Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive321

User:Soupforone reported by User:Libanguled (Result: Both parties cautioned)
Page:

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

I tried talking to him but he is not reasoning with me.

Comments:

He keeps deleting my edits. I sourced my edits with CIA Factbook and another book.

The statement below is the one he keeps deleting even though it has reliable sources to support it.

Somalia was the first non-Arab country to be a member of the Arab League in 1974.

In Somalia there are only 30,000 Arabs in the country.


 * Result: Both parties cautioned. It appears there is a disagreement between the CIA Factbook and the charter of the Arab League. The League says it is only open to Arab states, while the CIA has its own specific way of designating people as Arabs. The claim that Somalia is a non-Arab country is cited only to a single source; maybe not all sources agree. If the issue is going to be kept, the two of you should work out a compromise about the wording. For example, you could use indirect speech and don't treat 'Arab' as a fact of nature, treat it as a social construct where opinions could differ. (In our biographical articles we usual rely on self-identification for ethnicity). If warring continues, one or more blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Exciting2015 reported by User:59.89.41.149 (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Editor removed sourced statement regarding subject's activity and threatened me with block.
 * 2)  - He reverted and readded bare sources that were eithed already in the article or not needed.
 * 3)  - Termed the subject who is a militant as having joined been a freedom movement and saying he is fighting against oppression by security forces, completely personal POV.
 * 4)  - Removed another sourced statement and threatened me again displaying continous disruptive behavior despite being warned several times to stop such behaviour.
 * 5)  He removed another source content and threatened again.
 * 6)  - Again added his personal POV about the subject Burhan Wani.
 * 7)  He added his personal POV back again after being reverted by another user.
 * 8)  He added back his personal POV again.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Hello. This editor has been induldging in continuos disruption on the article. Asides from edit-warring he has violated many other policies including adding his personal POV, removing sourced content many times without any reason at all, threatening other users so he can have have his way. I have warned him many times in edit summaries to desist from disruptive editing or he will be blocked. I also warned him on his talk page about this yet he continued to do what he wanted. I stopped editing as I do not want to be involved an edit war. However even after being reverted by other editors many times, Exciting2015 is reverting them as well. It seems that this person is clearly not here to make Wikipedia better and editing articles solely according to his own personal views, having no regard at all for the rules. He also wrote on my talk page that the article was "not a political discussion of Kashmiri Pandits and was about Kashmiri Muslims" and told me to remember this even though clearly all I added in the article was about the subject. You can see his message in this link here:. His message to me also shows his personal bias and that he is editing the article based on his personal POV. Clealrly he will not listen to anything. I request the admins to block this disruptive user for some time so he does not repeat this behaviour again. Thank you. 59.89.41.149 (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * blocked one week under discretionary sanctions. Multiple editors edit warring so article fully protected one week. Neil N  talk to me 22:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Erus97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 4 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has not chosen to engage in discussion

Comments:

Erus97 has been reverting other editors since 7 July 2016. Clearly this editor is not a new user, making only 1-2 reverts/day. Despite this clearly avoidance of 3rr, this is still disruptive editing, since Erus97 has chosen not to explain their concerns on the talk page. Erus97 was blocked for 31 hours by Widr at 04:34, 8 July 2016, and once the blocked expire went back to removing referenced information. Please note all of Erus97's edits consist of removing "Persian" from the Nasir al-Din al-Tusi article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Neil N  talk to me 23:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:58.96.107.130 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: Blocked 2 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 728986286 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 728944093 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 728931492 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 728745790 by David.moreno72 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has continually re-added this unsourced statement and made no effort to discuss the issue instead. Edit warred on Pumped-storage hydroelectricity with two other users as well. Sro23 (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Neil N  talk to me 23:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Craft37by reported by User:Hebel (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the article talk page but on his and my talkpges and

Comments:Blatant POV editing

Repetitive blatant POV editing. The first edits weren't made in one fell swoop and also not by one person. User has been asked to go to talk repeatedly, but hasn't done so. This is an ongoing situation and another POV editor User:Admiral buba is involved as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. I'm also giving an alert of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:The Almightey Drill and User:JoshDonaldson20 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Diffs of The Almightey Drill's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

Diffs of JoshDonaldson20's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link for The Almightey Drill y find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

After repeatedly revering each other on Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup)‎ to the point where both editors were blocked and the page required full protection when the blocks expired, these editors have now taken their dispute to Disgrace of Gijón (see diffs above) and to a lesser extent to Netherlands national football team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He has also done this at 2015 Copa América Chase (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Get real. I've told Josh to engage in dialogue (see both talk pages) and informed him of BRD and he still doesn't communicate or attempt to cooperate. His edits to the Dutch national team were reverting me just because (no explanation) and reverted instantly by others because they were that obvious. As for the Copa América, I was removing a gigantic chart of original research that someone just made up one day, only to be reverted and told to find sources for something that doesn't exist. Why were the other users so zealously defending something without being zealous enough to prove its existence? I opened discussion there as well. In all of these cases I have been the first to request and open discussion. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Oh and get this. When I posted on Josh's talkpage to open discussion so that he would avoid another block, he just instantly undid my posting of that message. With no explanation, as always. I don't care if I'm blocked when someone else is refusing to cooperate, I can't just sit there and let them take over. It's immense hutzpah from Chase to bring up the Copa América thing when the other users couldn't be bothered to source the existence of their sacred chart of holy original research &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Almightey Drill, just because you believe you are "right" does not mean you have a free license to remove content from a page an unlimited number of times. Another editor's failure to engage in discussion with you also does not give you that right. Because of your behavior in this situation, as well as your history of disregard for community policy (as shown in your block log), you are . Furthermore, if you continue to engage in disruption on football-related articles, you are going to earn a topic ban.


 * JoshDonaldson20, failure to engage in discussion, as well as edit warring again so soon after being blocked for the same behavior, is concerning to me, and you are . You may also end up with a topic ban from football articles if you keep up with these disputes after your block expires. –Darkwind (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Darkwind is known for blocking people to force his opinion.--2003:5F:3E7B:C0CA:81B:4A5B:3263:6F8D (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Antoine kornprobst reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729192914 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please read the template you send me yourself !!!"
 * 3)  "LEARN TO READ ENGLISH ! We are doctoral students, NOT notable students with a wikipedia page. I'm editing the page on behalf of the person it's about btw. Please go away and mind your own business. I didn't know Wikipedia had trolls too :("
 * 4)  "I disagree. The wikipedia templates has two sections : "doctoral students" and "notable students". We are all PhD students though none of us are notable students. My edit was appropriate, please don't reverse it again or I'll complain to Wikipedia. Thanks"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 729136333 by Melcous (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Raphael Douady. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Seems to be attempting to add non-notable persons to an infobox. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd ! Here is the template. I added "doctoral students" (me and my colleagues), not "notable students". The person who reported me is obviously in bad faith and has nothing better to do than harass other users on Wikipedia ! Antoine kornprobst (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:TheGreenGiant23 (Result: Declined)
If someone, administrators or anybody involved in the Wikipedia project, can help us to end once for all the edit wars between User:Sportsfan 1234 and User:Raymarcbadz, it will be more than appreciated. I think that the attitude of user Sportsfan 1234 towards others is in cause here : he is rude, uncooperative and try to intimidate several experienced contributors, including me, of blocking or reporting for vandalism even if other users had only suggested different views of thinking and showed respectful behaviour toward the user.

If anybody can just calm him down, it will be great, and more important, remind him that he is not elected as an administrator, thus he has no powers to block anyone or to act like an administrator, and that he should always tried to discuss with respect instead of insulting, intimidating, and creating endless edit wars by reverting systematically the work of some veterans contributors.

I’m suggesting a first courtesy warning and if doesn’t listen, temporary block to calm him down and change his behaviour.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

TGG23

Examples:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raymarcbadz&diff=prev&oldid=729055122
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=722616944
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=725300474
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=727722746
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=next&oldid=728900900

etc.

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shooting_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification#List_of_quota_places_and_shooters and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=prev&oldid=714791235.

Comments:

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * where are they edit warring? It isn't at Shooting at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk),
 * See the examples. The edit war has been active since 1 year or more between those two. Just check the history of contributions for Sportfan1234 and you will understand. He pick on him regularly and other users who edits pages after him. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sunasuttuq 10:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&offset=&limit=500&action=history

TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sportsfan_1234&diff=717575685&oldid=717511893 TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Raymarcbadz has been told on multiple occasions of the MOS rules for WP:Olympics by multiple users and accepted receipt of the message. Yet when the rules are applied for example here  and, he decides to not apply the MOS rules. I don't know what that is, but it clearly is not constructive editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , calm down. You are the only one who reminded me about the MOS rules, and you took too much control on reverting my edits, in which they make me stressful and irritating. Are you born to be an administrator of the project? That's why you want to intimidate me all the time? I'm also an experienced contributor for quite a long time. I've contributed heavily on the WikiProject Olympics, and I've done a tremendous effort on the NOC articles. I also created thousands of articles throughout my four-year span. And btw, he also judged me on my grammar in the edit summaries. Isn't it disrespectful? He acts himself as an administrator of the WP:OLY, and tries to strictly dictate everything without further discussion. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * His general behavior toward other users, regardless of the content, right or not, is clearly disrespectful and a source of tensions and edit wars since at least 2 years, and goes against many rules edicted by the Wikipedia conduct rules, including civility, consensus, dispute resolution, edit warring, harassment, non-discrimination and no personal attacks. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, he showed some form of disrespect whenever I edit something. Lately, he just put the word "grammar" in the edit summary in which it may sound annoying towards the user or does not point out the specific details regarding somebody's grammar and composition. . Is he making so many rules that many users do not know? How can I ever complain if he doesn't care or understand what the users and I are saying and pleasing? Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Declined. See the instructions at top of this page for how to create an edit warring report. Specify the article you think is in dispute, and provide diffs of the reverts on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Whut? Are you joking? Do you want to keep him and let him abuse me on Wikipedia by his uncontrollable attitude? Do you deserve him to be the "best contributor" of Wikipedia. You guys are letting me and others down and defeated. BS.≥ Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:DustWolf (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: multiple

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm new to this so help me fill this out. User undoing any contribution to the page that does not line up with their personal views on the subject, including contributions aimed purely at improving the article. Has undid contributions provided by multiple users over a longer period of time. Undid properly sourced contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustWolf (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 July 2016‎ (UTC)


 * No violation. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wasn't notified of this report which is a violation of the rules of this NB. In view of this, and the fact that the filer is repeatedly re-inserting their text into the Probiotic article despite being told - and not just by me - that their content is unreliably-sourced, I wonder if a boomerang might be in order? (The invocation of my "personal view" is also a failure of WP:AGF, and also false.) Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No violation. Alexbrn's reverts were justified based on weak non-WP:MEDRS sourcing. --Zefr (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * As a point of order, I remind everyone that the quality of or presence of sources does not generally excuse edit warring. That being said, nothing here crosses the line of edit warring.   I would like to remind you to assume good faith in your interactions with other editors, and try to focus on their contributions and not the reasons you assume that they are editing in a certain way.  Accusing editors of being on an ego trip or of editing with a particular bias is not going to get you very far in actually resolving problems.  If you feel that there are issues with this page that you are unable to resolve through talk page discussion, please see Dispute resolution for advice.  –Darkwind (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Drive to save reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page: Various articles pertaining to Major League Baseball teams
 * 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:

User edit-warred in various articles pertaining to baseball teams over grammar. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet. Neil N  talk to me 15:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.213.198 reported by User:Hebel (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: I've communicated with this user by requests to go to talk in the edit summaries. I've opened a section on the talkpage here after 4rr was reached by the editor. Comments:IP user 82.132.213.198 keeps introducing unsourced and contradictory content to Order of Saint John (Bailiwick of Brandenburg). Also this matter is now involved, which involves a number of similar articles and suspected sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebel (talk • contribs) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotecting five articles on Prussian orders of chivalry per the evidence in Sockpuppet investigations/82.132.228.210. The IP user has continued to edit, while making no response to this complaint. I have not checked the content changes to see who is more likely to be right but the use of multiple IPs in an edit war is against policy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Élisée P. Bruneau (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff|15:40, 11 July 2016‎ ]
 * 2) [diff| 15:34, 11 July 2016]

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

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

Comments:

The problem with the article is the fact that it is biased. I tried to solve it by improving the article. My main source is Earp, Brian D, a Researcher on the University of Oxford. He wrote about the topic on "University of Oxford: Practical Ethics". He might not be peer-reviewed, but his sources are - and the fact that he is working at the University of Oxford and his article was published there makes him an acceptable source. And I used all of his sources. And all I wrote can be found in these peer-reviewed articles:
 * [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Art No CD003255]
 * [American Journal of Preventive Medicine]
 * [Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Marquette, MI, USA]
 * [Journal of Law and Medicine]
 * [Horizon (in French). pp. 185–210 (a French research database)]
 * [Global Public Health: An International Journal for Research, Policy and Practice: Volume 10, Issue 5-6, 2015]

The only non-peer reviewed material I used were the article written by an University of Oxford Researcher and a Huffington Post article. But both were just additional material, because most readers don't understand science journals. Not to mention that nearly all sources were news articles and not academic research material when I started to add some text to the article. But, as I said, all what I wrote was covered by peer-reviewed articles in renominated, peer-reviwed journals.

