако не рачунаш wet-leased авионе, онда укупна флота броји 21 авион ако знаш да број"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 726057903 by FkpCascais (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 726057343 by FkpCascais (talk) I don't care, it is an official information from the airline, so beat it!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 726018798 by Jetstreamer (talk) You obviously didn't read the whole text in the reference I've given you. Take a close look and you will se it is wet-leased and don't revert!!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 725955365 by Jetstreamer (talk) READ THE OFFICIAL REFERENCE!!!!"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP keeps warring despite warnings and article's talk page discussion started by them Jetstreamer $Talk$ 23:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 21:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

User:137.147.132.115 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 726270941 by Amccann421 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 726270736 by Amccann421 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 726269359 by Amccann421 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on FIA Super Licence. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on FIA Super Licence. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This page, FIA Super License, has recently been the subject of a discussion on whether or not a table of drivers should be included. This IP-jumping user continues to add the table, reverting my edits, without consensus, discussion, or reasoning. Although there is no consensus, no one other than the IP (across a few IPs) has supported the edits (see the article's talk page). I left two warnings on the user's talk page and asked them, in the edit summary, to stop each time I undid their reverts. Amccann421 &#160; (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Davidcpearce reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 726283983 by Eminent Jurist (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 726283738 by Eminent Jurist (talk)"
 * 3)  "10 Things You Didn't Know About Buzzfeed."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 726282664 by Eminent Jurist (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 726282177 by Eminent Jurist (talk)"
 * 6)  "see below"
 * 7)  "see below"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continued edit-warring even after warning. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  08:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * by . <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dhinawda reported by User:Libanguled (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. He did not respond to my talk and he kept reverting the new content I added on the article.

Comments:

This user keeps reverting the content with reliable source I added on the article. I explained the content I added on the article's talk page. The user did not respond to the talk and he kept reverting the new content.

See below <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Dhinawda reported by User:Libanguled (Result: Stale )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I explained the the content I added. He did not respond to my talk and he kept reverting the edit I made to the article.

Comments:

This user keeps reverting the referenced content I added on the page. I explained my edit on the talk page but he did not respond and he kept reverting the new content I added


 * There have been no edits for 24 hours, so I assume things have died down. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Mentatus reported by User:188.32.101.127 (Result: )
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:

edit war, Moldova removing Moldovan language. 188.32.101.127 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:188.32.101.127 reported by User:Gladstonemoscow (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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: User:188.32.101.127 and User:Azxdw are adding and reverting information that was reviously disscussed on the talk page.

Gladstonemoscow (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 188.32.101.127 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Uhh...report 188.32.101.127 for edit warring on...this page? Timothy Joseph Wood  17:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP was blocked. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare  ‖ 21:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Anjo-sozinho reported by User:Hebel (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: third entry on the page

Comments:

