Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive324

User:151.30.108.20 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Two articles semied)
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:

I strongly suspect this IP editor is editing while logged out. They appear to have edited from other IPs. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking into it more, probably just misguided. My bad. PeterTheFourth (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding that the user was also edit-warring over the same content on Rich Burlew before moving it to this article. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i'm not Amatulic. It's just a case where there's a dispute and he (among another IP editor and another user called Diego Moya) is agreeing with me because my section doesn't conflict with Wikipedia Rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Um, that IP address is in Italy. I'm in the United States. And I'm always logged in. In the 10 years I've been here, I have probably made just a handful of edits while inadvertently logged off. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was very boneheaded of me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there's an user called Eladynnus (talk) who is antagonizing the section that was added for no apparent reasons. He's known for insulting people, basing on his talk page *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eladynnus#WARNING.21_Your_insults_on_my_talk_page
 * I have explained my reasons for wanting the article removed several times now, but this IP editor continues to claim that the matter has been settled and everyone else agrees with him; see Talk:The_Order_of_the_Stick for examples. As for Tamsier, he was an editor with very strong views who was banned from Wikipedia in 2012 and 2015 for his bad behavior, which included attacking others (that link is actually a pretty mild example of what he would say to others). Eladynnus (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say this deserves a WP:BOOMERANG for edit warring towards and, either as a warning or short block, as a reminder that experienced users are not themselves exempt from edit warring policy, and that WP:AGF and WP:BITE are still policies - so they should know better than engage in this behavior towards who is likely a newcomer. The IP wouldn't have made so many reverts if Peter and Eladynuss hadn't performed a cumulative count of at least six reverts in the last 24 hours, with several more two days ago, over a section that is still under discussion, with several editors on each side; and that veterans should know better than attempting to WP:GAME the system by trying to get WP:THERIGHTVERSION in place while they ban their conversation partner while carefully keeping within the letter of WP:EW while batantly breaking its spirit. There is no deadline, and there are no BLP concerns on this case, so properly educating a newcomer editor who has a good disposition to create content should get a higher priority than getting their preferred outcome by turning the article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. If the section needs to be finally deleted, it should be because there's a consensus at the talk page for it, not because some editors coordinated to have it their way. Diego (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is an appropriate punishment, then fine. This IP editor is almost certainly not new, however. A Milanese IP editor has been editing the Rich Burlew article since May of 2015, starting with a series of vandalisms (1, 2, 3), which resulted in the article being temporarily locked (here). After the article was unlocked, he began writing the section in question (here), which another IP editor attempted to remove a few days later here. Since then, five editors, including myself, have removed the section from the Rich Burlew page for various reasons, and at no point has he shown much interest in our motivations or the policies that are cited. Eladynnus (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got nothing to do with those edits. Those are just some old nonsensical edits did from the same IP range, but not mine. You should try to avoid making defamatory assumptions like those and, instead, trying to help improve the article as Diego Moya did. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.108.20 (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not seem like much of a stretch to guess that someone with the same writing style as you, from the same city, and who has the same interest in Burlew's forum comments about gay characters in his comic, is the same person, but that is not the main point of the comment. Did you read any other part of them, or actually look at my complaints on the OotS page? It seems like you are avoiding the substance of any criticisms of the section in question, your behavior, and have not read any relevant Wikipedia policies. Eladynnus (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do feel, however, that I didn't behave appropriately when I continued to make revertions after it was clear that the IP editor was not going to allow the section to be removed. For what it's worth, I am sorry. Eladynnus (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how someone who edits the biography of Rich Burlew adding "Mona" (whatever that means) has my same writing style or shares my ideas. It appears you're trying to blame me for something i didn't do just because you don't like the section I've wrote. I think it's worthless further discussing because, while being not certainly seettled, the matter is that the sources of that section are acceptable according to wikipedia rules and you and forced me to do many reverts to it. I'll probably try improve the section in the future while keeping it at bay in terms of length. Have a good evening.
 * More the reason to engage in explanations of the finer points of policies, rather than using them as bludgeoning weapons. The IP did not have a disruptive behaviour at The Order of the Stick, and was reacting favourably to my comments, participating in the discussion. Diego (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel that I and others have discussed policy in a clear and cogent way, but the IP editor has not shown that is he willing to listen, compromise, or respond to criticism. None of the comments he's left in this discussion have been about his own behavior, and he has not explained why he wrote deceptive edit summaries on the Rich Burlew and OotS pages. He accuses others of making up policy or having no reason to be against including the section at all (1, 2, 3). All of his comments boil down to "I'm right and you're wrong" or "this person agrees with me," and is a good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I worry that there will be more disruptive editing regardless of the outcome of the discussion on the talk page because the IP editor has expressed reluctance to allowing any change to this section (1, 2, also see this edit summary where he calls it "my section"). Eladynnus (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You just resorted to revert my edits without giving any practical reason other than acting that you were some sort of authority. That's the reason i had to revert so many times the section. Seeing your history in wikipedia (be your talk page or your contribution page) i see that you're not new to this kind of behavior. I see you're used to delete entire sections giving only a tiny "explanation", especially towards ip editors treating them like second-class users. I think this kind of behavior is highly disruptive and not constructive at all. There won't be any more "disruptive editing" because, instead of what you did, the other editors are trying to address me to do a better job improving the article and i'm actively discussing with them on the talk page while you're showing anything but hostility towards me. I find it really annoying, at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.220.4.45 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Three months of semiprotection for both The Order of the Stick and Rich Burlew. It's reasonable to believe that the following Milan-area IPs are all operated by the same editor: 151.30.41.252, 151.30.68.126, 151.30.108.20, 91.220.4.45. Conducting an edit war with multiple IPs or accounts is disruptive and blockable under WP:SOCK. The single IP named in this report broke 3RR on Aug 17 as shown by the four diffs. The Rich Burlew article has needed semiprotection twice since July, the last time by User:BOZ. There is no reason why a person with such strong opinions can't create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem creating an account, but i've never hidden the fact that even the 91.220 ip was mine (i did those edit today, commenting on my previous edits acnowledgint as mine) so calling me a "IP-hopping edit warrior" is highly inaccurate. The fun part is that you protected the page in the exact moment i was trying to add other official references. Go figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.224.135 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, i'd like to add that both and  infranged the 3RR rule  with several more two days ago, over a section that is still under discussion, with several editors on each side. I do not think those two users should suffer no consequences.

User:MarnetteD reported by User:86.185.226.91 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made a number of edits to the article, which were necessary to make it comply with WP:NPOV, WP:V and the WP:MOS. The edits were reverted without explanation by the user I'm reporting. They have reverted four times in a little under two hours, leaving only the rather insulting comment "rvt to last clean version". In response to my question on their talk page as to why they would consider my edits "dirty", they responded with further insults. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And they continue to be astonishingly uncivil, see their removal of my notification to them of this discussion. 86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Marnette's reverting is minimal and the reporter hasn't exactly gone out of their way to resolve this dispute in a congenial manner (see this message they left at Marnette's talk page despite the fact that Marnette made no personal attacks that I can see). There is progress on the talk page now so I recommend closing this report. Betty Logan (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Minimal? Four reverts in less than two hours is not minimal.  It is textbook disruptive editing.  Their only comment on their reverts was "revert to last clean version", which was a clear personal attack.  And even if there were talk page progress (I don't see any reasons given for their reverting) "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period."  There's a list of exceptions but it doesn't include a third editor subsequently commenting on the talk page.  I recommend that they be blocked for at least 24 hours for unambiguously violating a supposed bright-line rule.  It says right here on this page that "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." 86.185.226.91 (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You installed an edit four times, he reverted you by the same number so let's not get too hung up on the technicalities. I have left comments at the talk page addressing your points (some of which I support) so let's focus on the real issue of article improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They broke a bright line rule; I didn't. That's not a technicality.  Why should they not be blocked for disruptive editing? 86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as the edit-warring is concerned Marnette simply reached the red line first and now you are attempting to exploit a loophole to get him blocked. However, just because you didn't revert four times does not mean you cannot be handed a block too, and the presiding admin might well take the view that you are gaming the rule. Another thing to bear in mind is that if the time expended on this report had been put into resolving the issue at the article then we could have all moved on to other things by now. Betty Logan (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no loophole. There's a rule which says don't edit disruptively and in particular, don't ever revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Where is the ambiguity? And what is the issue we're supposed to be resolving? For something resolvable to exist, we need to know why they reverted. An explanation for that is still lacking. 86.184.140.247 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP has been here all of two days and knows how to log things at WP:3RR and is familiar with other wiki policies (WP:NPA, disruptive editing, "bright-line rule", etc. Recommend the IP starts to discuss things on the article's talkpage and this is closed.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been editing for a while and I'm very familiar with the policies. Meanwhile, IP addresses change.  I don't think that's news to many people.  Why should the editor who was disruptively reverting not be blocked for doing so, when "Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours"?  86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You have not been "editing a while", certainly not on this account address. But if you have, maybe you'd like to disclose your previous accounts in the interests of transparency?   Cassianto Talk   08:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not an account and I've never had an account. If I could remember all the IP addresses I've made edits at, I'd certainly be happy to tell you. Bit difficult on mobile but I could look some up if you're really interested.  Not sure I see how it's relevant to MarnetteD's edit warring though.
 * You can get a recap at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Betty Logan (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That appears to be something entirely unrelated. 86.184.140.247 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's relevent because to me, it sounds like you are socking and there is a legitimate caveat when it comes to 3rr and reverting socks and vandals.  Cassianto Talk   11:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have any evidence for your claim, do present it somewhere. Otherwise it looks like just a personal attack.  86.184.140.247 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are reporting an editor with a excellent record of improving Wikipedia - yet you cannot "remember" all the IPs you have edited from and you certainly cannot be bothered to create a account. This appears to be a classic case of socking and I respectfully suggest you drop this absurd circus. David J Johnson (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * An editor with an excellent record of improving Wikipedia would not blatantly violate the 3RR, as this user has done, so I don't believe your claim there. I "respectfully" suggest that if you have no evidence for your insulting claims, you should withdraw them.  86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The trademark obsession with conforming to MOS is enough evidence in my opinion. This is definitely best known for IP. Sro23 (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ???? Obsession? No. But you think that applying the manual of style is disruptive, do you?  86.185.226.91 (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The adorable part of this is that the IP (whose edits are mostly decent) has, since reporting, engaged in edit wars on at least 2 other articles (with varying degrees of righteousness and disruptiveness). --JBL (talk) 03:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Truly adorable how someone stalked my edits specifically because of the situation I reported and reverted other ones for no reason. Delightful. Charming. Lovely. Spiffing. 86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And as you can see, the editor has changed IPs again and displays their sockpuppetry, and continues to edit war after this discussion, believing it to be alright under the circumstances. And also accuses an editor of "stalking" publicly accessibly information.
 * IP addresses change. Try reading WP:SOCKPUPPET, you don't seem to understand what it actually is.  And you somehow think one can't be stalking unless one's stolen private information? Interesting.  Meanwhile you're restoring the edit warrior's unexplained changes and also stalking my other edits. 86.184.140.247 (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we bring this to a close, remind both all parties to use the talk page, rather than continually force the issue? Issuing blocks for this particular storm in a tea cup would not be helpful. – SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't need reminding to use the talk page, thanks; see the talk page discussion I started two days ago where MarnetteD is conspicuously absent. A block would have been very helpful when the user made their 4 reverts in 2 hours and thus demonstrated their disruptive intent.  A block against the  "AlexTheWhovian" who has taken up the baton of disruption would still be helpful - see below.  86.184.140.247 (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the IP editor continues to edit-war on this article, believing they are in the right. Time to whip out the WP:BOOMERANGs here.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: The filing IP has been blocked 31 hours by User:Huon for disruptive editing and likely block evasion., who posted comments above (and is presumably the same person) has been blocked by a different admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 735207903 by Lemongirl942 (talk)No reference => WP:OR"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 735157948 by Lemongirl942 (talk)91.6 and the number are diff."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735157550 by Balthazarduju (talk)still informative to have some info on language in Lead"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 735155919 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 735165395 by Lemongirl942 (talk)Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. None of the numbers tagged are verifiable."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 734957929 by Balthazarduju (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 734880525 by Balthazarduju (talk) Why change the numbers from the sources?"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 734880400 by Balthazarduju (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 734880525 by Balthazarduju (talk) Why change the numbers from the sources?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 734880400 by Balthazarduju (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Han Chinese. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Han Chinese. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Han Chinese. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Recent mass addition of tags */ comment"