And here is the clue. Even though all my material is peer-reviewed, he deleted a whole section because: "blogs, the Huffington Post and fringe journal articles are not WP:MEDRS (or even WP:RS) for the serious aspects of this topic. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's principles. You also appear to be publishing links to illicit copies of copyrighted material, which is a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)". Not to mention that I used one blog and not blogs, and that the one blog was hosted by Oxford University. Not to mention again that Huffington Post wasn't a main source - and that Huffington Post articles are used overall at Wikipedia. Not to mention that 4/6 sources are peer-reviewed and that the journals have a good reputation. Still he claims that my sources aren't all right.

Honestly, could it be clearer that he is trying to establish a biased article?--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, no violation. That's two in one day. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's all happening! Alexbrn (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * – Not enough reverts. But the filer of this complaint should read WP:MEDRS if he wants to add text to articles about the medical benefits of circumcision. If you want personal blogs used as a source for medical facts you probably won't succeed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:The Copper Miner reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Page protected)
Page: User being reported: The Copper Miner

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (entire day)
 * 2) (specifically)
 * 3) (specifically)
 * 4) (specifically)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor @The Copper Miner has serious ownership issues as demonstrated by his message on my talk page, to wit, "If you would like to make changes to the article hence listed above, please confer with me first as I do not wish to have all of my tireless work undone by yourself"; he also clearly has no idea how to edit in good faith. The article thus has serious OR and POV issues which I tried to address but was met with edit warring. Quis separabit? 20:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see, he has not even bothered to make an appearance here. Quis separabit?  22:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are problems on both sides., an edit summary of "start over --- there is no ownership of articles" is not a substitute for discussion. Yes, I know The Copper Miner is the one making changes, but it does look like a fair amount of work and a talk page post detailing your objections would help. , same goes for you. Use the talk page post to explain why your changes are improvements. Also, Rms125a@hotmail.com does not have to confer with you before making changes and their edits are emphatically not vandalism. Protected the article one week - both of you please start discussing. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Mean as custard reported by User:George lem (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Mean as custard - completely lost his mind George lem (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This report is very malformed, do you have a couple of diffs showing the edit war you are reporting? If you'd just like to make a complaint about the editor, you may wish to either leave them a message on their talk page, or go to AN/I -- samtar talk or stalk 08:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Advertising-only account. Katietalk 09:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:108.162.138.228 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rev"
 * 2)  "stop edit warring with me. if you have a problem with me edit. bring it up on the talk page. thanks."
 * 3)  "you use the talk page."
 * 4)  "stop reverting my edits. thanks."
 * 5)  "i very much disagree"
 * 6)  "/* Organizational issues */ Why is there a seperate section on a political agenda like privatization? That's not neutral"
 * 1)  "/* Organizational issues */ Why is there a seperate section on a political agenda like privatization? That's not neutral"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Canada Post. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on  Canada Post. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Canada Post. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Still at it. Refuses to justify their edits on the talk page as requested. clpo13(talk) 22:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clpo13 is consistently reverting my edits. I am removing the section in good faith because a privatization section on an article about a crown corporation is politically slanted. I don't appreciate the users above failure to read, understand the context in which I am doing this, and personally attack me as well as threaten me on my own talk page. 108.162.138.228 (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You've been reverted by a number of different editors and you haven't bothered to give a reason on the article talk page for your removal. Please read WP:BRD. clpo13(talk) 22:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I have given a reason in my edit summary, as required. You are just as guilty of edit warring as I am. I just joined wikipedia. Whats your excuse, mr been editing for 10 years? And threatening me with a ban like you're an administrator?


 * I am making an edit in good faith. This is very unnecessary. 108.162.138.228 (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit summaries are not sufficient. It doesn't matter if you're editing in good faith. Once you were reverted the first time, you should have stopped reverting and made your case on the talk page. Since you didn't, I can only assume you are a vandal. clpo13(talk) 22:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:107.77.216.42 reported by User:Hexafluoride (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&oldid=729208912]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&type=revision&diff=729253592&oldid=729208912]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&type=revision&diff=729208912&oldid=729187838]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=729160352]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=729113863]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Newman_(singer)&diff=prev&oldid=729112000]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A107.77.216.42&type=revision&diff=729217415&oldid=729208995] warning from 2 editors separately

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJohn_Newman_(singer)&type=revision&diff=729218615&oldid=645459084]

Comments:

The user is an anonymous IP. They have many similar edits on different articles like the ones in John Newman (singer). It's not vandalism, and I'm AGF, and trying not to WP:BITE. But the edits are disruptive, aren't in accordance with WP:MOS, and the user keeps reverting reverts without addressing the raised issues (and many of the edits on different articles are similar to the ones in Newman; don't add, and don't fix anything). They're not responding to talkpage warnings, or article talk discussion (pinged). The editor continues to make the same edits after being warned. —Hexafluoride Ping me if you need help, or post on my talk 16:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. User has made a series of edits that failed to get consensus and just keeps on going with no discussion and no edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:71.246.152.193 reported by User:Debresser (Result:Socks blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring: User talk:71.246.152.193

71.246.152.193 is making an edit war about a non-trivial change on Judaism and masturbation. He is introducing his original research and non-conventional claims, and demands I discuss with him before I revert, while I try to tell him the burden of proof is on him and that he hasn't met that burden. He seems to have an agenda and in his edit summary "your theology trumps what it actually says while too proud to engage in discussion" he didn't refrain from making personal statements about me. I wouldn't go so far as calling it attacks, but making this into something personal, or suggesting that such is my approach, is not professional and not nice. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that the issue is edit warring without a 3RR violation so far. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify the issue? I see the IP added stuff, but it is sourced. The major issue is that neither of you are using the talk page before you re-insert claims. Some of the stuff he added seems OK for the article. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue is behavioral. This IP is an edit warrior.
 * If you mean the content issue, this is not really the place, but for your information, and just to show that there is indeed an "issue", it is mainly the "Other than this" section which is original research, and the rearrangement of the paragraphs also is not okay IMHO. By the way, the sources are not his, they are just rearranged. Debresser (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: now a 3RR violation as well. I added the diff above as #4. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

He now also says that this edit is mine, but I don't edit as an IP, and my IP is in the 77. range! In short, he is now lying and making unfounded personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I now noticed that he has been behaving on other articles in a similar vein, making changes based on his own findings or opinions, and have reverted a few of them. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Update #2: Calling me an idiot and an asshole now. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"Insulting Palestinians"? GMAB You might wanna look up the meaning of philistine in a dictionary ffs 71.127.129.76 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you no sense of humor? That is why I wrote it in the edit summary only and not here. You just took the bait with both your eyes open. :) Debresser (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, is the same as the editor being reported, so sanctions should cover that IP address as well. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Socks of Til Eulenspiegel blocked. Doug Weller  talk 13:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A sock. That was an unexpected end of this case. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Now add 172.56.35.20 and 172.58.225.70 on Talk:The Young Ones (TV series). Debresser (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Landerman56 reported by User:Klortho (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I noticed this user's first revert, and looked through the history and saw that there had already been a bit of edit warring prior to today, so I looked back through the talk page history, and found where this specific issue of using the word "racist" in the lead had been discussed extensively, back in 2008, on both the talk page and RSN. Consensus seemed to be to keep it out. It hasn't been in the lead since then, until May of this year, when this user inserted it.

So I put a note on the talk page, and reverted his addition of that word, and also another bit of gratuitously POV phrasing that the user had added some time ago, but apparently went unnoticed. I put the links to the old discussions in the talk page, and stated my reasons for reverting. He immediately reverted back, has left comments that gave no indication that he looked into the old discussions. The comments were to the effect that his should be the accepted version, with the burden of reaching consensus on me. I reverted once more (for a total of two times). But he has reverted both of those, and this edit of

Could we get some help? Klortho (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Klortho (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Follow up, more info
Wow. I just discovered that Landerman56 has been making disruptive edits to James Watson since 2007 -- the year of the incident that caused Watson's downfall. See this history. I didn't check all of them, but among the earliest 15 or so, there were none that were much other than to slap the word "racist" over the descriptions of Watson's statements, and these edits were (among the ones I checked) all reverted -- sometimes not right away, but all within 5-6 edits downstream.

Also, looking at the history of his talk page, which he keeps squeeky-clean (my notice of reporting him yesterday is already gone) you can see that since the account began, people have been complaining of him. Here are just a few of the earliest ones:


 * suspected sockpuppet tag
 * restored sockpuppet tag
 * again here with an explanation
 * user Diego patiently explaining why his editing behavior was disruptive

Can this person be blocked indefinitely? Is there somewhere else I should be reporting this? Klortho (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And, of course, he is still edit warring on James Watson. Klortho (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

– 48 hours, and alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBBLP. If the editor won't wait for consensus on these changes (e.g. adding the word 'racist') he may be banned from the article. See a talk page thread where there is no indication that the editor is willing to listen to anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and multiple others. This user was previously blocked Feb 14th, 2016 for 48 hours for edit warring on the same topic. and than again on Feb 16th, 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here on July 8th, 2016. Editor has not commented despite multiple requests to do so. I am thinking a one year topic ban on circumcision related topics would be useful.

Comments:

I only did three reverts, as the 45th was a technical fix due a mistake from copy pasting the article twice, and therefore did not break 3RR. Cirflow (talk)
 * Even if that count is so - which is debatable - the fact that you said you "don't care" about the admitted contentious nature of your edit, and then swiftly went to what your thought was your "allowance" of reverts without any Talk page posts, on a topic for which you have been warned before, seems rather disruptive and makes me think Doc's request for a TB could help here. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  04:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, this would not be a venue for issuing topic bans, as I'm sure you know. I think a strong case could be made at WP:AN. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User: Davidcpearce reported by User: Ollyoxenfree (Result:Blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The user has edited the user talk page to talk to the other editors working on the topic only once while others (including people who agree with the reverter) have been discussing the matter more thoroughly. On the other hand, the user has reverted edits made by others a total of 22 times on this topic on the Thomas Pogge page. The most recent 4 reverts were in a period of 24 hours of edits by two different users.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. Editor has not commented, although another who agrees with him has come to his defence.