This user, User:Anjo-sozinho has a history of adding POV edits to articles on Portuguese Royalty for some years now. He has not been reported for the first time. See for this earlier incident. The user involved insists on making references to a WP:Fringe claim that has it's own article here, that he seems to be a fan of, or at least would like to have mentioned on a basis of equality with claims that are not WP:Fringe. His edits have lacked consensus throughout earlier incidents and also lack to give any context considering the WP:Fringe quality of the claim involved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Who promoted the revertions was not me, but the other user (Gerard von Hebel). He intends to win the community by "fatigue" through its constant revertions on a matter which he is not understood. Please verify that he also has eliminated information that remains verifiable literature sources. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Having been editing on Portuguese royalty articles for several years now and having worked with Hebel and seen User:Anjo-sozinho's edits, I must agree with Hebel that Anjo-sozinho has been nothing but disruptive. He often attacks the sources of others as not credible but then uses obvious non-credible sources ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_I_of_Portugal&type=revision&diff=726023547&oldid=725593609 like this edit's source, an online unsourced historical dictionary). Similarly, he very often supports everyone that contradicts him works as part of a "Miguelist conspiracy" to distort facts. He is rude, disruptive, and not helpful to the community nor its articles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rude? Well, ok... when you have no more facts you used the insult. If you want to promote false information as it happens in the articles of Miguelist claimants, ok... but the fact is that the Hebel information about this subject is just POV and you like to help him. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically this problem pops up just about every two months on this or other articles and is mostly repetitive. As the lady involved was not a legitimate descendant of the Portuguese Royal House (or not even a descendant at all) her pretense is obviously WP:FRINGE and cannot therefore be treated on par with others in the articles involved. I am aware that Wikipedia mentions dynastic titles for more sides in actual conflicts of pretense, but we have to stay a little serious and call a hoax a hoax, or better not mention it on an equal basis as past consensus on these articles has maintained. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Who are you to affirm that Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is not a bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal? She is also cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). And she is cited by several historicians and authors as the real legitimated daughter of King Carlos. Read: These sources are sufficiently varied to attest that this is not a simple assumption on the lady of parenthood. The article of Maria Pia of Braganza are quite vandalized and neutralized, so not even understand why they do not allow more issues to rectify what is missing. But what is not admitted is the amount of false titles attributed to Miguelist pretenders. They may be descendants of ancient kings (but it is also controversial), but what is factual is that those titles are not officially recognized in Portugal and they are still used and challenged by other famous throne pretenders. Your activity here in Wikipedia only promotes the absence of neutrality and the publication of false titles in favor of these people. Etc... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Humberto Delgado; ''Memórias (Colecção "Compasso do tempo"). Lisboa, 1974, pp. 233–234.
 * Manuel de Bettencourt e Galvão; Ao Serviço d'El-Rei (Cadernos Políticos), Lisboa: Gama, 1949, pp. 123–129.
 * A.H. de Oliveira Marques; História de Portugal - Vol. III'. Lisboa, 1982.
 * Jean Pailler; D. Carlos I Rei de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand Editora, 2000, pp. 158.
 * Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand, 2006.
 * Jean Pailler; A tragédia da Rua do Arsenal. Lisboa: Editorial Planeta, 2009.
 * Mariano Robles Romero Robledo & José António Novais; Humberto Delgado : assassinato de um herói. Lisboa, 197-.
 * Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisboa: Minerva, 1983.
 * Mário Soares; Portugal amordaçado: depoimento sobre os anos do fascismo. Lisboa: Arcádia, 1974, pp. 274–278.
 * Francisco de Sousa Tavares; O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983), in Escritos Políticos I, Porto, Mário Figuerinhas, 1996, pp. 246–251.
 * José María Zavala; La Infanta Republicana: Eulalia de Borbón, la oveja negra de la Dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2008.
 * José María Zavala; Bastardos y Borbones. Los hijos desconocidos de la dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2011.
 * Ronald H. Chilcote; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012, pp. 37.
 * Isabel Lencastre; Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos Dos Reis De Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012.
 * Fernando Dacosta; O Botequim da Liberdade. Lisboa: Casa das Letras, 2013, pp. 176–177.
 * Miguel, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed as his real name Miguel Januário de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
 * Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Nuno de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
 * Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza (false title, he is just a pretender) should be renamed to his real name Duarte Pio de Bragança and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in his article;
 * Isabel, Duchess of Braganza (false title, she is just a pretender) should be renamed to her real name Isabel de Herédia and used the correct Pretender/Infobox in her article;


 * The user Gerard von Hebel replaced again the false information with a fantasy title and invented "Pact" atributed to Duarte Nuno "Duke of Braganza". Please... there's any neutrality here! Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned this addition solved the matter very satisfactory. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Having also monitored and occasionally edited the articles on descendants of the former Portuguese dynasty, I have also observed and responded to the edits of Anjo-sozinho, who appears to sincerely believe what he edits, but becomes disruptive because he repeatedly edits against requests made of him on the talk page and against consensus, then reverts and continues to attempt to have his POV edited into these articles without first obtaining or retaining a consensus for such edits. FactStraight (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * POV is the replacing of titles of fantasy and the constant reversions (with deleting) of the Infobox/Pretender box and referenced information in the Miguelist pretenders articles. Their articles are not neutral and have a lot of advertising just to promote their cause and have also a lot of FALSE information. How can it be accepted, can you explain me FactStraight? It's impossible to have consensus when some people publish FALSE information based on fantasy titles and fantasy reigns. Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Now cleary we can see that Gerard von Hebel is playing with our face, Cristiano Tomás! He is replacing the fantasy titles as if they were true titles of royalty; he is eliminating all the Infobox/Pretenders in Miguelist pretender articles (and tell that they are real members of royalty in a Republic); he is are reverting all information (mine and now even yours) just to promote lies and in a brazenly non-neutral way... and are trying to accuse me. I ask your help. We can not allow lies in Wikipedia. I'm constructing a consensus with you, but Hebel is trying to destroy all. See his editings... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, stop trying to pitch people against each other, it's sad (also playing with our face is not a phrase btw). Secondly, I support the use of the infobox/royalty and consensus came to use it on Duarte Pio's talk page months ago for his page and the other related miguelist dukes, so you are the only one who is acting against it, and thus disrupting the page's stability and going against community consensus. He has also not reverted any information of mine that was not in good faith (once again, stop trying to cause a fight, it's not respectable). You are the one "destroying consensus" on wiki. You need to learn that whatever your personal views are have no bearing onto wiki and its articles. No matter how fervently you may believe in Maria Pia or the Braganza-Coburgs, credible sources, community consensus, and abiding by Wiki's policies and rules will decide how and what material is presented in an article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hebel reported by User:Anjo-sozinho (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 2) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 3) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 4) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 5) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 6) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 7) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences
 * 8) House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article differences  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjo-sozinho (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: third entry on the page