 * Comments:

The editor is refusing to discuss and I think a short block is in order. They have edit warred against multiple editors on this page. I also noticed that they have been POV pushing for a long time on China/Taiwan articles. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Pattern of long-term edit warring at Han Chinese and Han Taiwanese over the last three days. The word 'Undid' appears in his contributions eleven times since August 16. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:72.86.137.233 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reverts as IP 72.86.137.233
 * 2)  "Undid revision 735008377 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735008203 by Winkelvi (talk) Reverting to last NPOV edit"


 * 1) Reverts as IP 72.86.146.199:
 * 2) 11:48, August 18, 2016 ;
 * 3) 11:48, August 18, 2016 ;
 * 4) 11:53, August 18, 2016


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Undue weight */ resp"
 * 05:46, August 18, 2016
 * 12:02, August 18, 2016


 * Comments:

Anon IP - using three different IP addresses - is insisting on re-adding POV content to article. Original IP used was User:72.86.139.57 with this edit:. Article should probably be on the discretionary sanctions list since the article subject is afilliated with the Donald Trump campaign. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. A concern has been raised on the talk page about undue weight, but the IP is not waiting for consensus there. Due to the issue of POV-pushing, I would alert the IP of discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAP2 but it is unclear how to warn a fluctuating IP under WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My ISP assigns various IP addresses every time I log on...duh. Hey Ed, did you notice that it was the complainant who started the edit warring, and he only came here when he couldn't get his way? And that he was advised in the Talk page BY TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE that he needed to supply an actual reason for deleting documented information about Flynn, and that he should seek consensus, rather than just insisting that his gut said the facts in question are POV? Most or all of the facts that you folks have now swept off the page are pretty much beyond any reasonable dispute: Flynn said and did those things. Heaven forbid his page should accurately reflect what Flynn is doing and saying during a presidential campaign! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.61 (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Pmsaccountwiki reported by User:Arm42 (Result: No violation, content dispute)
Page: 22q13 deletion syndrome

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Original dates back before January 2013. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=534896982

First attempt to rewrite (as unregistered user)  01:40, 22 June 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=726416408

Recent rewrite after it was returned to original  02:47, 4 August 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=22q13_deletion_syndrome&oldid=732913559

See discussion below:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] These major rewrites were done without any attempt to contact me (original author). I have made no attempt.

Comments:

The purpose of the major revision is listed as "The content of the page as it was not accurate with the current scientific data and medical consensus of the disorder" However, this is part of repeated revisions of an established page (warring). These major revisions exclude much of the widely accepted information regarding the syndrome (catalog of genes). Citations were already current in the literature, some only a few weeks old at the time of the warring party made major revisions to remove the information. The repeated revisions try to re-define the syndrome in a way that is the minority view and conflicts with those who's names are associated with syndrome (see numerous citations in original page). This minority view does have its followers and that view could have been expressed as an alternative viewpoint. Instead, the page has been repeatedly re-written as major revisions. This approach is completely against Wikipedia philosophy. The central problem is that the warring party wants to describe the chromosomal deletion syndrome as caused by one gene (SHANK3). However, there is already a wikipedia page for SHANK3. SHANK3 information, history, speculation etc belong on that page. That is the proper place for discussing that one gene. Warring is of no benefit and removing the other 100 genes that are well documented as part of the syndrome (see original page) to promote a minority view is not how Wikipedia is supposed to operate.

Arm42 Arm42 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, y'all need to try to discuss the matter on the article's talk page before jumping over here. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: Malformed)
I have finally decided to report User:Snooganssnoogans for abusive behavior on the main Jill Stein page (specifically [power plays], regular edit warring, gaming, and clear violations of WPP:NPA, possible WP:3RR violations here). I have tried as much as possible to follow the dispute resolution process, but the succor seemingly accorded to this user by User:VictoriaGrayson and others has made discussion very difficult. There is a clear consensus emerging that the current state of the page is a catastrophe for Wikipedia neutrality. While I have no proof of WP:COI (though some circumstantial evidence may well exist), there is good reason to look into WP:CANVASSING violations, it seems to me.

The page in question has been discussed on the NPOV notice board (further links and comment on that page have been provided by another user).

It seems to me that the "hack" that has been effected on this page would be best adresssed without User:Snooganssnoogans being present on the page. Possibly also without User:VictoriaGrayson, and possibly even without User:SashiRolls. It seems to me that sanctioning User:Snooganssnoogans will be necessary to move forward peacefully. As it stands the page is damaging to Jill Stein, to Wikipedia, and even to Hillary Clinton (since many clearly think, as I do, that it has been hacked in a particularly effective manner).

This diff shows edit warring before I came to the page.

Thank you for your time. Why can't we all just get along? ;( SashiRolls (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Steakpeak reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 735321825 by Sro23 (talk) Please adhere to the rules here and refrain from []. Thank you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 735314186 by MPS1992 (talk) Yes, there *is* consensus per []. Please stop the bias."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735289250 by MPS1992 (talk) See talk page, please, before editing!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 734496917 by MPS1992 (talk) Both sites conform to WP:EL as "those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." Criticism links are common for film wikis."


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


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


 * Comments:

In fairness, the formal warning to Steakpeak from me, noted above, came after his fourth revert, but I had mentioned the prohibition on edit warring, on his talk page, much earlier and more than a month ago in a welcome message. MPS1992 (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * . I would have liked to see some discussion on the talk page, but Steakpeak's accusation that other editors were Wikibullying by reverting drive me to let him know that he (behaviorally) was in the wrong here (no comment on article content). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 reported by User:User:Steakpeak (Result: Nom blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * (cur | prev) 23:33, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735321825 by Sro23 (talk) Please adhere to the rules here and refrain from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Thank you.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 23:28, 19 August 2016‎ Sro23 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Steakpeak (talk): No clear consensus. Further discussion need first, please. (TW)) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 23:26, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735314186 by MPS1992 (talk) Yes, there *is* consensus per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus. Please stop the bias.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 22:16, 19 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (No consensus for this on talk page. See WP:ONUS as mentioned previously. Undid revision 735291857 by Steakpeak (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 19:31, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,808 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 735289250 by MPS1992 (talk) See talk page, please, before editing!) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 19:12, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,592 bytes) (-233)‎ . . (Extraneous and unimportant "See also" links removed.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 19:12, 19 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,825 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (Nothing under WP:ELYES here. Per WP:ONUS, seek consensus on talk page please. Undid revision 735287212 by Steakpeak (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * (cur | prev) 18:57, 19 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,041 bytes) (+216)‎ . . (Undid revision 734496917 by MPS1992 (talk) Both sites conform to WP:EL as "those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic." Criticism links are common for film wikis.) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 19:11, 14 August 2016‎ MPS1992 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,825 bytes) (-216)‎ . . (→‎External links: not needed according to WP:EL) (undo | thank) (Tag: Visual edit)
 * (cur | prev) 19:34, 13 August 2016‎ Steakpeak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,041 bytes) (+87)‎ . . (Undid revision 734057226 by 108.80.180.217 (talk) Restored from vandalism) (undo)

User:MPS1992 has been driving a mean-spirited and bigoted edit war over an external link at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotlight_(film)] and has abused Wikipedia protocol, especially [WP:Civility] and [WP:WikiBullying].

The external link had been in place for months, and it clearly and unambiguously aligns with [WP:EL] ("those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information" and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.")

Stevie Wonder can see the bias and bigotry going on here. Good-faith efforts to resolve this through the article's talk page have been fruitless. MPS1992 has no interest in this.

Thank you. Steakpeak (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello administrators. I am not going to tidy up Steakpeak's report about me, but I will now spend a few minutes attempting to provide a properly formatted summary of the edit-warring on the article and what I see as Steakpeak's role in it. I will be back in a short while, unless you come to a conclusion sooner. MPS1992 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, below is as Twinkle sees it -- you may wish to merge this report and the one below. MPS1992 (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * per below report. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:86.184.140.247 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version reverted to:
 * Sherlock
 * Dr. Strangelove

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Sherlock
 * 1)  (initial edit)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Dr. Strangelove
 * 1)  (initial edit)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User has edited from and, and claims that their IP address changes, but has edits from around the same time, per their contribution history. Editor has filed a report against another user who has reverted them who did not violated 3RR, and apparently has no intent to allow the status quo to remain while discussions are in place. User also maintains talk pages of both IP addresses. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a dishonest report. Check the diffs and their time stamps and you'll see that at no time have I reverted more than three times in 24 hours.  This user is simply joining in the attacks against me for my report of MarnetteD above; even though no justification of any kind has been given for undoing my edits to Dr. Strangelove, this editor is now continuing to undo them, without giving any reason.  My edits to Sherlock (TV series) were reverted by someone who specifically did so because of my report of MarnetteD; read the talk page to see that my version is supported.  86.184.140.247 (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if you reverted less than three times in 24 hours; were have been edit-warring, which is continuously reverting other editors, no matter of the time frame. Do the crime, face the time. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are the one reverting for no reason. I explained all my edits, they were supported on the talk page, the original revert warrior didn't explain themselves, so I reinstated them at Dr. Strangelove and saw that someone else said they would reinstate them at Sherlock, and yet you somehow felt that it would be productive to revert them again:   You're now indulging in personal attacks as well.   It hardly looks like you're here to make an encyclopaedia. 86.184.140.247 (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:STATUSQUO: If there is a dispute, editors are encouraged to work towards establishing consensus, not to have one's own way. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain (except in biographies of living people, where contentious material should be removed). You would prefer to edit war over letting the status quo sit while you await replies. There's my reason. Two years and 38,000+ edits, and apparently I'm "hardly looks like you're here to make an encyclopaedia". Right. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment 86.184.140.247 is repeatedly removing a warning on talk page despite multiple warnings. Jim1138 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Treating editing as a battleground, little or no interest in working collaboratively, potential gaming/socking... As a disinterested onlooker, it looks to me like the IP is WP:NOTHERE. Marianna251TALK 12:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked by Neil N  talk to me 17:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The editor is now socking with two more IPs: and  and. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:GUtt01 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not vandalism. There is no proper need to include Wins, because it has no notability whatsoever. This article should only be listing episodes; information on the guest performers for an episode is fine."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 735272140 by Cwmxii (talk) This is not vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735263226 by Launchballer (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 735155686 by Cwmxii (talk) There is no proper scoring system.  Do not revert this back"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * Comment - I was acting irresponsibly, because I let my temper get the better of me. I have been talking to  about the article in question, and I think they were a good person to step in on this matter.  We're discussing the article, and I may put in for a discussion on the article's main page, Mock the Week, about this article's layout. GUtt01 (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to personally add that I feel ashamed I let my emotions get the better of me. GUtt01 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hawkeye75 (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let's not forget there was also 4 reverts by Cwmxii. Cwmxii could have easily brought to the ANEW or the article's talk page.