Comments:

--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I've left a note for David, along with a DS alert. Because the dispute is gender-related, it falls under discretionary sanctions. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * edit warring continued after your warning. See and . User did not utilize BLPN or discuss on the talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I closed this earlier with a warning, but David reverted again twice, so I've blocked for 24 hours. SarahSV (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:12.31.21.15 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Original edit

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


 * Two different warnings in the past 24 hours, neither for 3RR. But maybe the unique proprietary blend of WP:EW, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPA counts as extenuating circumstances.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I didn't really try my bestest to resolve a dispute over whether the CIA made Pokemon go, but I did give it a perfunctory go, and...had...limited success. But in all fairness, being "one of the densest people on the planet," you can't expect too much from little ole me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs)

 Comments: 
 * (semi, 24 hours, by ). If the IP continues to be disruptive on the talk page, a block for disruptive editing may be in order. –Darkwind (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:177.102.44.19 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warning, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729613860 by Opencooper (talk)I have given a source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 729561205 by Sundayclose (talk)Learn what family drama is asshole"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 727264869 by Opencooper (talk)Family drama is not family-oriented drama"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 727264869 by Opencooper (talk)Family drama is not family-oriented drama"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 727264869 by Opencooper (talk)Family drama is not family-oriented drama"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * The IP went to the talk page after the report has been filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, The system (sometime) works! Although I also note, as per his good faith in doing that, personal attacks in edit-summaries and the likelihood this is a logged-out editor. Just fyi. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  15:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This IP is almost certainly, who made the same edit and virtually identical edit summaries, including the personal attacks. Another likely sock of Zalooka 4 is , who made a personal attack with similar wording against another user who reverted Zalooka4 on The Sopranos. Both IPs are in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Sundayclose (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would support semiprotection of the article as well a block of User:Zalooka4 for abusing multiple accounts. Since Zalooka4's name did not appear in the original report, I've left him a notice to be sure he is aware. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the page for two weeks. I'm with Sundayclose – I think this is Zalooka4 based on the article's history, but hey, let's give him a chance to respond for what it's worth. Katietalk 16:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Zalooka4 is warned he may be blocked if he makes further edits at The Sopranos without getting consensus first, or issues personal attacks. The warning also applies to and . EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

User:JoshDonaldson20 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

See User talk:JoshDonaldson20
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

Less than 24 hours after their block for edit warring on this page expired, this user immediately reverted the page to their preferred version. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thought that I explained myself in Talk, and earlier asked another editor to look into this. Have self-reverted. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Quadrow reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729617709 by Coltsfan (talk) No consensus that she should change to Prime Minister."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 729616084 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 3)  "Not prime minister yet"
 * 4)  "Theresa May is not yet Prime Minister. There is no such post as Prime Minister Designate. Please learn the constitution before editing."
 * 5)  "Theresa is not presumptive prime minister either. The constitution is clear. The head of state determines the next prime minister and until the queen invites her she is not prime minister (be that presumptive or designate)."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Prime Minister (Designate or presumptive) */ cmt"
 * 2)   "/* Prime Minister (Designate or presumptive) */"

Persistently inserting idiosyncratic interpretaion into the article, despite advice / warnings of seasoned editors. This is dispite the fact that there is a TP discussion taking place, which they edit-war through. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Considering the experience of this editor, the single edit after being warned, their willingness to discuss, the timescale, and the previous edits contrary to facts and consensus, I'm going to leave the user a warning. I will continue to monitor the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate zzuuzz intervention. I believe that I was reversing disruptive editing in a matter that had no consensus. I believed there was possible sock puppetry going on to continually add a title that wasn't accurate without providing sources or demonstrating consensus to support adding the title. I didn't know how to report it or respond properly. It was a time sensitive issue and time has moved on and the matter is irrelevant now. I must say the exchange doesn't leave a great impression on a new user.Quadrow (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had read the policies your attention had been drawn to, then you would have understood the nature of consensus -what it does not constitute, and what edit-warring does. Alright. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  11:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Zakawer (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ; note that an anonymous editor corrected "partaked" to "partook" in this edit. The edit right before completed my series of edits on the article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

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

Comments:

SnoogansSnoogans calls my edit "vandalism" even though it's not vandalism; vandalism involves fucking up articles and inserting bullshit into them. That's not what my edits are.Zakawer (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Four RfCs, including one only a few months ago, have concluded that 2013 Egyptian coup d'état should not be moved or renamed, because of the overwhelming consensus of available reliable sources. Zakawar disagrees with these sources, with the RfCs, and with fellow wikipedians, and has unilaterally implemented his proposed changes multiple times, despite the RfC results.


 * I am glad that has brought this complaint, because the edit they're defending, here, is emblematic of their contribution to Wikipedia overall: a blatantly partisan fixation on the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état despite the record of available reliable sources, editing consensus, and a very recent RfC that failed to convince anyone. For any admin looking into this case, I'll provide some diffs below. Note that Zakawar has multiple times now, despite warnings, ignored this RfC result to rename the page or rename contents within it (see similar actions:, ,  and ).


 * Also note that the same RfC in various forms has ended with the same result multiple times:, ,.


 * It's pretty clear Zakawar has needed sanctions for some time, and I think their efforts to unilaterally overthrow the latest RfC deserves a WP:BOOMERANG. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * P.S. Zakawar's original post here is a wonderful summary of this whole situation. -Darouet (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * . This is not a discretionary sanctions topic area, so additional sanctions beyond a block are not within my scope as an individual admin in this case. If the disruption resumes, I suggest an WP:ANI thread requesting a topic ban or other sanctions.


 * Your disregard of the consensus(es) in this topic area is both blatant and willful, and you have also made troubling comments implying ownership of this issue/article. It is very clear that you are not willing to participate in the Wikipedia community's processes or abide by the consensus that has formed on this issue, hence the block. You're correct in one point, your edits are not vandalism, but they are tendentious editing. Please stop it before you end up banned from this topic altogether. –Darkwind (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729796217 by NightShadow23 (talk) nor have you"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 729795194 by NightShadow23 (talk) do not rmv. reliable sources for non-reliable sources - per BRD - do not change until discuss consensus is reached"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 729786829 by NightShadow23 (talk) sorry but Variety is a better source & you are removing content for no reason"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Spshu and NightShadow23 are currently engaged in an edit war over sources; the former claiming their source is more reliable, and the latter claiming that the former is violating WP:OR. Given the former's block log - with five counts of edit warring - action may need to be taken. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 17:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Electricburst1996. Hasbro bought the company Boulder Media Limited. Spshu claims that Boulder Media Limited is a subsidiary of Hasbro Studios referring to a Variety. But the article does not say that Boulder Media is a division of Hasbro Studios. In Variety says nothing about Hasbro Studios. "Cullen and his team will report to Hasbro’s (!) chief content officer, Stephen Davis". Davis is Hasbro’s chief content officer (and not only the President of Hasbro Studios). Spshu says the following: "Yes, it does say it, not directly. He is Hasbro’s chief content officer as he heads Hasbro Studios. Thus reporting to Davis is being a part of Hasbro Studios. Unless, you think that is consumer products licensing division under his over site (probably why he is also an executive vice president)? The Hasbro website states that "His responsibilities include oversight of Hasbro Studios, the Los Angeles-based entertainment division responsible for all television, film and commercial production and development as well as international distribution, where Hasbro Studio shows are placed in more than 180 territories." (Emphasis mine.) Which thus indicates that Hasbro Studios is in charge of all TV & film productions, thus unless otherwise specified that includes Boulder Media." — This is original research. Boulder Media is not a division of Hasbro Studios. The source says nothing about it. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I warned NightShadow23 just two days ago for edit-warring in a different article. After the warring, they finally opened a thread at the talk page of that article, but since today they exactly repeated the same thing, may be time for blocks has come. I will not block myself because of that warning.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no edit warring. See. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, and then again OR claim . But today you really made four reverts, even after I warned you about the necessity to discuss. Four reverts within 24h after warning mean a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "But today you really made four reverts" — Was 1-2 returns in several articles. You can't block me. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This report was filed because you made four reverts in the same article. But I will indeed wait for another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page". Was 1-2 returns in several articles. Other edits are not considered reverts. So Electricburst1996 not complained to me. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you are clearly wrong on this point. You made four reverts on the same page (Hasbro Studios) today. Everybody can check the history. 4 > 1-2.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

NightShadow23 is a highly confused editor. He has a argument about whether Hasbro Studios or Hasbro is appropriate to list as the parent of newly purchased Boulder Media Limited. I have made other edits upgrading sourcing on Hasbro, Boulder Media and Hasbro Studios in my edits. NightShadow23 has disregarded this in his effort to revert to his position. I have left edit summary messages to attempt to get him to leave the sourcing alone and continued the discussion about the issue at hand. So, in effect instead of focusing on the issue, NightShadow23 has chosen to remove reliable sources nor follow BRD. He chosen to be a disruptive editor by removing reliable sources.
 * Rebuttal/Counter report

Electricburst1996 instead of joining the discussion and see what the real issue is jumps to ANI/EW. He has become a stalker of sort. He has made previous EW reports with any attempt to join discussion to resolve the issue and has been fixated on getting be permanently blocked. As he seems to have the need to bring improperly previous blocks carried out improperly (on behalf of a edit warring sock or unevenly). So, instead of being able to attempt to get NightShadow23 to discussion and stop removing sourcing, I am currently have to defend myself from an incorrect noticeboard report.


 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to: 729748300


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:46, 14 July 2016‎ (Boulder Media are not division of Hasbro Studios. In Variety says nothing about Hasbro Studios) 15:47, 14 July 2016‎
 * 2) 16:24, 14 July 2016‎ (Wikipedia:No original research)

Continues removing reliable source at
 * Page:


 * reverts to:
 * 22:10, 13 July 2016
 * Diffs of the user's reverts
 * 1) 15:25, 14 July 2016‎ NightShadow23 (Hasbro, don't Hasbro Studios.) - Which only reverse to the tformers.com source over Variety
 * 2) 16:16, 14 July 2016 (Wikipedia:No original research)
 * 3) 16:25, 14 July 2016 (You haven't reached a consensus. The source does not say about Hasbro Studios) - after I mention BRD in the edit summary that we should discuss to reach a consensus & still just reverting the source
 * 4) 16:53, 14 July 2016 (Please stop. Boulder Media is not a division of Hasbro Studios. The source says nothing about it.)
 * 5) 18:04, 14 July 2016 (See WP:AN3#User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: )) - apparently considers AN3 a green light not to discuss but to continue editing contrary to BRD


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 17:36, 14 July 2016 by Electricburst1996 (who only reports me).
 * 16:21, 14 July 2016 a direct post warning against removing reliable sources under the guise of NOR


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 15:37, 14 July 2016 - talk began on my talk page
 * I respond explain who the subsidiary reports to does indicated where they are in the conglomerate structure.

Spshu (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous. The source was removed as it is not associated with Hasbro Studios. I have repeatedly warned you. The article says nothing about Hasbro Studios. He didn't want to negotiate and to return their questionable edits. see Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, you continually added back a non-reliable source in Hasbro Studios sourcing that Hasbro Studios owns Bolder Media. I warned you about using non-reliable sources and you were not editing for what you were arguing for and what you "warned" me about. And you did not talk towards a consensus nor pay attention what you were doing. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "non-reliable"? What? I just told you that the source does not say anything about Hasbro Studios. Variety is a reliable source, but nothing was said about Hasbro Studios. "And you did not talk towards a consensus" — The article had to get back to a stable version, and then to conduct a dialogue. These edits were controversial. How can you claim that Boulder Media is a division of Hasbro Studios? You violated WP:NOR and WP:3RR. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * (in response to entire section above) It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong" in an edit war; the fact remains that both of you violated the three-revert rule at Hasbro Studios on 14 July (UTC). Therefore,, Spshu for 1 week due to extensive block history for edit warring, and NightShadow23 for 24 hours as a first "offense". –Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:92.63.100.80 (Result: Nominator blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Edit War in pages. 92.63.100.80 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP is the edit warrior, since others are reverting their edits. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare  ‖ 05:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * IP is sock of User:Unghhg aka User:Никита-Родин-2002 and they've reported me here before. Sro23 (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * by Widr as an open proxy. clpo13(talk) 05:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Davidcpearce reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned again)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Buzzfeed stuff"
 * 2)  "The Buzzfeed Effect."
 * 3)  "Wikipedia is not Buzzfeed."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 729572178 by Ollyoxenfree (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729572178 by Ollyoxenfree (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was blocked for 24 hours by yesterday after a warning for edit warring (see previous AN3 report here). This user was also reported for edit warring with a sockpuppet on the same page last month (see AN3 report for that here).