Comments:

This user, Gerard von Hebel has a long history of adding POV edits to articles on Portuguese Royalty for some years now. He still editing and reverting articles based on false and unreferenced information. The Miguelist family is just a set of pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne. All information and titles cited as "factual" (Princes, Dukes, etc.) are just fantasy and based on Miguelist advertising literature (remeber that all they live in a Republic). It's impossible accept information like this and refusing to name the other claims, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and Duke of Loulé for example. This user factual accuracy doesn't exist and he isn't neutral. That's the truth. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Gerard von Hebel just wants to cover up the real information about the History of Portugal. He constantly gives titles of fantasy to the Miguelist pretenders. Just to remember one of the most relevant fact from the History of Portugal: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Also Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic. It's important to everyone here in Wikipedia remember this historical fact. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically indeed an edit war, but also technically no 3rr vio on my side. I do not give people titles. Wikipedia convention does that. If the user is displeased with that he has to take his case elsewhere. The Constitutional article he mentioned was reverted a few years later, as he has been told repeatedly over the last year. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Who promoted the revertions was not me, but the other user (Gerard von Hebel). He intends to win the community by "fatigue" through its constant revertions on a matter which he is not understood. Please verify that he also has eliminated information that remains verifiable literature sources. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As the community can see in the article of the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or in the article ofthe pretender Duarte Nuno de Bragança, and many others, the user Gerard von Hebel still reverting factual and neutral information to disputed factual accuracy versions, and giving several titles of fantasy to the pretenders of Miguelist line and also counting with the (now usual) Cristiano Tomás support in that attitude. They accused me just to continue to publish their loved false information about this subject. Hebel user deleted also information based on verifiable references... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Having also monitored and occasionally edited the articles on descendants of the former Portuguese dynasty, I have also observed and responded to the edits of Anjo-sozinho, who appears to sincerely believe what he edits, but becomes disruptive because he repeatedly edits against requests made of him on the talk page and against consensus, then reverts and continues to attempt to have his POV edited into these articles without first obtaining or retaining a consensus for such edits. FactStraight (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * POV is the replacing of titles of fantasy and the constant reversions (with deleting) of the Infobox/Pretender box and referenced information in the Miguelist pretenders articles. Their articles are not neutral and have a lot of advertising just to promote their cause and have also a lot of FALSE information. How can it be accepted, can you explain me FactStraight? Thank you. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Hebel continues vandalising all my editings and deleting factual (and referenced) information. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these issues have passed a few months ago and a few months before that also and so on. And while this user failed in most of these endeavors because he keeps pushing his pet peeves against any discernible consensus again and again, nothing new is brought to the table. It's just a repetitive series of incidents that crops up every few months. Now I suppose that we thought it would help to give at least a mention of his heroin in one of these articles, it backfires again on a few weasel words he insists on adding and his attempts to make consensus by unilaterally inserting his text again... It's getting rather tiresome to be frank.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * After I have been insulted by you, I have nothing more to tell you about this subject. Only that your lies will not go unscathed. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

User:The Almightey Drill and User:JoshDonaldson20 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

The Almightey Drill:

JoshDonaldson20:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Almightey Drill: Josh Donaldson:
 * 1)  "Analysis:  I think we need better comment than from the Daily Mail"
 * 2)  "Analysis:  There already is a reaction section, including from the media. These two websites are not the be-all-and-end-all"
 * 3)  "See the media section of the reactions. This is giving too much weight to two websites"
 * 4)  "There's already a section for media reaction, get consensus on the talk page. This was a worldwide event and media voices should be interpreted subjectively as is already done"
 * 5)  "These are unreliable sources"
 * 6)  "Kroos being man of the match and his statistics are facts. We have sources for the performance of Fred. You are adding objective analysis from Britain's most unreliable newspaper and two websites as if it were fact"
 * 1)  "keep it in for now, but keep improving it"
 * 2)  "the reaction section is more fan reaction rather than pundit analysis/commentary"
 * 3)  "he media section doesn't talk about game tactics"
 * 4)  "also noting that they analysed Kroos and Freds' performances in that section"
 * 1)  "also noting that they analysed Kroos and Freds' performances in that section"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Although I don't see a straight 3RR violation, they have been edit warring on this article for more than a week now. They have continued reverting despite both receiving a warning. No talk page discussion has taken place between the editors either. Tvx1 21:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bong009 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Photographer source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2250912/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"
 * 1)  "Photographer source http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2250912/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm"
 * 2)  "/* Cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Spider-Man: Homecoming. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This users has been restoring improper formatting and unsourced content to Spider-Man: Homecoming against 3RR after being warned that their changes were unsourced. Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:166.171.186.25 reported by User:Meters (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: or

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rev-Del has been requested on some of these edits or edit summaries so they may no longer be visible. One edit also includes a legal threat.