 * Comment - While there is no excuse for making 4 reverts, it should be noted that GUtt01 has not been warned and he did post on the article's talk page concerning this 4 days ago. Cwmxii has made no attempt to discuss. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Came to this from RFPP, and if this weren't as stale as it is, blocks would be handed out to both offenders. You guys have been here long enough to know better. Katietalk 15:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tayl2104 reported by User:80.221.159.67 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 09:36, 20 August 2016 revision diff 735342922 to 735381481 (+63)‎. . (Undid revision 735342922 by Tayl2104 (talk) Discuss it on the talk page first, you have a conflict of interest. (WP:3RR)) ?

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 01:27, 19 August 2016‎ revision diff 735063491 to 735174323 (-34)‎
 * 12:21, 19 August 2016 revision diff 735177427 to 735237307 (-35)‎
 * 23:03, 19 August 2016‎ revision diff 735243845 to 735319209 (-64)‎ . . (Removed autobiography message. Explained in TALK that there is no external relationship. Just did homework on subject)
 * 02:39, 20 August 2016‎ revision diff 735338817 to 735342922 (-63)‎ . . (Removed autobiography tag. Not an autobiography.)
 * 13:53, 20 August 2016‎ revision diff 735381481 to 735405395 (-35)‎ . . (removed autobiography tag. It was inaccurate. Not an autobiography.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) revision diff 735342922 to 735381481
 * 09:44, 20 August 2016 revision diff 735242010 to 735382177 (+404)‎ . . (→‎Autobiography tag: Add a message about second autobiography template removal)
 * 14:42, 20 August 2016‎ revision diff 735405202 to 735410532 (+1,759)‎ . . (Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * revision diff 733094325 to 735405202 (in User talk:Tayl2104)
 * revision diff 732147281 to 735394871 (in User talk:Only)

Comments:

Removing Template:Autobiography without talk page consensus. In my opinion, the article should be reverted to the original where Template:Other people and Template:Autobiography exists before Tayl2104's reverts. There's been no reverts after the 3RR warning by User:Only. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Starbucks6789 reported by User:Oath2order (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&oldid=718354881]

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuPaul%27s_All_Stars_Drag_Race_(season_1)&diff=735462597&oldid=735386509]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuPaul%27s_All_Stars_Drag_Race_(season_1)&diff=735242506&oldid=735128135]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuPaul%27s_All_Stars_Drag_Race_(season_1)&diff=734551613&oldid=734528896]

Comments: The same edits are happening with a few IP users leading me to believe that this user is logging out of their account and editing the page. I have left numerous messages on their talk page.

Oath2order (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:SashiRolls (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: over a dozen reversions in the past two weeks, seehere

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff: user warned
 * 2) diff: recent gorilla reversion
 * 3) diff:  not the most egregious example.  See diff here, for more information.
 * 4) diff Note that user changes 100s of things, many of which I, User:SashiRolls, had not touched, contrary to his/her assertion.  These disruptive reverts are common.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (among others Cf. here and here)

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

Comments:

I have finally decided to report User:Snooganssnoogans for abusive behavior on the main Jill Stein page (specifically [power plays], regular edit warring, gaming, and clear violations of WPP:NPA, possible WP:3RR violations here). I have tried as much as possible to follow the dispute resolution process, but the succor seemingly accorded to this user by User:VictoriaGrayson and others has made discussion very difficult. There is a clear consensus emerging that the current state of the page is a catastrophe for Wikipedia neutrality. While I have no proof of WP:COI (though some circumstantial evidence may well exist), there is good reason to look into WP:CANVASSING violations, it seems to me.

The page in question has been discussed on the NPOV notice board (further links and comment on that page have been provided by another user).

It seems to me that the "hack" that has been effected on this page would be best adresssed without User:Snooganssnoogans being present on the page. Possibly also without User:VictoriaGrayson, and possibly even without User:SashiRolls. It seems to me that sanctioning User:Snooganssnoogans will be necessary to move forward peacefully. As it stands the page is damaging to Jill Stein, to Wikipedia, and even to Hillary Clinton (since many clearly think, as I do, that it has been hacked in a particularly effective manner). SashiRolls (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This user is systematically removing content that he/she feels is damaging to Stein (such as reliable sources correcting some of her pseudoscience views) and often does so while going against consensus. The user, who dabbles in conspiracy theories (such as that all other editors who disagree with him on the article are shills) and uses poor sources (the user forcefully defended the use of Venezuelan state propaganda) repeatedly starts new discussions rather than joins in on existing discussions. The user does these disruptive edits 24/7 (just check his user history), which requires constant reverts. I don't believe that I've breached the 3RR but if I have done so accidentally in an effort to keep this user from messing up the article, I apologize. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In general, the strategy is to have User:VictoriaGrayson revert once the user above has reached the daily limit. Examples of this here (reversion quickly reverted by another user) and here.  SashiRolls (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * SashiRolls says he refuses to follow the results of RfCs like this this one where he is the only dissenting opinion. The WP:IRONY is astounding.VictoriaGraysonTalk</b> 12:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The diffs provided above about Snooganssnoogans' alleged reverts don't even make sense.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;"><b style="color:#0000FF;">VictoriaGrayson</b><b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 16:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this is a malformed report. SashiRolls, this looks more suited for WP:ANI. However I strongly urge you to read WP:BOOMERANG first as your own behavior will also be examined. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the time spent looking into it. I will see how things develop. The pressure has led to some significant improvements. SashiRolls (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

User:135.0.55.14 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&oldid=718354881]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735457909&oldid=735456741]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735456741&oldid=735456499]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735456499&oldid=735456454]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735456454&oldid=735456065]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735456065&oldid=735455713]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735455713&oldid=735455469]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735455469&oldid=735455024]
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735455024&oldid=735454541]
 * 9) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735453669&oldid=735452136]
 * 10) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735453762&oldid=735453669]
 * 11) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735453830&oldid=735453818]
 * 12) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735453878&oldid=735453830]
 * 13) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735453974&oldid=735453878]
 * 14) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735454040&oldid=735453974]
 * 15) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735454175&oldid=735454040]
 * 16) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735454219&oldid=735454175]
 * 17) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735454260&oldid=735454219]
 * 18) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=735454408&oldid=735454260]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:135.0.55.14&diff=735454468&oldid=733907440]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Feature_levels_in_Direct3D&diff=680598097&oldid=674661025]

Comments: none

--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Many of the listed edits are consecutive, but the user has never posted on an article talk page and seems unwilling to follow our policy on usage of reliable sources. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kkjj reported by User:Amaury (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "trying again without the disputed categories, also marked the reception as needing expansion"
 * 2)  "/* External links */ this was more specific"
 * 3)  "/* External links */ fixed one"
 * 1)  "/* External links */ fixed one"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user has continually been adding disputed and other categories without even attempting to reach consensus on the talk page. In fact, this user seems to the only one for the categories while everyone else is against. See the relevant discussion at Talk:Liv and Maddie. Mentioning and  since they were involved in the discussion. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 03:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * – It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR, while only two are listed above. It is unclear whether the talk page has reached any definite agreement on the categories. EdJohnston (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been semi-long-term edit-warring, though I don't know why it only pulled up those edits. Please take a look at the history of the article in question: Liv and Maddie. User has been challenged by at least two users and continues to insert problematic content. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can prove your case by supplying diffs. If you want admins to go further back, you will need more diffs. Also, the talk page discussion is very unclear on what has been agreed to. Consider opening an WP:RFC, or ask more specific questions. If someone reverts against a clear talk page consensus they might be blocked, but a consensus should be clear. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I did provide differences—the actual article's history. But I digress. It's not worth pursuing it if it's going to be this difficult. or  can respond here further if they think they can make a case, but I'm dropping out of this race. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 02:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi – FWIW, it was essentially consensus at the Talk page that the categories Kkjj was trying to add were not appropriate due to WP:Defining. While Kkjj may not have technically violated 3RR, they have been slow-mo edit warring to include these cats anyway for about a month. I thought Kkjj had WP:Dropped the stick, but it looks like they haven't. I'm not sure I would block in the case, but a gentle warning from an Admin such as yourself might be worth a shot (and also might establish a baseline for WP:ROPE)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:24.119.20.133 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Took a look at article. No vio. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

How so? I certainly see a violation.