This user continued their edit war less that 1.5 hours after the block by Sarah/SlimVirgin expired (see ).

See this version of the user's talk page for warnings and attempts at resolution. Also see Talk:Thomas Pogge.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , I've left another note for David. I hope this is the end of the reverting. If it isn't, the blocks will have to escalate.


 * For the benefit of anyone looking at this in future, it's worth noting that an occasionally used account, User:Janepharper, arrived to revert too. Per Sockpuppet investigations/Davidcpearce, the accounts are technically unconnected. David said it was a friend of his. Between 21 May and 14 July David reverted the same or similar material at Thomas Pogge 20 times and Janepharper reverted twice, on 13 and 14 July. I've advised David that the page is under discretionary sanctions because it's a gender-based dispute,  and I'm about to advise Janepharper. SarahSV (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I intend to stop editing because I have been inappropriately contacted off-Wikipedia by another editor - apparently as part of a concerted campaign against the subject of the entry. But silence does not imply agreement, let alone consensus. Prof Pogge - whom I have never met, or had the slightest interaction with - has become the victim of a Buzzfeed-fed witch-hunt, with other editors as collateral damage.--Davidcpearce (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:91.242.184.88 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Warned by Toddy1


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


 * Comments:

Plain and simple edit warring. The IP hasn't justified their edits in any way, whether on the talk page or even through edit summaries. clpo13(talk) 16:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Bongaosl reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User:195.128.1.27 reported by User:331dot (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729892881 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 729892343 by 331dot (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Keep external links to External links sections at the bottom of an article on Raphael Douady. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on  Raphael Douady. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP has stated an intention to edit war; possibly could have used a username or different IP before 331dot (talk) 09:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected ten days by User:Yaris678. It can't be ruled out that these IPs are socks of Special:Contributions/Antoine kornprobst. That editor was blocked at AN3 on July 10 for making similar edits on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Chilton reported by User:Manul (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Straightforward undo of previous edit.
 * 2)  Partial revert, as admitted in the edit summary.
 * 3)  Straightforward undo of previous edit.
 * 4)  Partial revert; restored changes include the addition of "vacuum state of consciousness" in the first sentence of the subsection, deletion of "another dimension of consciousness", addition of "hampered".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Looking back, over a 3-day period I suppose I am guilty of 4 reverts, though that wasn't intentional. I'll take a lump for that, sorry. However I think the difference is that I'm through editing the article for now, while Chilton appears determined to continue warring whatever the cost. The issue is exacerbated by Chilton accusing me of bad faith while evidently not understanding essential Wikipedia policies, as shown in the talk page discussion. Manul ~ talk 23:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I wanted to put this on the dispute resolution noticeboard, but decided that I will make another version which replaces unjustified claims with justified ones while preserving all of Novella's criticism, and see if you're alright with it. I also restored my additions (which you deleted a few times without any justification, despite the fact that I asked for it more than once on the talk page). Here's what I aimed to write, for what it's worth:


 * The article claims that B. Alan Wallace "cites quantum mechanics along with paranormal phenomena such as clairvoyance and extrasensory perception" as evidence for a certain aspect of his proposed theory of consciousness, namely what he calls substrate consciousness. I haven't found any such statement in any of his writings or speeches, although he does sometimes reference quantum mechanics and paranormal phenomena, eg. when criticizing reductive materialism* or discussing other aspects of his theory. Unfortunately, the source given in the article also mixes these things up and makes this claim, without providing any further references or quotes to back it up. I pointed it out to the other editor involved and asked for a primary source (eg. an interview or book by Wallace), but he insists that it is my obligation to supply a source to contradict Novella (which is pretty much impossible, as it would have to say that Wallace never claimed what Novella says he did).


 * * Note: criticizing reductive materialism doesn't count as supporting this particular theory of consciousness IMHO, as there are many nonreductive accounts of consciousness. It would be extremely imprecise for the article to claim that.

My proposition for a solution:


 * Read the talk page and remove the disputed claims if the other editor fails to provide a primary source.

Chilton (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Though User:Manul has agreed to take a break there is no assurance from User:Chilton that they will stop warring. Their response above doesn't seem to acknowledge any problem with their edits, even though they made four reverts in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Tryptofish (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempts to solve on the talk page:,.

Comments: User has a history of 3RR blocks, and so is familiar with policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was involved in this edit war too. When it comes to irrational fundamentalist Christianity versus science people on both sides get frustrated and keen to fight their corner. With the Creation Museum there's also the problem of young children being taught unscientific material before they can think for themselves. Meanwhile the fundamentalist Christians are fighting for what they're convinced is people's eternal wellbeing. Locking the article for a week looks like a reasonable way of dealing with things. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Kimkakim reported by User:Random86 (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730149262 by C.Fred (talk)"
 * 2)  "Better"
 * 3)  "I saw it in several articles but why you delete it here only??"
 * 4)  "It's different for the pronounce"
 * 5)  "No need :)"
 * 6)  "I can see all that in lee min ho's article so why (NO) in kim yoo jung's article ??? Give me one reason that is reasonable and I won't put it again!"
 * 1)  "It's different for the pronounce"
 * 2)  "No need :)"
 * 3)  "I can see all that in lee min ho's article so why (NO) in kim yoo jung's article ??? Give me one reason that is reasonable and I won't put it again!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Most of this editor's edits are disruptive, and go against style guidelines. They were warned several times by another editor, including a final warning. See also this related SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Yujufan. Random86 (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider talking with him first. I bet this is a fan-type based edit. A warning without a discussion will not help. Discuss; if anything fails, report.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 05:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sock. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:99.232.205.229 reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730149969 by LjL (talk) It was explained at 01:39, 17 July 2016. no rebuttal or reason was given for it to be revised again."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730148573 by MShabazz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730098510 by Malik Shabazz (talk) ISIL & Fr. auth. claim and conclude otherwise"
 * 4)  "/* External links */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit warring at 2016 Nice attack"


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


 * Comments:

All four edits are re-additions of content that was removed in this edit (plus other content). LjL (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please consider resolving this first in the talk page before reporting it here. :) The page involves a highly sensitive topic, so I think it would be best to settle it via talk page. If this will not progress well, consider a report to be filed here. -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 05:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Debbyloves234 reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is not a content dispute.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Note about removing AfD from bot,Final warning removing AfD, EW notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a report re repeated removal of AfD tags. Link to AfD: Articles for deletion/CK Morgan (singer). Note article has been deleted 9 prior times at 4 prior AfDs Last edited: 15:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments: The user has been warned not to remove the AfD template from the article in question. The last time they tried to close the AfD No consensus. So far no removals after EW notice but I presume the AfD removal warnings should be sufficient documentation that they knew not to do what they did and this does not seem worth a full ANI thread. J bh Talk  15:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note User also repeatedly removed CSD#G4 tags, and was notified not to remove those as well


 * The editor needs to know about edit warring and 3RR and continue reverting before being reported here. I agree their edits are disruptive and will give them a final warning. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK Thank you. J bh  Talk  15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.231.181 reported by User:Hebel (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has been discussed in the edit summaries Comments:

The user using this IP range has been reported before here and here: IP range is the same, So are the subject matter (Orders of knighthood) and the modus operandum: IP hopping while edit warring as can again be seen here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Block evasion. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello User:NeilN, there are about nine sockpuppets from this range active that are now wreaking havoc on about 6 to 8 other pages concerning this subject. Notably User:82.132.214.82. Problem is that only one of them is blocked and that the other don't seem to take kindly to that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:टीम निकी मिनाज reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: Declined – malformed report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * you have provided no evidence of edit warring in this report. This is likely to be closed or rejected outright unless you add proof that a 3rr violation has occurred. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this user was previously blocked for edit warring in the past and when being blocked, the user was warned again that any future edit warring would lead to being blocked again. This is the user's edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto&oldid=730005174, which was very much identical to this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto&oldid=728856746 Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best for now to give him a last warning. After it, he should then be given a block.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 05:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * He now has a last warning (and continued with the same disruptive edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto&diff=prev&oldid=730210340). Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 16:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 22:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:603cq reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730008180 by Seav (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730005911 by JohnBlackburne (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 729909050 by Seav (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 729908925 by Seav (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 729908925 by Seav (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by Katietalk 22:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Pincrete (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: [diff]

Comments: The editor has four times today deleted RfC discussion on talk because he believes the RfC is biased and invalid. The editor is also the subject of an ANI about ownership of the article. Because someone at the ANI mentioned that the RfC is poorly framed, zzz believed he was justified in the 4th removal. I consider it outrageous to delete (not close, nor attempt to close) an ongoing RfC. I have communicated this outrage at the ANI and on talk but not formally warned Signedzzz. Could we please have the RfC restored and the editor warned at least. Pincrete (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * An admin had confirmed it is "obviously inappropriately worded", and since I am the one being personally attacked, I think it is reasonable for me to remove it. Having said that, I was not counting the reverts, including from last night. But I think it is reasonable to remove a bad faith RFC started after no discussion that is "obviously inappropriately worded". zzz (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And I should add, it is indefensible to repeatedly restore an illegitimate "obviously inappropriately worded" RFC as some kind of alternative to discussion. zzz (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the advice of the admin at ANI . Pincrete (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "To minimise drama" - I disagree that it would minimise drama to leave it there. I left it for a couple of days, and drama ensued. But no one got round to removing it, so I finally removed it myself, which I probably should have done immediately, in retrospect. zzz (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To avoid a block for violatioin of 3RR on the talk page, I recommend that Signedzzz restore the RfC that he removed and leave its future up to others to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. In response to my warning on his talk page, User:Signedzzz has restored the RfC, and is agreeing to leave its future up to others to decide. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, User:Pincrete: On the RfC, there is clear majority support for a variety of changes on the Elizabeth Dilling page. I carried out those specific changes, however Signedzzz has immediately reverted that edit, refusing to recognise the legitimacy of the RfC to start with (See here). Isn't this further evidence of edit warring on this page, in which case a block would be warranted? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Moreover, given that they have been repeatedly blocked in the past, both for edit warring and other offences, a more severe block would be warranted on this occassion (three months, perhaps?). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And since my last post there has been even more edit warring] from Signedzzz. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

72.47.67.147 reported by User:Oshwah (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The source for this link provides absolutely no mention of Texas or the Rio Grande Valley. Therefore, it was deleted."