Note also identical edits yesterday by the nearly identical IP User:66.171.186.11. Meters (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Also. John from Idegon (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected three months. The second IP making similar edits is presumably . If problems continue we could try a block of . That range was previously blocked in February by User:HJ Mitchell. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note there are revisions on the talk page and edit summaries in the article that should probably be Rev del. John from Idegon (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

User:CounterTime reported by User:HafizHanif (Result: Page protected)
I asked CounterTime (talk) to acknowledge good faith efforts, and allow for the "citation needed" tag to play its role in allowing current or previous editors to cite certain claims. Instead of recognizing that time is necessary for others to support what they've added (adding proper citations), and that I had also spent some time looking for proper citations regarding the issue at-hand, this user's remedy was to simply delete then accuse me of certain things like POV and so on, yet it seems they are projecting this accusation. Instead of helping find proper citations or balance out with a cited refutation, this user simply blanks out areas they do not seem to agree with.

Here is the link to that page's history.

Here is our discussion at the talk page.

I don't understand how the individual asks for consensus yet doesn't provide assistance in providing what other scholars / historians have published regarding whatever particular issues are perceived. If this page is a critique of a certain work, then the things written about it are going to be critical ( negative ) in nature. -- HafizHanif (talk) 18:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi @all.
 * I deleted the wikiislam link because it is WP:POV.
 * I deleted the other paragraph because it was simply WP:SYNTHESIS, and it broadly referred to WP:PRIMARY material, not mentioning some non-sensical things that were included in it, such as "slave of Sahih al-Bukhari" Now, stated: "to give someone the opportunity to cite that claim. It does make sense, perhaps you simply don't agree with the claim", but "Sahih al-Bukhari" is a BOOK, how can "slave of a book" ever make sense to you?
 * Instead of engaging in discussions in the talk about these sections the user proceeded with changes without making any type of consensus.
 * Regards,
 * 18:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * My fellow wiki editor, this is why I mentioned there likely is a miscomprehension on your part, with all due respect. As it is written, the meaning is not that a book has a slave... but that the slave "mentioned" in Bukhari is the one being talked about.  I appreciate you stressing the point, for it validates making the sentence clearer for all readers.  Going to clarify that right now.  Thank you.  -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't make sense, the wording was "slave  of  Sahih al-Bukhari", and even "slave in Sahih al-Bukhari" wont make sense.
 * 19:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

I'm not going to play this back and forth game with you, if you have a difficulty in acknowledging your misunderstanding, then I cannot imagine the trial of addressing more delicate issues with you. Your talk page is consistent with this attitude and time-wasting that you are now attempting with me. We shall see what other readers have to say in reference to your silly issue. Good day. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a misunderstanding, there is simply no way to twist "slave of Sahih al-Bukhari" to the meaning you gave. In sum, stop defending non-sourced low quality level and non encyclopedic content.
 * 20:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Further is answered the contentious non-argument from CounterTime in clarifying 'who' the slave was. Added two citations, with quotes, and their location. What is quite revealing in CounterTime's effort to remove the unsourced paragraph/material... is the paragraph's validity and honesty despite lacking references... and this speaks volumes to CounterTime's efforts in attempting to delete the information. -- HafizHanif (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Amatulic. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:166.203.177.71 reported by User:Julietdeltalima (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The "previous version reverted to" is somewhat misleading; my most recent edit deletes the Shane Callahan paragraph altogether, but the diff provided shows that, at a minimum, editor Ewen tried to get rid of the "From Indiana" and publisher/ISBN information that the IP insists on re-adding. The IP user also apparently attempted to hijack the article for an actor named Shane Callahan:. Julietdeltalima  (talk)  20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:SpaceGoofsGeekerBoy reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has continued to reinstate his own edits even though I made it clear that there was no reason for the change. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. Whoever reverts next may be blocked without notice. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by StAnselm (talk) to last revision by Lipsquid. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Sourced now, as requested, and you are still edit warring, take it to the talk page and wait for RfC closure"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 726680764 by StAnselm (talk) Please stop edit warring, changing it to the state at the time the RfC was created, see talk page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 726236882 by StAnselm (talk) returning to version in place at the time of the RfC, see talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC: Should ID's status as a pseudoscience be mentioned in the lede? */"


 * Comments:

This user has broken 3RR constantly adding back a recent addition that was challenged and is now the subject of an RfC. These are all BLP violations: the first two reverts were adding unsourced contentious material, the last two had sources, but which clearly fail WP:RS. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually User:StAnselm is the initiator and the primary offender in the edit war.  They brought an argument from another article where they did not like my edit onTalk:Ken_Ham [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ken_Ham&diff=726230434&oldid=726229242] and brought the disagreement 22 minutes later to the Jonathan Wells page that as far as I can tell they had never made a previous edit on.