Diffs of the user's newest revert:
 * 1)

Diff of latest attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Per my talk page: has two reverts. You have three. Neither of you have broken WP:3RR but you are closer. And posting to your talk page likely won't attract anyone's attention. Suggest you post to the article's talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but edit warring is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". It is my contributions that have been overridden, not Grayfell's. I did not override anyone's contributions. I contributed several hours worth of carefully cited neutral-point-of-view material. My contributions have been deleted/censored without any just cause. Now a Wikipedia administrator is accusing me of almost starting an edit war? I insist that my edits be restored immediately unless they violate the rules of editing wikipedia, and if they do violate those rules, then please explain which rules were violated and please also remove all of the non-neutral opinions of the opponents of Nazi Gun Control Theory, such as the claims that Nazi Gun Control Theory is "preposterous" and "counterfactual history" that appear in the opening paragraphs of the article, if the opinions of the proponents of Nazi Gun Control theory cannot also be communicated alongside the views of the opponents of the theory. Grayfell is violating the wikipedia policy of neutral point of view by only allowing the perspective of the opponents of the theory that the page is about to be posted on the page, and by preventing the views of the proponents of the theory from explaining what the theory theorizes somewhere in the article about the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to have this conversation in two locations. This particular report is declined. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Here is the most recent attempt to resolve the edit war that has been waged against me without just cause, NeilN. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_gun_control_theory&diff=735598532&oldid=735598160 I encourage you to join the conversation and act as a mediator. Please come demonstrate you adherence to the Wikipedia principles of neutrality and the free flow of verifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.20.133 (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop posting here. This report is closed. And no admin is going to make content decisions for an article they've made admin decisions on. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:24.119.20.133 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No sourced content has been removed, only rearranged, with the intro to the article opening an explanation of the theory the article is about and criticism of the theory being moved to the second paragraph. Historical context also provided"
 * 2)  "Opens intro with explanation of the theory, rather than rebuttals to the theory; provides intro to historical context; quote from architect of Nazi policies on his motivations and goals"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735565790 by 99.242.108.55 (talk User is Edit Warring and attempting to prevent the expression of all viewpoints that agree with the theory According to Nazi Gun Control)"
 * 4)  "Shifted focus of article away from ridiculing the theory the article is about, and towards discussing the views of the proponents of the theory and how Nazi gun control policy was similar to arms control in other nations and historical eras."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 735317420 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 730946543 by Grayfell (talk) This quote is absolutely essential to understanding Hitler's policy on gun control, stop rewriting history to suit your political agenda Grayfell."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 730946543 by Grayfell (talk) This quote is absolutely essential to understanding Hitler's policy on gun control, stop rewriting history to suit your political agenda Grayfell."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user is focused on including a specific quote from Hitler which lacks context and supporting sources. This has expanded to include a number of other controversial changes with similar sourcing problems. The user reported me and another IP for edit warring, and was then warned by. They started a talk page discussion about the changes, but then ignored responses and reverted anyway.

This is similar behavior regarding the same Hitler quote which led to being blocked last month, although the IP shows better restraint with personal attacks. Grayfell (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote is absolutely essential to the article. It is a quote from a reputable academic sources. It is a quote from the architect of the policies that the article specifically pertains to and it clearly shows that his motivations and goals were the same goals that are postulated by Nazi Gun Control Theorists, which seems to be precisely why Grayfell wants the quote removed, but I insist that this extremely pertinent information not be censored from this page, and that instead the readers should have the opportunity to decide whether they agree with or object to Hitler' policies or the theories of his critics, even though Nazi historical revisionists would prefer to have it otherwise. All changes on this article appear to be controversial, that is why I opted to approach the article from a historical context, while also ensuring that the views of the proponents of the article were as represented as the views of the opponents and were clearly attributable. [User:Grayfell] seems intent on preventing an open discussion of the theory that the page is about, and on ensuring that the views of the opponents remain dominant. He does not seem so interested in removing the claim that the whole theory is "counterfactual" and "preposterous" which appears before what the theory actually postulates is even discussed. Grayfell is edit warring and is violating the principle of a neutral point of view in the aforementioned way. He has been censoring my edits and the edits of other users on this page for quite some time. The edits I have previously attempted are not an attempt to override anyone else'e contributions. All other contributions are still present, although the rebuttals to the theory do not appear until the second paragraph of the introduction, and it now begins with an explanation of the theory.


 * . Clear 3RR violation, does not seem to want to stop. This seesms to obviously be one of the previous editors of that page editing warring for that same material; hence a longer block.  Kuru   (talk)  23:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

User:73.132.210.40 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "New York don't own the story."
 * 2)  "They were not nationalist. Stop distorting history."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */  reply"
 * 2)   "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */  reply"
 * 3)   "/* The Black Panthers were not a "Black Nationalist" organization */  comment"


 * Comments:
 * Result: Article already semiprotected per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:99.194.49.63 reported by User:xcuref1endx (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:


 * Comment IP User seems to not want to discuss the issue in the talk section. Has edit warred with 3 different editors on this page. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Xcuref1endx, the IP hasn't broken WP:3RR and has never been warned about edit warring that I can see. I've now placed a warning on their talk page. Please come back if they still continue. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Evschweik and User:Minecraft69 by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * There is literally too many to list. Please see the contribution histories of both editors. If I need to provide diffs, I will.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (Minecraft69):

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

Comments:

I was not involved in the editing myself, but the topic was raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television‎ by, and I was horrified upon seeing the edit war that took up almost four pages of history. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Is that it? Page protected? How is this not a gross violation of 3RR? How is protecting the page, especially when editors go to the locker's talk page and state "you locked in the wrong person", doing to teach the editors anything? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocks are not punitive. We usually block or protect to stop the disruption. An admin chose to protect. If edit warring continues after protection expires then blocks will be likely. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So, basically, if we know the page is going to be protected, we're allowed to edit war as much as we want. As in, over four pages of an article's history. Alright. I'll be sure to add that into 3RR! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no guarantee an admin will choose protection over blocks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It just makes zero sense. Someone might revert only four times, and get blocked from editing. Whereas these editors have reverted almost a hundred times each, and they're allowed to continue editing Wikipedia. Is this not confusing in the least? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 22:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with here. There had been at least 175 reverts made by these editors, and what's to say that these editors won't cause disruption this serious on other pages. And this protection is also effectively banning non-edit warring users, and that is so ridiculous. TedEdwards (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You can ask DragonflySixtyseven to reconsider their approach. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Sy9045 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 735751206 by Muboshgu (talk) You've provided no reason for the content removal. State your reasons before removing content, as per Wiki guidelines"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 735750001 by Muboshgu (talk) Cite a reason why the content is being removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_removal#Reasons."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 735749556 by Jackhammer111 (talk) Sorry, you have no right to remove these paragraphs. USA Today is a credible source. Stop injecting your own viewpoints into the article"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 735745133 by 67.79.93.226 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 735744849 by 67.79.93.226 (talk) Editors are trying to remove credible sources from USA Today. They are injecting their biases into the article. Stop it now"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 735743302 by Jackhammer111 (talk) I'm going to report you if you remove credible sources because you disagree with their investigation. Stop it now."


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


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

USA Today is a credible source, which I quoted directly. I added nothing else that didn't come from the investigation piece. Authors are removing content using their own biased viewpoints. See the comment history on the removal deletions (e.g. One of the people, Jackhammer111 said, "I gave reasons. beyond the source we use common sense here. a judge not involed thinks has no bearing and the lawyer was clearly wrong." The others who removed the content, including Muboshgu, gave no reason at all). "Common sense" is clearly an unbelievable standard to determine what can and cannot be removed from the article. The judge is an expert on Rio De Janiero laws, as well as the attorney cited. The editor mentioned that the lawyer is "clearly wrong" without any proof to that assertion.Sy9045 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Muboshgu personally insulted me on my Talk page. I find this highly unprofessional.Sy9045 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The other editor,, has raised concerns. From edit summaries, these are "removing apologist nonsense. even Lochte now admits it happened. clearly vandalize is a crime. the judge's comments are inconsistent with what the Police Chief says" and what "a judge not involed thinks has no bearing and the lawyer was clearly wrong." Rather than follow the WP:BRD policy of Bold, Revert, Discuss, you just revert revert revert and have violated 3RR, which is a bright line that should result in being blocked whether you're right or wrong. I placed a template on your talk page that uses stock language, which has no "insults" and is not "unprofessional". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User:185.48.60.71 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

These aren't straight-up, letter-for-letter reverts but they're extremely close and this page is under one-revert restriction, not three.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This user was warned before their first edit via a gigantic white box at the top of the "Editing" page that says, in bold, underlined letters: "Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It's not quite an edit war but it doesn't necessarily need to be given the restriction. I first made a report to WP:AIV as a reaction to the user's rampage and disregard of the restriction but was asked to come here instead. Under this identity, this user has not attempted to discuss these edits even though it's plain that an explanation was badly needed for cutting enormous amounts of content from the article. RunnyAmiga (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. It is already under a 1RR restriction per WP:GS/SCW. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Gayathri.2 reported by User:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (Result: Declined Page deleted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: proposed deletion of Sindoori reddy. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sindoori reddy. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Sindoori reddy. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Page deleted <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:644:401:F2B0:4903:4130:1B07:9806 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: User will wait for consensus)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


 * Article Talk section
 * See prior note left on their talk page by another user: page link

Comments:

I have no idea how to respond. Someone kept reverting my edits (resulting in a page which makes Levaquin look much less dangerous than it is.) I do not know why me edits were removed (an advisory by Mayo clinic doctors in a scholarly journal warning against their use for athletes, the continuous reinstatement of a quotation of a study, with no reference, of data 17 years ago showing essentially no risk, in direct contradiction to the extremely strong FDA warnings now in use), the abc news report saying over 1000 deaths and 100,000 injuries removed, the risk of fatal aortic dissection (again, published in a scholarly journal), removed. claims that it's not clear this medication can have secere side effects are on the page, instead. the data have increased drastically, their danger has become clearer for many groups, and my attempts to include this kept getting erased. what do I do? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrook (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC) also, I was having so much trouble with the edits I decided to get a Wikipedia account, I was not trying to subvert any policy. I'm sorry that seems to have been the effect. I do not know why my edits have been removed -the things being kept were outdated and I was unable to list research that corrected and superseded it. the things I took out were misleading and encouraged lack of caution -but kept being put back. for instance now it is strongly recommended that children also do not take this medicine, as it is dangerous to their growth (joints etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbrook (talk • contribs) 03:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Levofloxacin+review You may want to use "reviews" for sourcing. See WP:MEDRS. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Jdbrook must be the same person as the recent IP editor, and on that basis there is a 3RR violation. Now closing without a 3RR block based on the user's agreement at User talk:Jdbrook to wait for talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:86.20.193.222 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 735833793 by Drmargi (talk) - no consensus established. Per WP:BLP"
 * 2)  "Undid per talk page discussion"
 * 3) 11:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC) "shouting doesn't make it right. Discuss on talk page"
 * 4) 12:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC) ""
 * 5) 12:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC) "Please check what you are reverting. Also remember this is a BLP so the exceptional claim that she dived to win is inappropriate without a ref; see talk"
 * 6)  "this was not in 'originally' (when it happened), and there is no consensus to add it"
 * ":see talk page"
 * ":see talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * here on the IP's talk page.