 * 1)  "None of the websites you cite relate to the claims you make about Texas. There is a one-person mention of PCZ, but this isn't legitimate by any stretch of the imagination. However, there are literally no mentions of Texas..."
 * 2)  "Yes it is. You cannot just link to random cites. You need legitimate sources. Otherwise, what you copy-paste will be deleted. Count on it."
 * 3)  "It either is or it isn't. There is no "believe". What you keep copy-pasting is not legitimate. You need real proof. You need to educate yourself on what constitutes legitimate feedback. Thanks!"
 * 4)  "Again, this is not a reliable source. Understand this will not be allowed until you can provide a legitimate source. Thanks!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Johnny Marzetti */ new section"
 * 2)   "Message re. Johnny Marzetti (HG) (3.1.21)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Johnny Marzetti. (TW)"

(none)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Repeated deletion of content without discussion first. Has been asked to discuss his reasons on the article's talk page. Contributions show that this has been occurring for months.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor actually may something useful to say here but obstinately refuses to use the article's talk page. Mark Shaw (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the IP have a point? People keep putting back the Darbee reference, which does mention the Canal Zone but not the Rio Grande Valley. It is awkward to block someone for removing unsourced info, even though such removals aren't formally allowed as an an exception to 3RR. Can people at least acknowledge the lack of a source for the presence of this dish in the Rio Grande Valley?  I believe that other sources can probably be found, though the Darbee article doesn't mention the Rio Grande Valley. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the phrase that refers to the Rio Grande Valley. Mark Shaw (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. Even if the IP has a point, this doesn't create a license to edit war. The unsourced item about the Rio Grande valley has been removed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mark Shaw (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:60.241.22.142 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: All of them on edit summary, as IP clearly read them and responded. IPs typically do not respond to talk page messages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on edit summary.

Comments:

IP modified the article as soon as the protection was lifted. It was obviously good faith, but he changed the structure drastically. Separated parts of the story, messed with the timeline of events that occurred on the background and add some informal text to it (e.g. The UFC booked so much star power for the event). I proposed to him via edit summary that he engaged a discussion on the article's talk page as he was the one changing the article that way, considering plenty of registered users did not. At first, he clearly read the comments on edit summary. So I insisted on that and even mentioned that I was going to report him for edit warring if he kept ignoring that and reverting the article. I'm open for adjustments of some stuff he added, no problem. He clearly had the good faith to begin with, but is stubborn enough to ignore policies and keep reverting. Perhaps a page semi-protection for a while or a warning for him in case he reverts it again after I restore the article would be fine. Obviously, can I restore it in that case without being considered edit war as well? I don't want to be punished for nothing. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be given a warning, and then block for several hours.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 05:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Gsfelipe94, you're both edit warring. Nothing about your reverts is any more acceptable than the IP's reverts. You both need to stop. –Darkwind (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe reported by User:Skyring (Result: Blocked two weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 0801 17 July 2016
 * 2) 0832 17 July 2016
 * 3) 0920 17 July 2016
 * 4) 0958 17 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. Pretty much the whole talk page from this section on down:

Comments:

This user has been edit-warring continuously for five days. He disagrees with the longstanding consensus version - that the StG44 was the first example of a modern assault rifle - and has failed to win any support, either from the resident editors or from those summoned via RfC. Looking at his contribution history, this behaviour seems routine for this editor. --Pete (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's being argued here. I guess you could argue a clear case of meat-puppet tendentious editing/edit warring/3RR. I mean, it's not like they're subtle, iirc one of them explicitly says "HEY EVERYONE WE'RE MEATPUPPETING. Hooray for meatpuppetry.  Let's all meat puppet together, that'll be fun.  Meatpuppeting works, so if we meatpuppet together we win." I can dredge up the diff if you'd like on that one. So yea. It looks like Skyring, RAF910, and Thomas.W have done 4 reverts in it looks like exactly 2 hours. It goes without saying, of course, that I didn't revert a single thing. WP:SOCK Looks like they did pretty much the same thing with that POV dispute tag that explicitly instructs editors not to remove it. It looks like it's a pattern of behavior. I'd guess that it's simply a case of them thinking for whatever reason that this meat puppetry works, and that they can "win" by doing it, which gives them a perverse incentive to drive disputes to exactly this sort of conclusion. It's probably behavior driven by reward. People have rewarded them in the past behavior, incentivizing this perverse abuse of the system. It incentivizes them to stonewall other dispute resolution processes because people have rewarded them in the past for driving disputes to this conclusion. That could very well be one of the endemic problems in the wikipedia dispute resolution process. Demonstrably removing all incentive to resolve the dispute or participate in any discussion while at the same time creating a perverse incentive to start a rigged edit war. Just as in this case, boldly and proudly edit warring in the belief that again they'll be rewarded for deliberately fostering and the making an edit war somehow while stonewalling any discussion or any attempt at dispute resolution.TeeTylerToe (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TeeTylerToe is doing a very good job above, shooting himself in the foot and telling more about his mentality than I could possibly do without violating WP:NPA. To sum it up it's a clear case of WP:IDHT, refusing to drop the stick even though noone else supports his decidely non-mainstream views, and blaming everyone except himself, just like on virtually every other article he has targeted. And he's unfortunately not going to stop until blocked. Thomas.W talk 16:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TeeTylerToe does not listen to anyone. He took this issue to the Reference desk/Humanities and User:Tagishsimon provide a reference that completely refuted his position. Said reference not only reinforced the Assault rifle pages narrative, it has been subsequently added to the article. He took this issue to the Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard section and was flat out told by User:Scoobydunk "Whatever you do, don't edit war to get the tag put in." He did not listen. And, User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris told him "Most of the time it means that you should accept that you are wrong, and should retire with grace." He did not listen. TTT filed a Requests for mediation/Assault rifle which was rejected within 30 minutes by User:TransporterMan, yet TTT did not listen. He asked for help from Requests for comment/History and geography the only editor to respond was user User:Skyring and TTT refused to listen, forcing User:Skyring to file this edit warring complaint. See the Talk:Assault rifle page, where he is forcing his fellow editors to waste a tremendous amount of time and effort dealing with is fringe POV beliefs. And, while he claims that his sources are the gold standard and beyond reproach, none of his edits to the Assault rifle page included said references and instead were completely unreferenced. In fact, his assertion that M1917 Burton Balloon Buster was the first assault rifle was never mentioned in any of his edits to the Assault rifle page. Enough is enough, it's time for TeeTylerToe to go. I recommend a permanent block. --RAF910 (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The RDH discussion may be found in the archives here. Other examples of his style may be found at A-10 and Talk:Sikorsky_S-76 (and subsequent sections). This latter discussion - in 2012 - saw editors raise the possibility of a permanent block if TTT did not change his style. I think it's clear that he hasn't learnt, he's still wasting our time, he needs to accept that this behaviour will not be tolerated, no matter how many articles he skips onto in search of fresh targets. --Pete (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "TeeTylerToe does not listen to anyone." That is quite demonstrably false.  Take, for instance, my discussion on the AR talk page with Herr Gruber, or my discussion on the CIA talk page.  Other people, instead, stonewall discussions, forcing one of two outcomes, either forfeit, or here on the edit warring noticeboard where they believe that their strategy will be rewarded, because they've established a long pattern of being rewarded by doing this, and they will win, automatically.  People proud of their refusal to participate in dispute resolution on the dispute resolution notice board and in mediation, and iirc in other places, trumpeting their refusal to participate in dispute resolution here, trumpeting their filibustering of the wp dispute resolution processes, trumpeting how they've gamed the system to twist the wp dispute resolution processes by making them useless, driving all dispute resolution to an arena where they believe they have an unbeatable advantage.  The Atlantic magazine published some pop history. But for some reason you forgot to mention on the reference desk user Askedonty's comment "Looking after it I found the interesting story of the 1917 Winchester Machine Rifle as it's considered a possible predecessor" with this link http://guns.wikia.com/wiki/Winchester_Model_1917_Machine_Rifle you also seem to have forgotten to mention the several references I found searching books.google, "google books has a preview of "Rifles: An Illustrated History of Their Impact By David Westwood" In germany at least there's the Vollmer M35 in 1935 followed by the haenel, designed in 1940 and produced in 1941. "german interest in an intermediate cartridge first expressed itself in the 1930s" iirc that was when I realized that the AR article tells a completely different, pop history story than, for instance the stg-44 article tells.  Contrary to what RAF910 says, while the advice was odd, "disregard the instructions of the POV tag, if people keep removing the tag against the instructions, if they declare an edit war, the edit war will only occur if you meet their challenge and meet them in battle so to speak, if they declare an edit war and you don't show up, then they'll be the only combatant, and they won't have anyone to fight." It turns out that even though I followed that advice, they still found a way to have an edit war all by themselves.  Also, I mean, how does a person defend edit warring to suppress a POV tag notification?  Who feels such burning need to suppress a tag that a debate is happening that they declare that they'll engage in an edit war to suppress it?  And that's beyond simply disregarding the instructions of the tag.  And Shock Brigade Harvester Boris saying that if someone edit wars to suppress a POV tag then the person edit warring to suppress a POV tag is probably right?  I'm not following the logic there.  Again, who feels the need to suppress a POV tag?  Why would someone do that?  Why would they violate the instructions of the tag?  The mediation request was denied because a week or two ago I opened an RFC, but it didn't take 30 minutes for iirc RAF910 to say that he'd refuse to participate in it.  For some reason RAF910 also forgot that Fountains of Bryn Mawr posted "(un-involved editor here), this "Discussion" section is going no where because no one is citing sources (except for one pretty unreliable source cited by TeeTylerToe that, filtered through WP:YESPOV, would rank as cited opinion at best). Content on Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not the opinions of its editors.", I'd already posted numerous sources, and I responded to him reposting the sources.  I don't know why RAF910 seems to fixate on the 1917 winchester-burton, and oddly the StG-44.  I have had the most success finding RS' saying that the 1917 winchester-burton was an assault rifle and perhaps was the first assault rifle, including a book, an nra journal, popular mechanics, and 8 other sources, but that's not really a question that has a lot of emotional significance for me.  I don't care if it was the winchester 1907, or the winchester-burton 1917, or the m1921 in .351slr or the cm 1918, or the federov avtomat, or the ~1935 vollmer m35, or the walther mk that predated the german army machine carbine program 1942, or the haenel, walther, or vollmer Mkb 42, or the stg-44, or any other rifle.  It does trouble me that under RAF910's pen the article has been getting more and more inaccurate.  First there's the startling disconnect between the stg-44 article which walks you through the 1930s and early 1940s when machine carbines were developed in Germany, and the AR article which ignores all the development mentioned in the StG-44 article.  And RAF910 keeps adding inaccurate details that don't make any sense.  The 7.92 kurz iirc was developed from a swiss intermediate cartridge, but there were plenty of intermediate cartridges that proceeded it, but RAF910 added a statement to the article saying that the 7.92 kurz was somehow revolutionary, without any support from any source.  RAF910 also added that the StG-44 was the first rifle with an over the barrel gas system, again, afiak with no support. This is provably false. Almost nothing in the article is either undisputed or true.  Not to mention, why is it a coatrack article for pop history that has mostly been shaped by propaganda that's more romantic waxings on the StG-44 and AK-47, rather than focusing on the assault rifle.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * TeeTylerToe also likes to respond with large blocks or walls of text, questions, and comments that make it difficult to understand what his specific complaints are. Something he has been repeatedly told to stop doing, by myself on the Talk:Assault rifle page. By User:OuroborosCobra, User:Erpert and User:BilCat on the Talk:Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II page. Again, reinforcing my belief that TeeTylerToe does not listen to anyone and should be permanently blocked.--RAF910 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This editor has been blocked multiple times for edit warring, though not recently, and I feel two weeks is justified. Katietalk 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TeeTylerToe talk page edits regarding his two week block clearly indicate that he believes that he has done nothing wrong and that he will continue to edit war after the block is lifted. I recommend a permanent block.--RAF910 (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Jobas (Result: Declined)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Here and Here

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Warning reverted by Xenophrenic as "humor"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Forced conversion - Three users object to Xenophrenic's Section Blanking on Talk Page
 * 2)  Cambodian genocide - Two users object to Xenophrenic's Category Removal on Talk Page

Comments:

User:Xenophrenic has been blocked a total of seven times thus far for edit warring. I've provided just two articles where User:Xenophrenic has been recently edit warring, despite the fact that User:EdJohnston, a sysop, recognized the fact that User:Xenophrenic been edit warring across several articles and offered to protect the pages (see this one for example, where User:Xenophrenic once again reverts User:Ad Orientem). Another user, User:LoveMonkey, who seemed frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's WP:IDHT attitude also felt the need to report User:Xenophrenic as seen here. With specific regard to the Forced conversion article, another editor who noticed the edit warring attempted to discuss the issue with User:Xenophrenic on the talk page but then User:Xenophrenic proceeded to revert them. On the Cambodian genocide article, User:Xenophrenic is reverted by User:TheTimesAreAChanging who, in their edit summary, noted "You sure revert quickly" and attempted to dialog with User:Xenophrenic to no avail, since User:Xenophrenic continued to hold to an IDHT attitude rather than acknowledging consensus and dropping the WP:STICK. How User:Xenophrenic has been able to get away with his WP:HOUNDING and WP:EDIT WARRING behaviour for so long is beyond me. Thanks for your consideration, Jobas (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't address Xenophrenic's longer term record, which may well be one of a great contributor. But the admittedly limited editing I have seen on their part strikes me as bold to the point of evincing an element of indifference, or even contempt for the opinions of other editors not in conformity with their own. As also a certain willingness to push the envelope in advancing their particular POV. I will leave it to others to parse the record and decide what, if anything, needs to be done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my. From looking at User:Xenophrenic's contributions, it seems that they have engaged in POV pushing across several articles, as well as Wikistalking. In light of their history of edit warring and sockpuppetry, User:Xenophrenic should be blocked for at least six months. A topic ban from all articles related to religion/atheism would be useful too. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 06:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left my comments regarding the matter there. Please ping me if any further clarification or information is needed.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A complaint filed on an Administrator's Noticeboard is never a duplicate of a discussion on a user's talk page. It is generally the next step if one does not get resolution to the perceived problem. This needs to be addressed, formally. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is another example and here and here of how Xenophrenic still try to push his POV into the articles. User:HighKing also seemed frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's WP:BRD and POV attitude. --Jobas (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I care very little about this particular case but I post here just to signal that I have come across edits by user Jobas that were clear POV pushing and strangely sourced like this edit. The only point of this new paragraph added by Jobas in the introduction (in an article that would have needed obvious improvement) seemed to have been to add a category that was a pet project of user Jobas. It doesn't excuse the possible mistakes of Xenophrenic but it put it in perspective. Note that Jobas also added a similar paragraph in the article Forced conversion, with the same factual errors, the same POV pushing and the same unreliable source... So, I think that he certainly shares a significant part of the blame here. Eleventh1 (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's was my edit, These other edits are not added by me. And in the article Forced conversion I didn't add this paragraph what i did is reverted to latest version before our edit (14:08, 22 June 2016). and what i added was other paragraph with sources supported by Wessinger, Catherine, and Geoffrey Blainey. So I wish you could be more precise when you browse my edits. And as it seems here i'm not the only one who frustrated with User:Xenophrenic's POV attitude, regards.--Jobas (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * . The diffs provided do not indicate a 3RR violation, and a brief review of the past few days' history on both pages doesn't reveal any egregious edit warring. That is the only behavior analyzed at this noticeboard; if you believe someone is editing tendentiously, open a report at a different noticeboard. –Darkwind (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pixie dust 777 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "stop and explain on talk page. consensus is assumed on talk page of women in islam"
 * 2)  "reverted unexplained revision by Spike789"
 * 3)  "undid unexplained revision by spike 789"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Women in Islam."


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


 * Comments:

Continuously removing a long standing referenced sentence and replacing with an unreferenced one. Multiple editors have attempted to explain this to the editor, but they ignore the message and continue to make these edits. -- samtar talk or stalk 13:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I just posted on Talk:Women in Islam the apparent BBC linkage that Pixie dust has been posting about, to reference their statement that women slaves held in Islamic societies were permitted to own property - http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml. While the BBC is considered a reliable source and this source does state under the "Slave rights" header that "Slaves may own property", in this case the BBC text does not clearly state that female slaves could own property.  So while Pixie has made many reversions on the article over the past few days, it seems to me that they are not completely in the wrong about this issue. Shearonink (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but the inability of the editor to listen show's a worringly lack of competence. They are continuing to edit war over this. -- samtar talk or stalk 07:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * . This is a fairly clear case of an editor ignoring consensus and continuing to revert despite attempts at discussion. On the article talk page, two different editors attempted to explain the problem with the edit in question, and Pixie dust 777 appears to have willfully ignored that advice. When combined with the fact that four different editors reverted Pixie dust 777 during the past 6 days this has been going on, and two different edit warring warnings were given, it's fairly clear that Pixie dust 777 does not intend to abide by the established consensus. –Darkwind (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:185.100.213.68 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730337716 by DatGuy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730337212 by DatGuy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730322482 by 31.48.59.254 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User also has jumped accounts. User:185.100.213.77 and User:185.100.213.231 have also reverted to the exact same version. Finally, User:2a03:4a80:5:43b:43b:6564:19bc:9ba2 also wants the version of the 185.100.213.xxx IP. Pinging User:HkCaGu Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * After full-protecting this article for 3 days, finding no discussion when the protection expired, and giving fair warning that the next editors to edit-war would receive a block, I am following up on that. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Xfpisher reported by User:hchc2009 (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: The underling issue concerns a dispute between the editor and others about reliable sources. Albeit acting in good faith, they have been repeatedly adding in essentially the same material and reverting others for the last day or so. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Underling' issue? :) For the record, many of my 'reverts' have been changes to the original edit, in an effort to find something acceptable to the other editors. It is my understanding that IMDb can be used as a source in Wikipedia articles, in certain circumstances.  I was upheld in this in a previous dispute, and was not aware of any change in the guidelines.  The editor reverting me was refusing to discuss the matter, or offer any alternatives.  If I simply reverted too many times in a given period, apologies.  I'm not sure I did.  I started the conversation on the article's talk page.  I suggested a compromise, and the editor did not respond to me.  The current edit (as of this moment) addresses some of the editor's complaints.Xfpisher (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Zbase4 reported by User:DePiep (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Complaint: Zbase4 trespassed the WP:1RR rule on that page. I request the pre-this situation be restored.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (note: the page is under 1RR rule):
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -- zero response or effect
 * The diff is wrt editor's talkpage. Article talkpage does not have any discussion whatsoever. That's the point: no talkpage conformation for this change. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * . This happened four days ago. Blocks are not punitive, and doubt you could make a successful case that there is ongoing disruption here worthy of a block. –Darkwind (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for a block. I'm asking for a revert into pre-sitiation. -DePiep (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a content-related noticeboard, this is a behavior-related noticeboard, and no behavior-related actions are called for in this situation. If you have content concerns, take it to the template's talk page or to another discussion venue. –Darkwind (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Read the page title. I came here for 3RR (actually 1RR) trespassing, and all you admins can think of is block someone. Why not attitude 'solve something'? That's your pagename. (btw, earlier on, when it might be in time, I complained on the talkpage about bad reception here. ). All you admins only can think of is "block'm". -DePiep (talk)
 * And re "not a content-related noticeboard": I know. Just count the reverts. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Jpimentel201 reported by User:Nika de Hitch (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/729254778
 * 2) Special:Diff/729350627
 * 3) Special:Diff/729774083
 * 4) Special:Diff/729802496
 * 5) Special:Diff/729946658
 * 6) Special:Diff/730281141

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

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

Comments:


 * Alternatively, before going to DR, and  could try having a discussion on the article's talk page instead of in edit summaries. –Darkwind (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Nika de Hitch About Dominican DNA: ... I've made several attempts to remove the new addition in reference to a dna portion made about Dominicans in the DR page, inly for it to be re-added and eventually leading to me being unable to make edits anymore. The reason I've made several attempts to erase it, is because of the bias info which contradicts findings from several other DNA studies. This study was conducted on 1000 people in certain towns in a few provinces within the DR with predominant afro influence. Studies done on 1,000 Dominican citizens from these towns do not represent the entire population of 10,000,000.

Here is some examples of other DNA studies done in DR with some links:

In the Last 2010 Dominican Census, Dominican marked themselves as follow...

59% Other(Mixes) 28% White 12% Black

According to C.I.A. Fact Book estimates Dominicans are:

73% Mix Tri-racial(Spanish ,Afro ,Native) 16% White( Spanish/Other European) 11% Black

According to recent genealogical tests by DNA-Tribe the average Mix Dominican is estimated to be:

58.1 % Spanish European 35.2% African 6.4% Taino Indio

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp323/cristiano3/DNA-4.jpg

According to 23andMe DNA test, Mix Dominicans are estimated to be:

60% European 35% African 5% Taino Indian

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?authkey=CL2T54EF&hl=en_US&key=0At1sp4m_NTCLdHB4a2FZYXRxZnh0UzRfbzlTV2lXSWc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

According to PLOS Genetic the average Mix Dominican is:

57% Spanish European 38% Afro 5 % Native

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003925

According to "History Of The Caribbean" book Pg. 34 written by Franklin W. Knight a extremely important Historian of the slavery in the Caribbean inform that by 1750 Dominicans were:

38,000 Whites 30,000 Mixed 15,000 Slaves

My point, is that DNA shouldn't even be used in this Wikipedia page about DR, because of all the conflicting findings and opinions. This is very divisive within our community and alienates a large portion of the population. Please remove this info, because it isn't a fact. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpimentel201 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please have this discussion on the talk page of the article, not on this noticeboard nor on my talk page. Thank you. –Darkwind (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Beboj3140 reported by User:x4n6 (Result: Semi, Warnings)
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 is a relatively new, ST user, who persists in warring, despite warnings that were posted on the edit log and the user's talk page. What complicates this is that the same user also appears to be doing the same thing as IP 188.182.194.148 on this article: here, here and here; warring about the same sentence and section, within the same time frame; and using virtually identical language in the edit log. Therefore recommend block for both User:Beboj3140 acct and the IP 188.182.194.148 as well, as blocking this person on one without the other would likely be ineffective. X4n6 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Beboj3140 and User:X4n6 are both warned they may be blocked if they revert again without a prior consensus on the talk page. Surely this 'most prestigious' thing might be fixed by rewording or my pointing to the relevant source more clearly. I semiprotected the article two months due to attention from the mysterious IP. If the IP edits elsewhere a block for abusing multiple accounts might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:79.70.159.148 reported by User:Pianoman320 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730394416 by Pianoman320 (talk) It may be standard, but it needs to be referenced. You cannot make it up."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730393221 by Pianoman320 (talk) Please, explain your revert"
 * 3)  "/* Example code */ Appears to be trivia. And it is unreferenced."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 730310505 by Pianoman320 (talk) Being short is not an excuse to blank a section. And the fact is in its context"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Swift (programming language). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Swift (programming language). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP is repeatedly blanking an established, relevant section of the article (an "Examples" section on a programming language article). Seems to be retaliation for a sentence the IP added that was removed, once by myself and once by another editor. There are two IPs involved in the same range that appear to be the same editor.