Their first act was to make a revert on an article with an open RfC (about the specific edit wanting to be excluded in the RfC) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726233703&oldid=726188592]
 * And they even go so far as to say "It looks like this RfC is heading towards a consensus to include, but the word should only be added back in when the RfC is closed"

I changed it back to the language that was in place at the time the RfC was opened and they reverted the same edit 6 times. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726705941&oldid=726696622] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726687463&oldid=726683916] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726680764&oldid=726678681] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726236882&oldid=726235200] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726233527&oldid=726233295] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonathan_Wells_(intelligent_design_advocate)&diff=726232829&oldid=725969384]

I am not a new editor and neither is User:StAnselm, normally, I let things slide, but since the other editor brought it here. I think WP:BOOMERANG is in order for WP:HOUNDING in addition to WP:3RR violations.

Diff on my warning to them on edit warring [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:StAnselm&oldid=726684339] Lipsquid (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * John (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talk page (as thats messed up currently due to long-term sock comments), but discussions have been held on the user talk pages; -

Comments:

Damianmx is the latest CU blocked sock of long-term sock abuser Satt 2. This sockmaster has been socking since 2010. I removed all his edits on the Georgia page, but shortly after user "Giorgi Balakhadze" started reinstating most of his additions, obviously backing up the socks contributions. This even though Chipmunkdavis (CMD) had notified the user priorly on his talk page after the sock was blocked that keeping content of this long-term sock abuser is simply unacceptable. Further comments about the mere ~ 5% of material written by other users swept in the sock-material sweep on the page resulted in angry caps-lock comments and further edit warring. Obviously the user feels very strong about some of these matters, but unfortunately Wikipedia ain't the place for that. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is no 3RR violation, I didn't simply revert as you can see but started reading all sections to find some compromised mix of your reverts and his edits. My last revert in the article Georgia (country) is only second full revert - not third, also I mentioned that you've hidden that you reverted my contributions as well showing to a public it as revert of sockpuppet.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  15:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is another discussion about the connected topic. As it seems you reported here while I was writing there.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  15:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * One doesn't need to violate 3RR in order to be edit warring. Please remind yourself of that. You clearly made 3 reverts. One can easily see that the utter vast majority of the content reinstated by you (by the means of edit warring), was initially added by long term sock abuser Satt2/Damianmx. Furthermore, given your manner of responding (e.g. caps lock, "you are lying", etc) on the linked talk page towards me (and Chipmunkdavis), it only reinforces the fact even more that this is a case of edit warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can repeat you were lying saying to people that you reverted only sockpoppets edits at the same time reverting with them my contribution. Further you showed your bias about that case when you called me irredentist and that Abkhazia ans SO are not a part of Georgia while every wikipedia article about that says nothing similar but only that they are disputed areas or conflict regions. Be fair you simply tried to push your POV.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's getting tiresome to reply to the same ramblings, but I'll play along. Everyone can see that the content added by you, Giorgi Balakhadze, on the Georgia (country) page was almost entirely a reinstatement of what this CU blocked sock had added to the article. Everyone can see the diffs. If you were so extremely keen about your two-three lines of content that got hit in the sock-revert sweep, as you're telling, you would've only reinstated that and wouldn't have edit warred over this content added by a long term sock abuser. Every revert by you was to reinstate Damianmx/Satt2 content along with it, however, despite being told and asked on numerous occasions not to do so. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you try to show to people that I violet that is different thing than reality. I know that rule so when you told me in discussion it was maybe may 7th edit on the page so they were not edit-wars but simply mixed restoring of some very useful and much more well described information than your reverted one and I wrote why I did so. I think providing knowledge is more important than some policies that can be changed eventually. And people in another discussion say that Edits by a blocked editor may be reverted, but don't have to be reverted so I was not wrong when reviewed your have to position on reverts.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  15:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by a sock or a blocked user don't have to be reverted, but once they are, they are! Looking at the content of the text involved cursorily however, I don't see any very striking POV issues. I think the issues involved can be reasonably discussed on the talk page of the article, which they should be because there is an aspect of block evasion involved AND because it will give other editors a chance to chip in, which is not so easy on a user talk page. I do think that's the first course of action now. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * John (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:96.51.24.248 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (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:

Comments:

The editor continued to add the end date for the third season even when the data clearly specifies that it is ongoing, and even after I had added the note Season 3 was announced that it will have 4 blocks of 13, giving 52 episodes in total over two years. Block 1: June 26, 2015. Block 2: January 8, 2016. Block 3: June 24, 2016. Block 4: ??? Add an end date once Block 4 has been released., after which they deleted it and overwrote it with the false end date. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another editor has come in and duplicated the IP editor's edits: . Said editor appears to have previously edited the article disruptively in the past, per their contribution history. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've recently revamped the article into a more acceptable style, based upon how the series is marketed, so I've yet to see if the editor I reported makes any further reverts. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. People could reasonably disagree about these technical details. How many episodes, when they were released, etc. But there is no excuse to keep on reverting while never using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:73.81.147.1 reported by User:Carbrera (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

IP user has threatened to continue edit-warring, despite multiple warnings on talk page from myself and.