This has been discussed on the article, talk page, was raised at WP:BLPN and I other places with this IP.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Also after the IP reached 3 reverts a new ediotr shows up, who has also made 1, 2, 3 reverts of the same content. The warning was given to the named user here by. -- GB fan 13:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added another revert to the list above, this is 5 for the IP and 3 for the named account. -- GB fan 17:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite being aware of this discussion, the IP/MagnoFruit (these are obviously the same editor) continue to make more reversions, which I have added above, and has reverted since I warned the IP. Despite the IP/MagnoFruit's edit summaries, IP/MagnoFruit is not discussing on the talk page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also blocked MagnoFruit. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:72.91.103.223 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please stop the propaganda. Cite the law or constitution. Anything but the imagination of a political author."
 * 2)  "3 post rule violation.   please stop, my data is verified. His is citing an anti-gun author."
 * 3)  "Please don't spam propaganda. Thanks"
 * 4)  "Please stop spanning the knowledge base with your propaganda."
 * 5)  "Is there an op around to stop him from spouting propaganda on a facts website?"
 * 6)  "Cite your posts! Not anti-gun authors who are no authority."
 * 7)  "The info removed is not cited. Are you required to cite the info or not? I cite my post."
 * 8)  "The law is current, why are you pushing an agenda?"
 * 9)  "Why are you quoting propaganda? Stop it."
 * 10)  "This guy is quoting an anti-gun author. I replaced it with factual info."
 * 11)  "Someone is filling this section with propaganda from an anti-gun book. I replaced it with proper information."
 * 12)  "Removed conflicting and confusing misinformation that was not cited as an authority. He is quoting an author who is anti-gun politically."
 * 1)  "Someone is filling this section with propaganda from an anti-gun book. I replaced it with proper information."
 * 2)  "Removed conflicting and confusing misinformation that was not cited as an authority. He is quoting an author who is anti-gun politically."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:72.91.103.223 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please stop the propaganda. Cite the law or constitution. Anything but the imagination of a political author."
 * 2)  "3 post rule violation.   please stop, my data is verified. His is citing an anti-gun author."
 * 3)  "Please don't spam propaganda. Thanks"
 * 4)  "Please stop spanning the knowledge base with your propaganda."
 * 5)  "Is there an op around to stop him from spouting propaganda on a facts website?"
 * 6)  "Cite your posts! Not anti-gun authors who are no authority."
 * 7)  "The info removed is not cited. Are you required to cite the info or not? I cite my post."
 * 8)  "The law is current, why are you pushing an agenda?"
 * 9)  "Why are you quoting propaganda? Stop it."
 * 1)  "Why are you quoting propaganda? Stop it."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 19:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Nika de Hitch reported by User:Seriesphile (Result: Move protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I warned the user two times and he/she continues doing the page moves and reverting my version.


 * Result: No block for now. For a while, User:Nika de Hitch was warring to remove the accent from Pié. They appear to have stopped doing that. I applied move protection so the article can't be moved again without consensus. They were alerted to this discussion but did not respond. Not easy to tell what they are thinking, but a block doesn't seem to be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Pbfreespace3 (Result: Filer warned, reminded of unblock condition)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=735821231&oldid=735821020


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=prev&oldid=735820568
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=next&oldid=735820568
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=next&oldid=735821020


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Comments: This user has focused mainly on reverting my edits over the past weeks. Now he is reverting other users as well, and violating the rules he often touts. He warned me on my talk page of reverting more than once in 24 hours, and only days later reverts thrice in an hour. The page in question actually has a 1RR instead of 3RR, making this an even larger offense. In addition to all this, this user has posted threatening messages to my talk page, saying I may be blocked for rule violations I didn't know I commited. I know this may be policy, but it was done to intimidate me. I know that's how I perceived it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is 3 reverts. However, they count as one, since they are consecutive saved reverts with no intervening edits. If the definition of a revert still is to undo the action of another editor, you have recently violated 1RR several times on that article. Ref. diff, diff and this warning. WP:BOOMERANG, please. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would remind you that that page has a 1 revert per 24-hour rule. You reverted 2 separate users within 24 hours. Here you revert Ahmedo Semsuri at 5:23. Just 5 minutes later, you revert Coneleir. These edits were made by 2 different people, and concerned 2 different portions of the article. You are still in violation of the rule. Additionally, you made 2 more reverts 24.3 hours before the reverts in question, indicating an edit war mentality. May I quote the rule: Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Erlbaeko's interpretation is correct; consecutive reverts count as one. It would have been just as easy to make all of the reverts within a single edit, hence the clarification in our policy., are the arbitration enforcement sanctions you placed on this editor here still in effect? From my read, you should only be reverting once per week on this topic. Kuru   (talk)  14:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can restrict someone's editing on the Syrian civil war under arbitration enforcement because there is no arb case about that war. (It has previously been discussed that ARBPIA does not apply). But a community sanction is possible, and may be needed judging from all the reverts by Erlbaeko. A topic ban from the Syrian civil war is one of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you even notice that User:Kuru, and admin, said my interpretation is correct, and that the arbitration enforcement sanctions he is talking about is regarding user Pbfreespace3 and not me? Or did you meant judging from all the reverts Erlbaeko have to make because of Pbfreespace3 violations of WP:V. A topic ban of Pbfreespace3 from the Syrian civil war is one of the options? In that case, you should see this and this discussion, too. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, my original comments were not clear - I sort of shifted gears right in the middle of the paragraph. I don't think there's actionable issues with either editor on quick glance through the edits. They're both complying with the "letter of the law" with 1RR over the last week at least, as far as I can tell. The reverts and timing of them are sub-optimal, but that's a really odd "article". I did, however, notice an older unblock request for Pbfreespace3 which included a list of discretionary sanctions using an arb template and noting that s/he was limited to one revert a week in areas under any general sanctions (arb or community based), and other civility-related restrictions. I think Pbfreespace3 could use some clarity there as it would impact his current editing.  Kuru   (talk)  20:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have been reminded of the sanctions that are in place. This has indeed given clarity for me. I would also note that this statement does not constitute a retraction of my earlier report of Erlbaeko. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer, User:Pbfreespace3, is warned they may be blocked if they again violate their 1RR per week unblock condition on articles subject to general sanctions, as this one is. Note that the editor accepted the unblock condition on June 9th. This will most likely force you to greatly reduce your editing of Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, though you can still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Kasif the great reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Kasif the great has been edit warring against 4 different editors since 22 July 2016. My response to Kasif on my talk page was for him to use the article talk page which he summarily ignored and reverted user:Anzar, twice. This editor also logs out to edit war and remove referenced information under this IP,92.22.143.227 and this IP 92.22.133.28 --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Kasif the great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasif the great (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly I provided Wikipedia as a source for my claim that the Seleucid empire was the most Populous of the Hellenistic states. Then another Wikipedia editor deleted it as Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source which I agree with. Then I used the book of world records as a source which had been described as Unreadable. They check all heir sources and are very conservative especially when dealing with the past. So I belive the book of world records in a realise source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasif the great (talk • contribs) 18:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. You need to get consensus for controversial changes like these. You have never posted on an article talk page. This should be your next step after the block expires. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:七战功成 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736045006 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736043721 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 736042628 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 736039051 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 735971608 by Kante4 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 735162599 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Resolution comments at User talk:PeeJay2K3 ©   Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 20:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:96.9.75.12 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - 14:13, 23 August 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 20:10, 23 August 2016
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - 17:35, 24 August 2016

Page: User talk:149.62.201.106, User talk:92.247.44.174 (personal and nacionalistic attack on other IP due to revert on Dulo clan)


 * 1)  - 13:19, 24 August 2016
 * 2)  - 13:20, 24 August 2016

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

Comments:


 * Like in the case of reported IP 87.121.52.176 for the disruptive edits on the article of Kanasubigi, the IP 96.9.75.12 edit and edit summary are related to the activity and summary of IP or user account sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov which for two years do disruptive edits on articles related to the Huns and Bulgars. The IPs didn't respond in the previous talk page discussion, they intentionally ignore them or spam a wall of text and personal attacks on other editors, and from personal experience with PavelStaykov sock-puppets, every discussion was futile. The page needs protection for prolonged time as the IP wait the expiration time of the protection and immediatelly start the disruptive activity. Also, the reported IP was already blocked 1 June, 2016 (31 hours; sock), and is obviously related to the IP 87.121.52.176 who edited Kanasubigi, as wrote on IPs 92.247.44.174 and 149.62.201.106 talk pages, who reverted other IP disruptive edits, things only PavelStaykov socks done (things about "manaf", "anatolia", "turks", "sultan whore" and so on).--Crovata (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The connection between IPs 87.121.52.176 and 96.9.75.12 is confirmed as 87.121.52.176 reverted to 96.9.75.12 revision of the Dulo clan article.--Crovata (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment 96.9.75.12 seems to be from Cambodia, 87.121.52.176 from Bulgaria. Of course this means nothing as proxies can be used, but just as an info. Ilyushka88 &#124; Talk! Contribs 21:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP socks and PavelStaykov are mainly from Bulgaria, and if the other one is from Cambodia then it seems to be a proxy like in the case from PavelStaykov Archive 15 February 2016, or see revision, when the IPs came from RackBank Data Centers in India. The webhosts were blocked, and this could be a new webhost.--Crovata (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Dulo clan semiprotected three months. Recommend filing at SPI as I stated in an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:199.248.185.22 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on 19 Aug by Acroterion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not involved in either article. IP doesn't seem fond of talk pages.

Comments: Long term IP edits concentrated on POV pushing on controversial articles. Warnings for unconstructive editing going back years on their talk. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Laser brain  (talk)  23:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This editor is currently edit warring on Ryan Lochte as well. I just noticed this notification on the user's talk page after notifying about edit warring on that page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  remove
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736055573 by ArchieOof (talk) The truth hurts."
 * 3)   remove
 * 4)  remove
 * 5)  "Undid revision 736044621 by ArchieOof (talk)"
 * 6)   remove
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Edit war warning
 * 2) Response: "Your drama makes me laugh. The facts are the facts."
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Comments:
 * This looks to me like someone trying to WP:Rightgreatwrongs:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  00:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:87.121.52.176 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 14:45, 23 August 2016
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - 22:50, 23 August 2016

Page:


 * 1)  - 21:08, 24 August 2016
 * 2)  - 21:58, 24 August 2016
 * 3)  - 22:10, 24 August 2016
 * 4)  - 22:14, 24 August 2016
 * 5)  - 22:38, 24 August 2016
 * 6)  - 22:41, 24 August 2016
 * 7)  - 22:49, 24 August 2016
 * 1)  - 22:49, 24 August 2016
 * 1)  - 22:49, 24 August 2016
 * 1)  - 22:49, 24 August 2016

Page: User talk:212.5.158.56 (personal and nacionalistic attack on other IP due to revert on Dulo clan)


 * 1)  - 22:11, 24 August 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Etymology - Disruptive editing, August 2016 - Disruptive editing

Comments:


 * The IP WP:SYNTH edit and edit summary are the same as of the IPs 125.212.216.201, 198.105.117.74 and 109.234.157.99 edits between August 11-13, and are related to the activity and summary of IP or user account sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov which for two years do disruptive edits on articles related to the Huns and Bulgars. The IPs didn't respond in the previous talk page discussion, and from personal experience from PavelStaykov sock-puppets, every discussion was futile. The page needs protection for prolonged time as, like in the recent case of Dulo clan article history, when the protection template is removed the disruptive activity begins immedieatelly the same day or like in the case of Kanasubigi in few days.--Crovata (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See also report below for the disruptive activity of the IP on the Dulo clan article and its connection to the other IP and PavelStaykov.--Crovata (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not go ahead and file these IPs at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PavelStaykov. We should have all this information in one place. Most likely some webhostblocks will be required just as before. User:Mike V was the admin who did the range blocks last time around. Kanasubigi is already semiprotected by User:Nick though it's possible that a week may not be enough. The IP is from Neterra's range.  From Neterra's web site it looks like they are a wholesale provider, so analogous to a web host in our terminology. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Yamaguchi. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Zguy85 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736227026 by Niteshift36 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736226812 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 736226448 by McSly (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 736226136 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 736226136 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 736225945 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 736225769 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 736225422 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Restoration processing."
 * 10)  "Updating article"
 * 11)  "Continuing to re-correct information generated by trolling."
 * 12)  "Removal of bias editing."
 * 1)  "Removal of bias editing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alex Jones (radio host). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Note that this IP (whose edit was made before the account's) is clearly the same person - they are both removing the Rolling Stones article. GABgab 01:43, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Still socking: . GABgab 01:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Socks put away. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:78.171.130.160 reported by User:Philip Trueman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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:

Any claim by the user to have attempted to enter into a reasoned discussion, with me or anyone else, should be seen in the light of his edits:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Philip Trueman (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Josepolivares reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "per official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"
 * 2)  "information with a reliable source"
 * 3)  "information with a reliable source. Prove the contrary."
 * 4)  "official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"
 * 5)  "official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"
 * 1)  "official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"
 * 2)  "official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"
 * 1)  "official source: https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/first-team/staff/players/2016-2017/neymar-jr"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clear edit war. The editor says a player won a title when the footballer was in an other part of the world. <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> 00:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To further comment, this has been going on for days and a discussion was opened at his talkpage (User talk:Josepolivares) without any answer. Edits include those above from today, but also, , , , , , , and  all from earlier this week. <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> 00:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8) It seems that multiple incremental edits intervene.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is an admin. WP:DTTR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion appears ongoing on the article talk and Spacecowboy420's talk.

Comments:

I addressed this on the talk for NeilN, who addressed this on the users's talk, where I encouraged them to self-revert and talk through the changes. Despite NeilN's assurances that John was "a reasonable and approachable editor", I was met with derision. As I indicated in discussion on their talk, I would have reported similar behavior by any editor I was unfamiliar with without a second thought. Instead I attempted to resolve informally, was met with mocking, and so here we are.

I'm uninvolved in this article and came across it through recent changes. The edits seems obviously in good faith, and may objectively be an improvement to the article, but edit warring, intentionally riding the line of 3RR, and mocking those who intervene, should be beneath an admin. Timothy Joseph Wood 21:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional notes: The page has been fully protected by SlimVirgin in response to a request by clpo13. The user was notified and the notification has been reverted. Timothy Joseph Wood  22:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that as John is an admin the protection only applies to the other editors. I hope he's sensible enough not to abuse that advantage, but I'm not optimistic. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is totally unsurprising behaviour for John, who has a massive history of OWN problems. He's also happy to abuse other editors and threaten them with admin sanctions in order to strong-arm his position in content disputes. See User talk:Mr.choppers and this is unimpressive too.
 * The behaviour here is pure wikilawyering to avoid the letter of 3RR, but the disruptive effects despite that are obvious. No-one is claiming that 20k of poorly sourced content doesn't need work, but his way is not the way to go about it. His heavy-handed blanking makes it impossible for other editors to achieve anything more productive in such an environment. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that he is using his admin superpowers to edit through the protection anyway.
 * Also his behaviour today at WP:RSN is equally combative. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This behavior would be unacceptable from an editor, and is far far worse coming from an admin. John, has made the point [] that he isn't going to break 3RR, but has spent over a week edit warring on this article. Timing your edits to (just) avoid fall foul of 3RR is not acceptable, and is still edit warring. After the article was given full protection, John edited it (using his admin rights) which is a total abuse of the trust that is given to admins. This is not a case of an editing block or a warning, this is a case for him having all admin rights taken from him, as he has shown quite clearly that he is willing to abuse those rights, while in the middle of an edit war. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Opinion: (1) There was no violation of 3RR. (2) The article was a bloated mess of fluff and uncited information; John is remedying that. (3) In certain circumstances on large bloated articles cleanouts are a better solution than gaining consensus to remove every single uncited claim or piddling bit of fluff. (4) The people trying to get John in trouble have never edited the article (and I don't really know why they think their perception of what ought or ought not to be done to it and how carries more weight than his). This article appears to be a large wholesale problem that needs large wholesale solutions; I personally would rather trust John to do that than question his take without examination. My two cents. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Cleanouts are a better solution than gaining consensus" No, never. They are two different things. You can't compare them like this. A cleanout might well be better than piecemeal editing, but it does not become an excuse to edit-war against multiple other editors, or to go against consensus. If you want a cleanout (and I agree, that might be simplest) then gain consensus for doing it that way.
 * "The people trying to get John in trouble have never edited the article" is pure ad hominem. It also ignores the main problem here, the chilling effect that repeated bulk blanking with threats of blocks to back it up have on other non-admin editors. John should not be an admin if he threatens his admin powers in content disputes like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Opposing opinion: (1) Staying (just) the right side of 3RR is still edit warring, and also gaming the system. (2) edit warring is not the solution for content disputes. (3) there are numerous solutions for uncited content, removal is not the only solution. (and edit warring is not one of them) (4) people commenting here are not "trying to get John in trouble" - they are reporting someone (who as an admin should know better) for edit warring. How can someone trust an admin who games the system, edit wars and abuses admin rights to edit an article that they are edit warring on, after it has been fully protected? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "abuses admin rights to edit an article that they are edit warring on, after it has been fully protected?" That's not the case. The so-called edit was at the exact same time as the page-protection, so it was a simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) edit. Moreover, the so-called edit was not an edit but the posting of two tags . -- Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a technical expert on history logs but, if John's edit was made before the page protection, would it show earlier in the history log? I'm guessing yes.
 * If John's edit was started before the page protection, but saved after the protection, then wouldn't it show "edit conflict" and require him to save the edit again?
 * Could a regular (non-admin) editor have made the same edit to a protected article? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "I see that he is using his admin superpowers to edit through the protection anyway." That's not the case. The so-called edit was at the exact same time as the page-protection, so it was a simultaneous (or near-simultaneous) edit. Moreover, the so-called edit was not an edit but the posting of two tags . -- Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Softlavender, what do you think? Did he see "edit conflict" or not? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The page history shows his edit after both the protection and the tagging as protected. It has the same timestamp, rounded to the minute, but the order is clear.
 * Also tagging an article is still editing that article. Tagging an article content as unsourced, in the midst of a dispute on the state of that sourcing, is also a clearly provocative act pushing just the same agenda.
 * Could I have made that same edit? Could I have reverted it?  I'm not an admin, so no. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Spacecowboy420: Technical questions should be addressed to WP:VPT. However, please do not do that because a highly complex and distributed system such as Wikipedia can do unexpected things. Further, there is no possible benefit to the encyclopedia from such an enquiry. The question to ask is how would this improve the encyclopedia?, and adding two cn tags at the precise time a page was protected is a who-cares situation. At any rate, MediaWiki is getting intelligent regarding handling edit conflicts, and it is entirely possible for there to be no edit conflict in the situation here because two different parts of the page were changed. Regarding the issue of edit warring: why did you make this edit at the article? Your edit summary suggests that you made no attempt to examine the edit to judge its merit, but instead reflexively reverted because of something you once did. That is participating in an edit war without joining or starting a discussion on the article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Johnuniq, this discussion is about John edit warring. If you wish to make a edit warring report against me, for making one revert, that was explained clearly in the edit summary, then feel free. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against fluff removal expeditions. However, when multiple users take issue with content removal, and start a discussion on the talk, the correct response is to engage in that discussion. The incorrect response is to intentionally edit war just outside 3RR, so much so that one uninvolved party (SC420) reverted their edit, another (clpo13) requested page protection, and another (myself) attempted to address on their talk along with yet another (Neil), who felt the need to clarify to an admin that 3RR is a bright line, and fourth reversions just outside 24 hours is still edit warring.


 * Obviously this is not going to result in a block, and I'm not even trying to push for a warning. The only thing I've tried to get is any type of recognition whatsoever that there may have been a better way to handle this. That doesn't appear forthcoming.  Timothy Joseph Wood  12:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course it won't result in any sanctions against John. It became very obvious a long time ago, that in ANI/3RR reports, who is being reported, is far more important that what they have done. Once you're an admin, or at least 5yrs+ here, you can pretty much get away with whatever you want. When you're new or even worse an IP editor, you breathe wrong and you get indef blocked Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment to, , and : Unless the bug has been fixed, if an admin begins an edit to a protected page they get a huge red box that informs them they are editing through full protection and to mind the policy (which is that only completely non-controversial edits or edits with clear consensus should be made). If, however, they begin the edit and then full protection is applied before they click Save, they will receive neither an edit conflict notice nor a notice that they are editing through full protection. I believe this was the case here, and I thought I made clear in my edit summary when I reverted him that I assumed it was a mistake. He chose to leave an angry rebuke on my talk page regardless, so I must not have been clear. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. Content dispute between experienced editors. No (deliberate) abuse of mops. No violations. Everybody is grounded until after school. Roxy the dog™ bark 13:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a report for abuse of admin privileges; it's a report for edit warring. Timothy Joseph Wood  15:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears the question at hand is whether experienced editors are exempt from the rules regarding edit-warring when they are engaged in a content dispute. MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Or NPA Andy Dingley (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't remotely a personal attack Andy, and it isn't anything to do with what we are talking about, but I've struck the last part of it anyway since it hurt your feelings. Short and sweet: the editing through protection is bullshit, as I did not knowingly do it. Adding or restoring unreferenced material to articles is unhelpful, blind-reverting to make a point is stupid, commenting on a noticeboard when you haven't looked at the edits or read the talk page is the utter height of dumbassery. I've lost a lot of respect for several editors through this comedy. I will continue to try to improve our article on the Citroën 2CV by bringing it into line with WP:V and our other policies. It's what I do. Those of us with an interest in improving the article have made a plan at the talk page for how to move the article forwards. Read the talk page and you'll see some examples. I will try to make fewer reverts at that article, but if somebody undoes my work and restores an earlier version full of unsourced garbage, I will continue to be tempted to do so. If that rises to a block these days, block me. Even better, perish the thought, crawl away from spouting lies at a drama board and try improving an article. It's rather fun. --John (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * " I've lost a lot of respect for several editors through this comedy."
 * You never show the slightest respect for other editors. That is what is behind this mess, behind all your other editing, and why you are not fit to be an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm unimpressed at some of the rhetoric being thrown around but the page is already protected and I don't see what's going to be accomplished by blocking John or anyone else. Talk is occurring, and I'm confident we can move forward when page protection expires. Laser brain   (talk)  23:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems to me this report and all the piling on is motivated by retaliation, ill-will, and other personal motives, rather than any concern whatsoever over the content of the article, which zero of the people reporting or piling on have investigated. John is one of our best content editors, and has actually studied the article. Why people unfamiliar with and unconcerned about the quality of the article are reporting and piling on is beyond me. Trouts all around. Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Does being "one of our best content editors" give you the freedom to edit war, without risking the sanctions that would be imposed against a less experienced editor? If this had been an edit warring report against a less experienced editor, then the same people who are defending John, would be baying for blood/blocks. An admin should be setting the example of how to deal with a content dispute, not abusing their status in Wikipedia to avoid blocks, and then showing that they have zero respect for the way Wikipedia (should) work, by saying "if somebody undoes my work and restores an earlier version full of unsourced garbage, I will continue to be tempted to do so. If that rises to a block these days, block me." A large portion of double standards and looking after your friends has been served up for all of Wikipedia. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think need to move on.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   10:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * And yet, while telling me to move on, you are still on user talk pages, moaning about how mean people are to John. Someone close this already. I'm done. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I already posted a result and said no one was going to be blocked, so please consider it closed. I don't appreciate your implication that I treated this report differently because of who John is or isn't. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In the most plain way possible, if I come across an editor violating policy, and I think it'll do any good, I'll try to address it on their talk. If their response is essentially fuck off, I'll report them to the appropriate noticeboard. I have no interest in the personal spats John has with others who have commented here, and I have no spat of my own. The claim on his talk that this is somehow more about me than about him is flatly imagined. I looked up our interactions to make sure. Feel free to remind me if we've had some past conflict I've forgotten about.
 * This is not ANI and these digressions have been at best distracting. John's attack ridden response was inappropriate, but apparently characteristic.
 * At the base of it, an admin should not need reminding that good faith is not an exception to edit warring, and should not indiscriminately spew bile in the case they forget. Timothy Joseph Wood  11:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I will address this elsewhere. As I said above "I am done" Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am one of several users who was appalled at how John decided to tackle the somewhat messy 2CV entry. I had no clue that he was an admin until I read this thread, and I am surprised. I have never encountered an admin so thoroughly incapable of working with people whose opinions differ from his own. He has been hostile and deaf-eared every step of the way. All I have asked is to go back to a stable version and then work together to improve the article, but John demands that his version stand. He also accuses someone (I assume me and someone else?) of tag teaming him, I would like to hear more about this. And slapping uw notices on the talk pages  of those who don't agree with you does not constitute communication.