I'm up against 3RR myself so I can't restore the section anymore. Note that the IP *is* correct about the section being unreferenced, but that should probably be addressed with a tag. Pianoman320 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Please, when deciding what to do about this. Also think about the section that Pianoman320 blanked. Think if it is OK, to prevent the neutrality of the article because the only negative section is too small. Also, Template:Citation needed is not meant to be used when there are no references, but as a warning that if no references are found the text will be removed. Please, allow neutrality in the article. 2.97.239.75 (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 2 days. –Darkwind (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Tempus Loquendi reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Is this Goebbels himself undoing these edits? Are the quotations from Locke, Hitler and Gandhi not clearly cited enough for you? Are all facts and opinions that contradict your own automatically disregarded as "counterfactual"?"
 * 2)  "These edits are primarily factual. Many of them are direct quotes from Hitler himself, or from John Locke or Mahatma Gandhi. Any opinions are in response to the opinions of others."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730562674 by Anastrophe (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nazi gun control theory. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Account appears to have been created to continue edit war started by 184.155.110.2 Note personal attacks in edit summary, as well Grayfell (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts at 20:50, 20:45, 20:42, 20:33. Was warned. Kuru   (talk)  20:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Tagi aydin reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730571984 by Oktay karaduman (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730572626 by Tagi aydin (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730569440 by Feinoha (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 730568727 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 730568400 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 730567921 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730567921 by Sro23 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The editor has not engaged on the talk page or even in edit summaries. Comments left on other editors' pages suggest a competency issue. In addition, it's likely the editor is socking with another account (see Sockpuppet investigations/Oktay karaduman). clpo13(talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Oktay karaduman. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

User:99.103.25.212 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Spelling correction"
 * 2)  "spelling"
 * 3)  "Spelling correction"
 * 4)  "spelling"
 * 1)  "spelling"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Air France Flight 4590. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Air France Flight 4590 . (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Violations of ENGVAR. Will not stop disruption. Dr.  K.  06:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Clear violation after warning. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:AaronMFeld reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Opinions, no matter how well sourced, should never be presented as facts."
 * 2)  "The original edit clarified things.  The revert made it unclear again. Undid revision 730645617 by Sławomir Biały (talk)"
 * 3)  "Although I still disagree strongly with using both pseudoscience and quackery contentious terms"
 * 4)  "We do badge things as disputed that are disputed."


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

(numerous threads)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Nobody has stepped over 3RR yet, but there's enough dispute here over wording that I feel protection is the best option. I'll strongly caution AaronMFeld on his talk page. Work it out, people. Katietalk 12:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I would respectfully ask that the page be badged as in controversy prior to protection. Currently it is in very biased format. AaronMFeld (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  23:51, 14 July 2016
 * 2)  00:20, 15 July 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed: 

...to where JFG edits the signature size -> 0.5: 

...to where Dervorguilla restores it to 0.5: 

...to where YoPienso restores it to 0.5: 

Diff of attempt by JFG to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Dervorguilla (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User Yopienso's edit was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more. User JFG did not offer any opinion on signature size, he/she only took the median between an inappropriately minuscule size based on bogus argument of "sexual equality", and the long-standing template:Infobox person default sig size. (That makes as much sense as "compromising" that I cannot fill up the gas tank of my Toyota, because a woman at another pump has a Volkswagon with a smaller tank size!) I cannot find any substantive contribution by User Dervorguilla in the Talk:Donald Trump thread, only shifting irrelevancies, disruptive mocking of the BLP subject and of me, and ongoing/never-ending off-topic posting. Plus his several reverts without cause or consensus to change the long-standing template default sig size, over the same time period. IHTS (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Diff of original talk page discussion just before 2 comments were silently deleted ( by IHTS ):
 * Dervorguilla (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 02:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "Silently deleted"?? How about I was regretting being enticed by user Jack Upland into off-topic poor humor posts thickening an already too-long Talk thread. (More irrelevancies. Ghosts & goblins!) IHTS (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP continues to revert the long-standing sig size at the article even while this incident is open! (Amazing. At this point, I think it's clear, this incident was opened as part of a campaign to harass & intimidate.) IHTS (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Diff of attempt by YoPienso to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Link to where Dervorguilla restores YoPienso's revision:
 * Link to where IHTS reverts:
 * Dervorguilla (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC) 09:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

User Dervorguilla's above presentation is a distortion of what occurred. This is what occurred: IHTS (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) my grossly mistaken markup
 * 2) user Yopienso reverts my gross error
 * 3) my misunderstanding of Yopienso's edit
 * 4) the markup I originally intended


 * A correction to IHTS's interpretation of YoPienso's edit:
 * "User Yopienso's edit was aimed to correct a gross markup error, nothing more..."
 * In his talk comment, YoPienso said his edit was aimed to restore the 110px size, not just correct the markup error:
 * "IHTS wrote in the edit summary restoring the larger signature, 'No, read the Talk page; ... your "too big" compare on that basis is apples-and-oranges).' I did look over this long discussion before changing it. My 'too big' means in relation to the rest of the infobox..."
 * Also, a general review of the signature-size history shows that IHTS has made 8 changes, Dervorguilla 4, YoPienso 1, and JFG 1:
 * 170px (Connormah) -> 80px (D) -> 130px (I) -> 80px (D) -> 110px (J) -> 170px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 220px [mistake] (I) -> 110px (Y) -> 220px [mistake] (I) -> 150px (I) -> 170px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 170px (I).
 * In particular, IHTS appears to have made 4 changes within a three-hour span:
 * 23:51, 14 July 2016: 110px -> 220px
 * 00:20, 15 July 2016: 110px -> 220px
 * 00:22, 15 July 2016: 220px -> 150px
 * 02:56, 15 July 2016: 150px -> 170px


 * Also, a general review of the signature-size history shows that IHTS has made 7 changes, Dervorguilla 4, YoPienso 1, and JFG 1:
 * 150px (Connormah) -> 80px (D) -> 130px (I) -> 80px (D) -> 110px (J) -> 170px (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 220px [mistake] (I) -> 110px (Y) -> 220px [mistake] (I) -> 150px (I) -> 110px (D) -> 150px (I).
 * In particular, IHTS appears to have made 3 changes within a one-hour span:
 * 23:51, 14 July 2016: 110px -> 220px
 * 00:20, 15 July 2016: 110px -> 220px
 * 00:22, 15 July 2016: 220px -> 150px


 * Dervorguilla (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 11:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Irrespective of the irrelevant sexist or ad hominem arguments brought forward by those two editors in this WP:LAME edit war, I do feel that the "0.5" signature size looks appropriate given this infobox format and the shape of this particular signature. Now would an admin kindly send the kids home to cool down? — JFG talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Kid" is an undeserved, unwarranted personal attack. And fuck you for it asshole. IHTS (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear IHTS: in my view, calling you guys "kids" is an affectionate way to point out playground-style quibbles over minor details. I love kids. Regardless, sorry for unwittingly offending you. On being called an asshole, I don't mind; we all have one. — JFG talk 07:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "Playground-style"??? "Quibbles"??? Maybe that applies to the other editor, but not me, asshole. Go fuck yourself. IHTS (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Charming! — JFG talk 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * JFG: I'm not finding any actual "ad hominem arguments" at article talk. Both IHTS and I were directing our attacks at each other's claims rather than each other's character. But I do have to agree with you on the most important issue here: None of us (you, me, or YoPienso) can readily restore the 110px sig size without getting immediately reverted, by IHTS. I expect he would likely agree too . --Dervorguilla (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 05:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 15:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I've created an 'Apparent consensus' subsection at talk. It's not clear yet whether this is going to help resolve the dispute. --Dervorguilla (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What a joke. And all your reversions of the long-standing sig size have had no reasonable basis or rationale in discussion, changing from absurd "gender equality" argument, to repeating an apples-and-oranges argument comparing two different templates which provide two different available spaces for sig size. You clearly have shifting rationales supporting a POV behind all of your reverts and excessive unsubstantive additions to the Talk thread, not to mention the mocking of the BLP subject, and of me, with your offensive graphic and remark. You have a "grind them down" approach, including the opening of this EWN item, which even while open you continued reverting at the article. IHTS (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Categorically denied. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a technical violation of the 1RR rule that's been applied to the Donald Trump page. However, I'm going to give the user in question the the benefit of the doubt that he made a mistake. Even so, IHTS's behavior on this page is not appropriate and I strongly advise you to adopt a calmer tone when engaging with other editors. After I post this, I will also formally notify you of DS in effect on the Donald Trump page. If there is further disruptive editing or a future 1RR violation, I will impose a block and consider a short-term topic ban on the offending parties. I ask all of you to relax. This is a very silly thing to have an argument about. If necessary, taking an evening off from WP might be in the best interest of everyone, then you can approach the situation with a cool head. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * ___
 * As the reporting editor, I'd like to ask that the user in question be 'un-warned'. His editing wasn't particularly disruptive. Also, his contributions at article talk may well have been made with a "cooler head" than those of the sysop who's now contributing there at a faster pace than the two of us combined. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the editor's response to the report on this page, and the existence of the 1RR rule effective on the Donald Trump page, my close is unchanged. I'm glad to hear the editor's helping out on the talk page; I hope everyone involved can work to resolve things proactively and with a cool head. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:86.163.59.240 reported by User:ProgrammingGeek (Result: sockblock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730697356 by 172.58.40.117 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730697148 by Serols (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 730696691 by 7&6=thirteen (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 730696304 by 172.58.40.117 (talk) rvn back at you anon ip"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 730696040 by 7&6=thirteen (talk) ((((completely unsourced "Controversy" section)))))"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 730695795 by 7&6=thirteen (talk) is so not so back off."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Twinkle somehow didn't pick this up, but there are multiple warnings on the user's talk page. I believe that the warnings were mistakenly sent for test edits. Even so, adequate warning was given.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a sock. WE have had ongoing problems for days on some Warner Brothers Bugs Bunny Metro Goldwyn Mayer Tom & Jerry articles.  Also included The Cat Concerto‎.  I went to WP:AIV as soon as we had filled out the IP's scorecard with warnings.  Many ways to skin a cat.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I've blocked this IP as a sockpuppet of User:ThetriviaBlanker and User:Thegetingridoftriviauser. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Seriesphile reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730537871 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Recurring */"
 * 3)  "Do a research and stop reverting my edits."


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


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


 * Comments:

The user reverses my edits without explanation, although I told him that furnish reliable sources.  Philip J Fry   Talk    23:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I already provided you with 1, 2, 3 reliable sources and you still revert my edits you're the one supposed to be reported here not me. Borikén  ( talk  · ctb) 23:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

User:NotHoratio reported by User:MaverickLittle (Result: Warned)
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 link

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

Comments:Editor NotHoratio is continuing to claim that Scott Baio is no longer an actor and he/she keeps reverted other editor who ask for a reliable source to support such a dubious claim.

Fine. IMDB says he hasn't acted since 2014, but what do they know. I'm done with it.

Comments: NotHoratio hasn't edited the article since the warning and has said they don't intend to do so. I'm OK with leaving this as a warning. -- Laser brain  (talk)  02:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Landerman56 reported by User:Klortho (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

I have recently reported before on this notice board, archived here, and the result was a 48-hour block.

The day after that was over, he continued with the exact same behavior, inserting his preferred edits with no attempt to discuss them, here, here, here, here, here.

Furthermore, as I mentioned in my earlier report, this user has a long history of disruptive edits, seems to be almost a single-user account, and consistently whitewashes his talk page of any negative notices or comments. Could I request a more permanent block?

also edited during this dispute, and I assume good faith; but I reverted his edits, because they overlapped with Landerman56, and of an uncannily similar nature. Klortho (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This is simply harrassment and I don't foresee this baseless block request succeeding. I have always made good faith edits. I have also kept above the fray. Any form of due deligence will clearly show this request lacks merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'd say this comment he just made here seems to be representative of his strategy. I don't have that much experience with disputes, and am not sure if this is plausible or not, but I'm starting to suspect that the real intent of this editor is just to disrupt as much as he can with as little effort, and cause me to expend a lot of my effort and time -- which means, because he disagrees with my POV, that its a net gain. That's not an accusation -- just speculation; one possible explanation for his pattern of edits. Klortho (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that he asked to have his block reviewed, and made some counter-accusations. Is that something I should respond to? If so, here or there? Thank you. Klortho (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:MisterAnthony reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Garry Marshall. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Garry Marshall. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

There is only one diff included in this report because the user being reported has been edit warring carefully by systematically removing content and the infobox image incrementally rather than outright reversions of content, sans the reversion diff above. Like myself, editors have approached him on his talk page, the communications have been removed. My guess is this is an editor with a grudge who has been blocked previously - and possibly is currently blocked - and has created a new account to escape detection. New users edit warring usually don't know to edit war under the radar in the manner of this editor - there's most certainly some previous Wikipedia experience here.