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

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

Comments:


 * Laser brain  (talk)  21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Immmmanuel (Result: Blocked 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: More reverts from this month: Edit war since last few months with others on same, similar or related text:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User: Summichum has been warned but he does not respond to warnings. He does not discuss on talkpage and only reverts to his obsessed revision of the article. After so many warnings and reverts he wrote a single comment on talkpage within this year that he does not agree with my revision and admins restored his revision. I investigated this and found that admins did not restore his revision. Article was blocked for his editwar with many users. He is obsessed with controversies on this article and revises the article as soon as some one new makes changes. In recent revisions he has revised and reverted changes of 3 editors. Slowly edit warring since months, this editor is stopping every one else from editing the article and I hereby report that he should be blocked for abuse of editing privileges. Whatever he accuses other editors of, he has not written a single comment until last comment, which was useless to consensus, on the talk page since 1 year. How can he revert every one without discussion? Maybe he thinks one of the editors is partisan but I am not, another third editor is not. He is still reverting everyone matter of one heading and in actual reverting every single thing to a previous version indiscriminately. Block him. --Immmmanuel (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * One more revert by Summichum now. He is the only one still not participating in talkpage debate and continues to revert and revert everyone. --Immmmanuel (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont have to write entire stories to oppose the removal of content. I have given my reasons on talk page .Summichum (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Where you said you only disagree and without any respect to what others have to say, without giving any reason or argument, you revert again and again and again. --Immmmanuel (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  21:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Immmmanuel reported by User:Summichum (Result: Declined as a retaliatory report, reporter blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 726783319 by Summichum (talk) I have reverted indiscriminate removal of edits contested and not contested by partision editwarrior which was opposite of talk page consensus."
 * 2)  "You did not just insert the section you are contesting. You undid everything 3 editors have been working on since past few days. You were warned, and now you shall be reported to an administrator and blocked for not discussing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 726456495 by Summichum (talk) - your edit is against talkpage consensus. Discuss on talkpage instead of editwar."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Mufaddal Saifuddin. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Under investigation Summichum (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a retaliatory report against me. Check his own links and my above report. Summichum is reverting without discussing and he is only one reverting 3 editors. --Immmmanuel (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * as a retaliatory report, reporter blocked Laser brain   (talk)  21:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Azxdw reported by User:Mentatus (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Azxdw kept on reverting without even trying to discuss on the talk page of the article or on his own talk page.


 * by another admin; warned all involved of WP:ACDS. -- slakr \ talk / 01:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Piggate (Result: Block for BLP, Semiprotection)


Both users apparently need a break. Found through report on WP:AIV. Full on edit war. Timothy Joseph Wood 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * blocked 48 hours for BLP violations, personal attacks and possibly evading a previous BLP block. Article semi-protected for persistent edit-warring to insert BLP violations.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a note that removing BLP violations is an exemption under WP:3RRNO. It is unfortunate that this topic is notable so we seem to be required to have an article. The source of the anecdote remains anonymous. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:VarunFEB2003 reported by User:190.46.20.240 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramal_Talca-Constituci%C3%B3n&oldid=726281310

WP:3RR not yet violated however there have been 2 revisions of previous edits. I started the article last month translating from spanish and working from primary and secondary sources. I asked for help from wikiproject trains to wikify the article. Varun offered to help but became mad when he realised that I had sumbitted the article for review in the previous weeks. He started to madly edit the article to generate edits, however his over editing lead to a lot of factual errors and non wikipedia style formats. I happily edited those out the first time, however Varun has used the undo feature to delete these corrections.

I dont want to be mean or accuse varun but it seems like he is only insterested in getting barnstars and edits under his belt and is less interested in creating a truthful good quality article. Normally I wouldnt mind but he is actively damaging my hard work on my first article.

Many thanks for you support and help!

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

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

Comments:

190.46.20.240 (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Opinion -there is so much evidence against having the required competency, that this should probably be part of a broader report. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled  <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  08:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Fortuna u also pls read this. IP If u think i am WP:NOTHERE you may see this sandbox2 of mine where i am already working on rewriting an article. Moreover do you even know what is vandalism. Leaving comments on my talk page like this "What a joke! :-) you vandalised the article and made it innacurate! Well done barnstar for screwing an article up 190.46.20.240 (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)" do not help. The basic guideline of talk pages is being polite and being calm while writing. I helped you so much on the talca article and now u are reporting me!. Ask Whpq who made significiant edits to the article he had made that map that had no dead links and u reverted that good faith edit and made a table full of dead links. A user starts a article, On wikipedia it is open for anyone to make good faith edits. If u think about the earthquake section at that time it was just a one liner and now u have expanded it so it is okay. Whatever I had done was in good faith and not vandalism. Reverting good edits by users is vandalism whch u have just done by reversing Whpq's template. Moreover I am reversing ur edits about that table full of dead links and bringing up the old Whpq's table which has no dead links

VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please desist from utilizing a signature that is discouraged by the community. It would go some way towards demonstrating a collegial spirit. Many thanks. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  09:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually it was suggested at the help desk but now the user has taken it back so i have changed my sign. However the result about reporting is still not there. If he continually reverts edits by all others to have his own edit ill have to request page protection Varun   &#9742;   13:26, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected five days. This dispute was previously at ANI. I hope that both sides will avoid personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:EthiopianHabesha reported by User:Zekenyan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been editing against consensus for a couple days now despite multiple warnings from myself and another user, removing cited material and replacing it with his unreliable sources and original research as well as snythesis. The user has been reverting mid discussion even though editors have rejected his addition and asked him to dicuss his edits. He has said on my talk page that he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia by continuing to revert. Zekenyan (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I've repeatedly pushed both Zekenyan and Blizzio to participate in discussion and solve the issue by consensus but unfortunately they both are not willing to make dialogues based on the content that is added with reliable published books. They simply just don't want the content to be there and their wish is for it to not to be there in the article forever by using all means possible other than engaging with discussion and without supporting their opposition/opinions with other reliable alternative sources. Infact as can be seen in the talkpage of the article, I have made a summary of our discussion on 22 June 2016, in an effort to solve the issue by consensus, so that any opposing sides have their say. However, the user Zekenyan and Blizzio did not give their comments/oppositions/opinions about it so far until I am writing this message, and also I've noticed both of them 24 hours earlier regarding to my last revert so that within this period of time they could explain their oppositions and still didn't got an answer and for that I revert it back. If you review all our communications through talkpage and their userpages there is no sign showing them being committed for a serious discussion and their intention is just to delete the content without listing specific reasons and explaining them in detail and for these reasons they are the ones disrupting. Thank you — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have to respond to you right away. I have other things to do and I need to review all of your edits, you have not given me that chance. Instead your reverting constantly and trying to win the dispute by forcing your edits on to the article. I think I have warned you enough not to disrupt Wikipedia when editors are opposing your edits. Please don't be dishonest I have participated in the discussion. You don't simply make a summary and then restore your edits, that's not considered proper discussion. You should be trying to convince other editors not yourself. Your latest revert shows that your trying to game the system by waiting a period of time inorder to avoid violations. The user needs to review basic policies as he is even creating articles solely on original research  but is unwilling to get the point even though multiple users have told him.  Zekenyan (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment:

I would just like to mention that EthiopianHabesha was also involved in edit warring in the Menelik II article with various Editors. Last edit war happened with Stumink and who was fixing the content to make it more encyclopedic EthiopianHabesha reverted the last 5 edits by Stumink. Diff of the user on the Menelik II article: # EthiopianHabesha proceeded to Delete the sourced data in the Menelik Article(manipulation of agreement between the Users). I also had some dispute with EthiopianHabesha deleting "original research", "weasel word", "unreliable source" tags after he added something and the discussions were long winded but breaking Wiki guidelines with regards to Discussions on Talkpages. EthiopianHabesha has pattern of this type of behaviour if you look at this User's Contribution history.Otakrem (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:45.50.116.179 reported by User:Laser brain (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:

Comments:

This IP started by blanking content on Dream. I reverted them and left a templated message asking them to explain their blanking. They removed the content again, calling it "speculative", and have proceeded to revert three different editors six times in the last 24 hours. They have also started reverting other editors' comments on Talk:Dream, but I'm not filing a separate report for that. -- Laser brain  (talk)  00:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:NotAnnCoulter reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 727122464 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) The results are in. Get over it losers."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 727121299 by Asilah1981 (talk) See the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum results. The British public have spoken and the decision is final."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 727120864 by Asilah1981 (talk) Asilah is clearly upset about the result. That's life my dear."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 727111966 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) Not a generalisation. We won the referendum. Get over it losers."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 727110765 by Midnightblueowl (talk) An edit war it is. I am prepared to fight a real war over this, and the British public have spoken. Independence Day!"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 727108004 by Midnightblueowl (talk) Prime Minister David Cameron resigned for the exact same reason. Khan is expected to resign, eight Labour cabinet ministers have."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sadiq Khan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * This is a new account set up, quite clearly with the intent purely of trolling. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We're at 8RR and counting: . GABgab 21:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And they just keep on going... Can someone please come in and slap a ban or block on this vandal? It's a tiresome waste of time undoing their vandalism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We are now at 25RR. Can an administrator please step in and administer a block on this vandal? Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With a clear note to the editor the next block will be indefinite. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Roni4488 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