If you look at the user's number of edits at the Garry Marshall article, they are numerous, and all within the last 24 hours, the vast majority of them without edit summaries. All of this makes it near impossible to easily target which edits are edit warring changes. Diff to list of edits at the Marshall article here:. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show where material was added that he then removed? I get that you're saying they're manual reverts with no edits repeated, but I need to see that they're actually reverts.  He is approaching a block for disruptive editing, but I still can't actually see where one of his edits manually undoes someone's else's work.  I'd try to find it, but I just woke up.  Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, what I can find (since I'm not going to compare each one of his edits with every edit that's been done in the article):
 * he's tried to link to the United States article three times on the word "American" in the lede and once in the infobox .  I'm usually not inclined to lump that sort of thing together.
 * he's attempted to tag the article for notability twice
 * he's tried to change the profile picture from the apparent consensus version four times.
 * Assuming that the first edit in each of those attempts was not a revert (and not counting the infobox attempt as a revert), that would be six reverts. The notability tagbombing looks really bad, especially the second time (though he did stop after the warning).  His attempts to undo the report (which just undid other people's posts since the report) were also disruptive.  If it was just the edit warring, I'd let another admin decide if this report is stale or not, but due to the disruptive nature of some of his other edits I am going to block him in a moment.  That said, the majority of his edits alternate between gnomish and good-faith test edits (though the sheer number borders on disruptive).  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Italia2006 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting persistent vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730412127 by SLBedit (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Hat-tricks by club */ "F.C. Porto" is incorrect. Article name is FC Porto. There was a whole discussion on this at Talk:FC Porto"
 * 4)  "/* Hat-tricks by club */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Editing while logged out on List of Primeira Liga hat-tricks. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2016 */ re"
 * 3)   "/* July 2016 */"


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


 * Comments:

I tried to resolve the issue on User talk:Italia2006. SLBedit (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We already went over this on the other admin page. Italia2006 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Severe DTS is in order, I think. You didn't get your way on the other page, so now you try this. Comments? Italia2006 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No matter how much you think your version is right (and frankly I agree with it), you have broken the three-revert rule. Do you realize this is blockable behaviour and that there are other more constructive ways of dealing with the dispute? Additionally your tone is far from acceptable &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For a block to result from this situation is absolutely absurd. However, I normally have perfectly agreeable relations with my fellow editors and work cooperatively with many of them. As such I agree completely that my tone was incorrect and should not be tolerated. Italia2006 (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that an indirect apology? SLBedit (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A block to result from this is not absurd, it is procedural. What's absurd is to edit war over such a trivial change, even if you're version is "right", and this applies to both parties. I don't think a block is necessary if we can take this to the talk page, which hasn't been touched over 4 years. More importantly, civility is absolutely paramount and the contrary further validates the appropriateness of a block, that should be abundantly clear &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  00:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion on the talk page for what? The article is FC Porto. What is there to discuss? He keeps reverting to an incorrect hyperlink, please explain how any discussion is required. Italia2006 (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion is required because two editors are clearly at odds. You cannot keep reverting each other over and over. I agree "FC" makes sense because that's the target of the article, but "F.C." is indeed not broken. Therefore there's no reason to revert back to "F.C.", and there's no reason to correct "F.C." to "FC" (at least not for a fourth time in a row). If we can just stop than we don't need to discuss any further. If feels this strongly about it, then that's what the talk page is for. You both have been  &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  00:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to stop, for my part. Italia2006 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing to edit war over. This thread was completely unneccesary and you already took this discussion at WP:ANI before this. You should be very careful about forumshopping/adminshopping and WP:BOOMERANG. Keep discussion in one place. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 00:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be aware that SLBedit also went to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 00:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this report was necessary because Italia2006 violated 3RR. It is a shame that Italia2006 was not punished for this. SLBedit (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits from Italia2006 were total correct and reporting someone for that is laughable. Kante4 (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, the report from User:SLBedit is laughable and his behaviour is increasingly diruptive. Now in a new edit war (2016–17 S.L. Benfica season) at which he reported the other editor. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:P3DRO reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730703038 by SLBedit (talk) Unsorcered. You need to have a ref that Bebé were that shirt last season"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 730698698 by SLBedit (talk) Don't undo my edits unless you have proofs. If you say that was discussed post a link in my talk page. That doesn't make sense."
 * 3)  "Besteirense, Hany Mukhtar didn't play in the 2015/16 season so he didn't wear the 27 shirt."
 * 4)  "Match against Tondela will be on 13 August."
 * 5)  "Updated last match attendance; Added Pedroso to the staff."
 * 6)  "Updated Technical staff. Reverted unsorcered information, possibly vandalism, by SLBedit."
 * 7)  "Possible vandalism. Do not add unsourced information. Put a ref about those players numbers."
 * 8)  "Added reliable sourse about Technical staff. SLBedit scroll down until you see "equipa técnica". Reverted persistently unsourced content, definitely vandalism by SLBedit"
 * 9)  "Unsorcered. These players were not in Benfica squad last season. Stop you childish behaviour and this vandalism. If you want to put the numbers add a reliable source"
 * 10)  "Transfer is Undisclosed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User refuses to discuss in talk page. SLBedit (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not violate the 3RR rule, I only did 2 reverts. I talked to you on you talk page, you deleted my text. P3DRO (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems a lot like WP:BOOMERANG here. SLBedit seems to try and bully his way looking at above where he did excatly the same thing. He wars then reports the other editor. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Italia2006 deserved the reports, one at ANI, another one here. And there's a difference: I haven't reported P3DRO at WP:ANI. It seems that you are angry at me because I accused you of being a hypocrite when defending users like Italia2006, who insult other users. SLBedit (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You do not respect my work, you are constantly reverting my edits even when you're not sure. You reverted my edit on Reinildo being promoted from Benfica B without confirming it first. You reverted my edit on Renato Sanches being in the notable players in the Juniors, when he had already signed with Bayern and was playing in France just because you wanted to be the last editor. You are constantly reverting other users edits on 2016-17 Benfica season. You delete info, put it back again, revert other users work without any criteria, you think that you are always right. Stop that childish and disrespectful behaviour. I'm a wikipedia contributor for almost 10 years and this is the first time that such thing happened to me. Have respect for the others that want to help. You do not respect this fundamental principle on Wikipedia.P3DRO (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confused. I don't want to be the "last editor" as you say. All I want is to improve articles. Sanches was a Benfica player until 30 June 2016. My criteria is competence and Wikipedia guidelines. Stop repeating yourself. It doesn't matter how long and how often you edit Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with "respect", this is about building an encyclopedia, but yes I respect other users. I assume good faith all the time and revert vandalism as well. You forgot to mention all the other edits you made and that I did not revert. Will you stop adding unsourced information to articles? Wikipedia is WP:V not WP:TRUTH. SLBedit (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

P3DRO continues adding unsourced information about living people. It's time for a report at WP:ANI. SLBedit (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I added a reliable source from zerozero. You do not respect other users contributions. In May, Renato Sanches could not play another match for Benfica Juniors, the season had ended, and you kept reverting my edits. Stop that childish behaviour!

You are the one that is adding unsorcered material. Where is your source about Bebé, César and Mukhtar's numbers? P3DRO (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You are both edit warring and should both be blocked. Any admin here? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:P3DRO (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "p : player's name on jersey and link to his article". Reverted user reported at WP:AN3. Removed unsourced information about a living person."
 * 2)  "Reverted 2 edits by P3DRO to last revision by SLBedit."
 * 3)  "Reverted disruptive user.
 * 4)  "Undid revision 730902421 by P3DRO"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

This user is constantly reverting my edits. Claims I provide unsorcered material but he lies. He has been reverting my edits on a number of pages without any reason. He is vandalising the page, he does not give any source about the players numbers. This user acts like a child, always wanting to do the last edit, he thinks that he is always right in stuff concerning Benfica. He does not answer me in his talk page.

This user desrespects other users contribuitions. He does not respect this principle and started a edit war. He claimed this was discussed at WT:FOOTY but he did not put a link in my talk page.P3DRO (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a revenge report. See my report above. SLBedit (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Both editors needs block immediately for edit warring. Where are admins? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:50.161.82.77 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730797211 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Beliefs */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 730806619 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 730806316 by Grayfell (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

3RR warning over 12 hours ago. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


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

Doesn't seem willing to pay any attention to the several warnings given. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:77.139.254.65 and User:Comeback2!! reported by User:Assayas (Result: Blocks)
See here. I'm an admin on he.wiki. this user was blocked on he.wiki by me, and now harassing me here. Assayas (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the proper forum for this report. However, the IP was globally locked, and I've indeffed the named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * tnx Assayas (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Taeyebar reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (June 20)
 * 2)  (June 25)
 * 3)  (July 4)
 * 4)  (July 16)
 * 5)  (July 17)
 * 6)  (July 18)
 * 7)  (July 21 - this revert came after I pointed out the accompanying source does not use the disputed term)
 * 8)  (July 21)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Taeyebar has not actually violated the three-revert rule but is clearly conducting a slow-burn edit war in the face of mounting consensus against his edits. The editor was explicitly asked not continue reinstaing his preferred version and he hasn't addressed my question on the talk page which asked him to clarify the context of the claim; in short what the source states falls some way short of the claim. Currently his changes amount to a unilateral edit: nobody supports them and there are four opinions on the talk page that either oppose them or question his interpretation of the source.


 * I am not editing the article currently as I am not on Wikipedia on a daily basis and will probably be gone for a couple of days, but I am still hoping for other editors to share opinions in.--Taeyebar 23:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Betty Logan should have waited for the discussion to be complete before and I was adding more sources. The sources I used call it a "western" but since it's a science fiction show and the fact that science fiction western redirects to space western I opted for that understandably.--Taeyebar 23:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You should be aware that Taeyeaar's history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple previous warnings posted on his Talk page. Many times he has been told versions of ''Three reverts are not an entitlement. You can be blocked for edit warring even without making a fourth revert. 3RR is merely the bright line beyond which you are definitely edit warring, not the beginning of it. When he does respond, it's with statements like But I do have a clean record, I have not broken the 3RR and I gave reason to add my edits and sources do term it as an action film.'' He has manged to skate by unsanctioned because he stretches his edit warring over weeks, sometimes months. He has been accused of disruption by many editors beyond myself. He still believes he has a license to do what he wants. Just look at this Lost in Space case, where he edit warred for over a month claiming his one source overcomes the majority of other sources when his one source didn't even say what he claimed it did. Then, even after it was clear consensus was against him, he put in his disputed edits yet again. I do hope that this time there will be a meaningful consequence, not just another warning. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Gothicfilm's accusations against me are without merit, given that this editor has broken the 3RR on at least four pages within the span of one year and received a number of complaints on his/her talk page about their behavior from various editors, so it is very hypocritical. I can provide diffs here for my claims, but this could only escalate the situation over a non-issue and so I suggest that Gothicfilm be told to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move along instead of looking to cause more trouble for him/herself as well.--Taeyebar 04:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Taeyebar has a long history of accusing others of nonsense, often behavior he engages in himself. It's incredible how he keeps throwing around accusations of 3RR, never mentioning that the only reason that comes up is because he put in the same edit repeatedly, over and over. And anyone here knows that responsible editors who revert irresponsible/questionable editors commonly get complaints on their Talk pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * , you are clearly the only editor at this time who believes that "space western" belongs in this article. Continuing to insert your desired wording despite the lack of a clear consensus to do so (and in the presence of at least a vague consensus against this edit) is misguided at best, and tendentious editing at worst.  Please refrain from re-inserting this material. –Darkwind (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)