User insists on adding Israel as the location of Jerusalem, despite explanations that it isn't completely accurate. This comment suggests they'll continue to edit war over this. clpo13(talk) 23:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User was also informed more than once that there is a clear consensus on the Portman article to not include any country for Jerusalem. User may be here to right great wrongs. See comment and this comment on my talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Ladislav Mecir (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  reverts
 * 2)  deletes a whole section
 * 3)  deletes a whole paragraph
 * 4)  deletes a half of a paragraph
 * 5)  deletes a whole paragraph and a half

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Notified. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The filer has listed edits that are part of a consecutive series. Earl has reverted twice, as has the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot help but count a deletion of whole sections or paragraphs as "undoing other people's work". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you like, but for the purpose of edit warring, a series of consecutive edits counts as a single revert. Based on that, I'm closing this as .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:46.200.26.232 reported by User:Brudder_Andrusha (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727222889&oldid=727221407
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727217521&oldid=727208556
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016%E2%80%9317_Ukrainian_Second_League&type=revision&diff=727197787&oldid=727150161
 * 4) [diff]

Hyphenation continually being added.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User_talk:46.200.26.232

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:2016–17 Ukrainian Second League

Comments:

This is issued is similar to what occured in 2015–16 Ukrainian Second League. WP:COMMONNAME was used for the team name. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional the User:46.200.26.232 is continually vandalizing articles by adding hyphens where WP:COMMONNAME is used. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Notified. Timothy Joseph Wood 14:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The club is known now as FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya, see   46.200.26.232 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The club is still known as FC Metalurh Zaporizhya, see the team's Official website. Metalurh Zaporizhya Official website refering themselves to "Metalurh" Zaporizhya without any hyphens. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Their site wasn't updated yet. All sources including PFL say FC Metalurh-Zaporizhya:   etc. 46.200.26.232 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The team will not update their website. They are using the original team logo and are inheriting the team's history and refer to themselves via the WP:COMMONNAME. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two days by User:Fenix down. EdJohnston (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HyeSK reported by User:Class455 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 727255195 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk) identified as test/vandalism using STiki"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 726340353 by Grandmaster (talk) Revised to proper instrument name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Duduk. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Duduk. (TW)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Keeps on edit-warring on this page despite being warned TWICE. In edit summaries when users revert edits by HyeSK on this page, users have been telling the user to discuss the change on the page's talk but is ignoring this and keeps reverting edits and leaving messages on various talk pages. This edit war has been going on for days and needs to stop. Class455 (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. These warnings are without reason. I am reverting the name of the Duduk to its true name. I am literally making the page more honest and correct. HyeSK (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)HyeSK
 * That is beside the point. Only after I reported you is when you tried to seek consensus on The Article's talk page. You could have done this a long time ago instead of edit warring about this all the time, which is why you find yourself in this position. We warn users for a reason, these are to help you to head in the right direction and they are given for a good reason. Class455 (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: This is a slow edit war. User:HyeSK is warned they may be blocked if they revert the name of this instrument again unless they have first obtained consensus on the article talk page. Also you can get in trouble for misusing the term vandalism as you did in the edit summary of the first diff above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nairspecht reported by User:Sankeykool (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mukesh_Ambani&type=revision&diff=727332003&oldid=727071844

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANairspecht&type=revision&diff=727339496&oldid=727331019

Comments:


 * No edit warring here.  has made 2 edits to the article recently.  They are consecutive and are both reverts of 's edits.  Sankeykool made some bold edits, Nairspecht reverted them.  Now it is time for Sankeykool to go to the article talk page and discuss the edits and explain why they belong and the provide sources.  -- GB fan 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Sankeykool reported by User:Nairspecht (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 727327648 by Nairspecht (talk) The controversies are alleged and its clearly mentioned. Please go through the references.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Akash Ambani. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Akash Ambani. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has been engaging in edit wars in multiple pages, blanked warnings from his/her talk page, copied signatures. Looks like a troll. Nairspecht  Converse  08:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No violation on this page. Sankeykool has made two edits to the page recently. One being a revert of content they added that was removed without explanation.  This has been reverted a second time with an explanation.  It is time for Sankeykool to go to the article talk page and discuss the information they want to add.  -- GB fan 10:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)