 * Anyhow, I hope this is not how an admin is supposed to act. WP:V and WP:BRD are both important policies: when they come into conflict then one has to discuss.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  03:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous warring to remove the content entirely:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) NPA Warn
 * 2) original 3RR warn
 * 3) current informal warning after improperly templating me following one revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been pages of discussion and pages of WP:IDHT on the talk, including an RfC. Current discussion on my talk is just more failure to listen and failure to understand WP:ONUS.

Comments:


 * did it for me. Block, tar, feather, whatever.  He might be right - I haven't had time to read it in detail - but someone who just keeps reverting regardless, even in the midst of other independent editors telling them to stop, is just the poster child for why we have a bright-line policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the editor's first rodeo. In addition to the entries in his block log, this ANI thread from earlier this summer dealt with similar disruptive editing and edit warring. Rebb  ing  13:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I left him a polite message (diff) asking him to self-revert his fifth revert, which he ignored in favor of repeating his demands that I engage with his lengthy argument (diff). Rebb  ing  13:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Continuing to revert. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Some correction and clarification. First, the referenced RfC was quickly abandoned and doesn’t concern the present state of things. Second, the delete attempt was made because editors weren’t registering the sourcing issues I was bringing up, in an attempt to force editors to recall that improperly sourced material can be removed at any time. Third, hardly any of the discussion on the talk page concerns current issues in my edit. Editors had mentioned concerns about the subject of the article, ancient history. Editors had mentioned concerns regarding the exclusion of material, failing to understand the purpose of my deletion, despite my comment made just before the deletion. Only one editor has ever mentioned any concerns regarding civil vs. religious marriage and the interpretation of secondary sources, the one who started this little diversion. Fourth, said editor has repeatedly refused attempts to gather consensus on his matters of concern, and repeated invitations to start RfCs on them. I encourage editors/administrators to actually take a look at my edit, my detailed explanation of it on the talk page, and the sole editor to have made any objections to any of it, however vague, imprecise, and ill-defined those objections may be. It makes for quite the singular case of pointless obstructionism. You may return to your Wikilegalism now. Antinoos69 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been no failure to address the user's points. Quite the opposite, they have been addressed multiple times by multiple editors, and a failure on their part to WP:LISTEN does not constitute an obligation for anyone else to rehash the same issue another half dozen times.
 * They've been trying for weeks to push their own personal taxonomy of SSM, and in turn their own personal interpretation of what part of that taxonomy the sources might be talking about. Every editor has disagreed with the integration of content based on this. Feel free to read through the walls of text on talk if you have a free afternoon.
 * Eventually they resolved: I will do as I please and deem proper. Period. Which they have attempted to do. The "invitations" to start another RfC have been 1) Now go start that RfC. Or are you afraid? I'm done with you, and 2) What part of done with buffoonery are you failing to understand? (Btw, if you revert me without an RfC, I'll move for or start one myself.)
 * The history of their talk consists mostly of EW warnings, all on articles related to homosexuality. A short term ban will do nothing since they edit in fits and starts anyway. Suggest a hearty topic ban from the subject of human sexuality generally. Timothy Joseph Wood  12:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're lying. Only once has any other editor addressed the matters raised by my recent edit, and that was to affirm knowledge of the difference between civil and religious marriage. Frankly, your ignorance bores me. Antinoos69 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors had mentioned concerns regarding the exclusion of material, failing to understand the purpose of my deletion... So, concerns of other editors don't matter and the World failed to understand you... --Skyfall (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth do you think you're talking about? Certainly not the current reality. As my edit discussed here did not constitute a deletion of the sort that had been discussed by other editors previously, those previous comments are irrelevant, as is yours, quite obviously. You're having trouble with the concept of relevance, and with understanding what is currently at issue. Keep up. Antinoos69 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  19:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Bello5Packo reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Indef blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

The user (new, SPA) keeps reinserting a contested section of original research about Ataturk and in talk page he ignores explanations about our rules of original research and proper referencing, arguing about "common sense" and WP:IAR.

Two other users agreed with my judgement. He was already blocked once for this edit warring. It looks like WP:NOTHERE, only bashing "bad Atatturk". Please help bring him to senses. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a properly filled out report, but the user in question is clearly a POV warrior and WP:NOTHERE. Indef blocked, along with the sock. Please bring other socks that appear to the attention of me or another admin. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tianderni reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
Page:

Page: User being reported: Previously at AN/I:  WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844 Previously at AN/I:  WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843.

Previous version reverted to: Over Nagles change

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) of Smallbones
 * 2) of Smallbones
 * 3) of Mr. Ollie
 * 4) of Nagle

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mr. Ollie already did it

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

If this has already been filed, please delete Comments:

Banc De Binary has been subject to the most aggressive paid editing of any article in Wikipedia. It even was cited by the Wall Street Journal bottom of article. It's illegal for the firm to advertise in the US. The previous editor who tried to soften our article Barenpolti has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Why am I being reported here? Just because I removed the texts which are not verified by the cited sources? I asked you to discuss on the article's talk page but you reverted me without discussing on the article's talk page. I also messaged you on your talk page. I am not editing for the company. You can add back the texts with reliable sources but instead you're reporting me! I think you don't have a NPOV for Banc De Binary. Tianderni (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I have also addressed the 3RR warning on my talk page. Tianderni (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. As noted above, we have had huge paid editing/COI issues with Banc de Binary. The new editor is also editing SpotOption, which is the platform behind most Israeli binary options companies.  Banc de Binary is an affiliate of SpotOption. Understand that this business is a scam.  Since the last time this was at AN/I, there are many reliable sources to confirm that. See Times of Israel expose at  and the US CFTC's federal court order against BdB at . Banc de Binary was booted out of the US by the CFTC and forced to repay all its customers losses. Similar things have happened in Canada, Belgium, etc. Israel's financial authority doesn't allow them to sell to Israelis.  Sizable SEO efforts, including the creation of many sites about binary options, have been used to try to push negative information out of search results.  This may be part of that effort to control the message. It's reasonable to assume that a new SPA with an interest only in SpotOption and Banc De Binary is WP:NOTHERE to work on Wikipedia. Suggest block on those grounds. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * . Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. Laser brain   (talk)  19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Iloveinfo22 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: page protected three days; content-dispute issue raised at DRN)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736293939 by Jytdog (talk) Zero consensus for including a blog post in a scientific article. Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability."
 * 2)  "per previous"
 * 3)  "Rv. to good; stop edit-warring and raise any relevant points on the article Talk page."
 * 4)  "Removed bit about the blogger"
 * 5)  "Removed irrelevant blog post inserted into discussion. Likely self promotion."


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


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

And it continues ... now at 6RR by my count. Alexbrn (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * User is now participating in discussion at the talk page, so I'm thinking administrative action may not be necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * . The issue has been raised at DRN and users are now engaging in talk-page discussion, so block seems unnecessary at this time. I note that Iloveinfo22's reverts did raise colorable BLP arguments, which is a factor weighing against an immediate block. (I express no opinion on whether he/she is ultimately correct or not; I merely note that the BLP concern is colorable). In any case, Iloveinfo22 is a new user and is advised to become familiar with policies and guidelines, in particular WP:3RR. Neutralitytalk 05:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:66.234.193.118 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736354692 by TAnthony (talk)"
 * 2) 2nd revert
 * 3)  "Undid revision 736271903 by Trivialist (talk)"
 * 4th revert
 * 5th
 * 6th


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * Explanatory edit summaries by other editors re: bad edit


 * Comments:

George Lucas, the creator of the Star Wars franchise, considers the entire series to be for children. 66.234.193.118 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless Lucs was not involved with the manga so he can't be an authority on the demographics of anirher persons' work. We need a source that directly identifies this particular manga as such.--67.68.161.51 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They have also made a 5th revert after commenting here. I have removed the category again though..--67.68.161.51 (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 15:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jose Enes reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Presidency of Benfica */"
 * 2)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 3)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 4)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 5)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 6)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 1)  "/* Presidency of Benfica */"
 * 2)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 3)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 4)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 5)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 6)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 1)  "/* Imprisonment */"
 * 2)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 3)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 1)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 2)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 1)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"
 * 2)  "The changes are based on true facts and Court confirmed documents not on gossip from tabloides"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Comments:

Warrior has been told multiple times to try to reach consensus. However, the warrior keeps reverting. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And it continues, , . Meatsgains (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Triggerhippie4 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked 24 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: No warning necessary The article is under very strict arbitration enforcement, and a gigantic warning sign forbidding more than one revert per day is displayed when editing.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A very clear case. The article is under strict 1RR, as anyone who tries to edit it is informed. Triggerhippie4 reverted four times in the last days, including reverting twice in less than 8 hours. The violation of the strict 1RR is an automatic block, and the preceding edit warring on an article under strong discretionary sanctions should probably be taken into account. Avaya1 should also seriously reconsider their editing behavior, less sure if that is an automatic block as well. Jeppiz (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I can't think of anything at Wikipedia that is an "automatic block". Putting that aside, you should have notified of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me! 01:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , you're right, 'automatic block' was not the right choice of word. Only meant that the level of tolerance for any violation of 1RR is usually very low. Jeppiz (talk) 09:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User:89.215.196.84 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736568802 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736567701 by Sro23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 4)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 5)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 6)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 7)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 8)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 9)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 2)  "/* Criticism */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Sro23. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Moose test. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Excuse me, why are you reporting me instead of checking with information on the article is truthful? And why you are reporting me and not User_talk:Sro23 who started the edit war in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.196.84 (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

User: 91.230.25.109 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Flag of Ukraine

Previous version reverted to: 12:22, 27 August 2016 insert File:Western ukraine flag.png

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:45, 28 August 2016 revert Iryna Harpy
 * 2) 10:13, 28 August 2016 revert Dr Zimbu
 * 3) 08:49, 29 August 2016 revert A D Monroe III
 * 4) 09:41, 29 August 2016 revert Toddy1
 * 5) 11:15, 29 August 2016 revert Iryna Harpy

Ukraine

Previous version reverted to: 14:43, 27 August 2016 insert File:Western ukraine flag.png

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 09:50, 28 August 2016 revert KGirlTrucker81
 * 2) 10:17, 28 August 2016 revert Dr Zimbu
 * 3) 08:52, 29 August 2016 revert KGirlTrucker81
 * 4) 11:16, 29 August 2016 revert Toddy1

National colours of Ukraine

Previous version reverted to: 13:58, 27 August 2016 insert File:Western ukraine flag.png

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 11:21, 29 August 2016 revert Iryna Harpy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:35, 29 August 2016

Post on user's talk page.

There is a attempt to resolve the edit war at Talk:Ukraine

Comments:


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:81.157.239.31 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable. 3rr does not relate to removing inaccuracies for a BLP so I can remove this as many times as i want. I will report you if you keep adding it"
 * 2)  "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 3)  "YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 736616405 by LoloLui (talk)  YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 736614919 by LoloLui (talk) YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 736577831 by LoloLui (talk) YouTube Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 7)  "Facebook daily mail are unreliable"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 736472104 by LoloLui (talk) all sources (eg Facebook) are unreliable"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 736434624 by LoloLui (talk) no it isn't reliable"
 * 10)  "Facebook daily mail unreliable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Omar Suleiman (Imam). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I only repeatedly removed the material as it is biased for a BLP as it contains potentially libelous material that is very poorly sourced. Wikipedia rules state that:

The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ''Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.''

On the other hand User:ThePlatypusofDoom has repeatedly added (at least 5 times in less than an hour) poorly sourced libelous material into a BLP. The sources he uses are: Youtube, Daily Mail newspaper, http://www.peaceandtolerance.org/, https://tifrib.com, etc....


 * I messed up. But, it looks very sketchy when an ip is removing large chunks of content with borderline sources, especially when they are reverting a non-ip.ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I messed up. I thought that trifib was an RS. Also, isn't a video of something that happened a decent enough since? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * has fully protected the article. I rather hope that this is the only action in relation to this series of events. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 20:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I spoke to already and made it clear that per WP:BLPREMOVE talking needs to happen now before adding it back in. Assuming nobody starts up again I don't intend to take further action. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The protection has expired and once again an attempt was made to add libelous material from bad sources into this blp by User:LoloLui. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.239.31 (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A valid case for WP:3RRNO here. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:91.122.2.106 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: as ip

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not this time, but see Talk:Binding energy. User was invited to go to talk page twice per edit summaries. Never responds. Was blocked for same kind of edits before. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Other instances:

Comments:


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Purrhaps reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "﻿My contributions are neutral, relevant, significant, verifiable, reader-empowering, perspective-balancing, intelligent-summary facts, vital-to-full-understanding info. Please note: An encyclopedia ...is a type of reference work or compendium holding a"
 * 2)  "My edits empower the reader & are verifiable & vital to full-understanding."
 * 3)  "Your bias shows."
 * 4)  "You can't undo just because you disagree. My edits are relvant, vital, & verifiable."
 * 5)  "Not undue weight. They are the biggest publishers in the world, in "all" languages."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

3RR warning:. Attempt at discussion by :. Edit-warring over scriptural interpretations regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and archangels. GABgab 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Prestbury+2000 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: )
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a newly registered editor (4-day old account) making sweeping unilateral changes to plot/cast sections across multiple film articles. So far he has reverted three editors (myself, and  across three different articles. He has also continued the edits at other articles.. The editor is doing this on the pretext that it is "established practice" (which it is not) and all three of us have pointed out it is counter-productive to remove the names from the plot summaries (where they are useful) and group them together as a bare bones list. MOS:FILM only advises this as a solution in the case of stub class article. I tried to discuss this with him at the talk page of one of the articles, but he has been extremely antagonistic there and on my talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am tied-up with personal matters at the moment, but would just like to add my support and agreement with Betty's comments above, also the reported "editor" is engaging in personal abuse, as well as 3RR. David J Johnson (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor has declared his intention to "quit" Wikipedia: . If he carries through on that it will be a waste of time investigating the case. I suggest keeping it open for 24 hours and if he returns and starts edit-warring we can can resume the case, and if not it can just be closed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: )
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Notice:  I notified Scott about this filing here

Action requested:  (A) one-week block and (B) posting DS notice for US politics on Scott's talk page

EVIDENCE

Edit war at article "LaVoy Finicum"
 * Aug 27 18:20 Scott's bold Edit (series) at LaVoy Finicum
 * Aug 28 01:47 Reverted EditSummary- good faith but this isn't "background" and besides we already have a section (see 'works')
 * Aug 28 04:38 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSummary- Finicum's having written a story that seemed to closely describe the aims that the "revolution" that the Malheur Occupation attempted to achieve was relevent. Please see talk
 * Aug 28 04:49 Scott started a thread to discuss
 * Warning 11:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW and GAMING warning at Scott's talk

Edit war at article "Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge"
 * Aug 27 17:43 Scott's bold edit (series)
 * Aug 28 02:18-51 Reverted (series), see VersHistory for reasons in EditSums
 * Aug 28 04:04 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSum- The fact that Finicum wrote about an impending failure of the US gov, and the fact that Cliven, Ammon's father had just led a similar standoff are quite noteworthy and are not irrelevent. Please see talk.
 * Aug 28 04:16 Scott started a thread to discuss
 * Warning 11:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Custom EW warning at Scott's talk

Edit war at "Wikipedia:WikiProject US Active Armed Movements"
 * Aug 28 19:06-22:36 Scott's bold edit (series) to start drafting project page
 * Warning Aug 28 22:22 Scott reminded that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war
 * Aug 28 23:07 through Aug 29 00:42  Reverts and other attempted improvements (series)   Note that many edit summaries in this series cited Wikipedia policies, etc to explain the basis for the changes
 * Aug 29 00:46 Scott's un-discussed re-revert EditSum- Restored to pre-NewsGuy edits
 * Warning and Request 00:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC) I asked Scott to self-revert to keep me from filing this complaint and again reminded him that a single undiscussed re-revert is an edit war
 * Scott's refusal (verbatim) Aug 29 01:00
 * Childish...
 * Per your own definition, an edit war is when you revert someone's stuff without any explanation on the article talk page. You have now reverteted my edits three times without any such explanations on the article talk pages, and you reverted my edits before I restored them. Who is edit warring. If you would like to engage in a logical discussion about the edits, instead of all of this puffery about edit wars, please, by all means, I am awaiting your logic on the talk pages in question. And please do not delete the Project page rules until you agree to the rules themselves, which boil down to Transparency, Honesty, and Collegiality. Attempts at coercion via procedural maneuvering instead of true logic and reason in a friendly manner.... how sad. Scott P. (talk)
 * Example of anti-AGF attack Aug 29 01:13
 * ...I generally find little integrity, with most editors preferring to attempt to use procedural maneuvers to make their voice the "loudest" in any given article, rather than listening to simple truth and logic. Due to the general lack of Transparency and Integrity, I also find little Collegiality, just like your attempt just now to maneuver me into silence by repeating the "edit war" mantra over and over again on my talk page, instead of actually talking logic and reason in a friendly manner with me. Please don't try to squelch this project page just because you may not like it or the values it stands for. Or do you? Thanks, Scott P. (talk)

DISCUSSION and CONNECTION TO PAST HISTORY

My initial attempts to "discuss" were to provide short and substantive reasons in many edit summaries, maybe not all, but many. These were ignored. We could Discuss on the talk page, but first Scott needs an admin to teach Scott how BRD works. In my view, past words have fallen on deaf ears. Only a block will register (maybe). The problem is that Scott's acts and comments treat WP:BRD in a way that is best described as WP:Gaming the system

1. B = Bold Edit

2. R = When others revert without first getting consensus they are cheating, but no matter....

3. D = Just start a discussion and immediately restore the reverted text before anyone has a chance to reply

Scott is a long time ed who has never been blocked, but has presented troubling behaviors in the past. For example, Scott was warned about gaming the system like this in April 2015. He was warned about edit warring by at EW noticeboard Oct 24, 2014 14:22 and Scott reacted rather badly. He believes that 3RR means he gets 3 free passes and today he's apparently still under that impression even though he was told otherwise last year.

In addition to the above examples, Scott incurred a (failed) community community ban proposal in June 2015. During a pending ANI, Scott apparently made a series of edits at another user's talk page and these were enough to invoke the proposal. While it was being discussed, Scotts remarks were WP:Suppressed, and so with disappearance of the DIFFS the proposal was withdrawn.

I only bring up the past problems to highlight the fact that Scott hasn't been blocked before. Someone even noted that fact when opposing the community ban. It is my hope that a first block now will go a long way towards education for the future, which is consistent with "prevention, not punishment".

And we need prevention. In the present instance, Scott is on a mission to inspire discourse that changes US politics (see last paragraph of the DIFF). His mission is based partly on OR and confirmation bias, where he interprets a work of fiction, a turn of colorful rhetoric from a WP:PRIMARY source, does a bit of WP:SYNTH involving some dates, and comes to rootin' tootin' conclusions, yet somehow I am the bad guy when I insist on quality independent RSs. To purge his universe of the likes of myself, Scott has taken WP:OWNERSHIP of a new wikipedia project that he created, and he is only admitting certain people after they apply and he emails them.

Ironically, as I put the final touches on this posting, Scott added a comment to LaVoy Finicum
 * 16:48, August 29, 2016‎  EditSum - "apologist"   Text: " Are you an apologist for armed takeovers of federal property then?  You are certainly acting like one here, in so far as I can see. "
 * 16:53, August 29, 2016‎  To his credit, he replaced that text, but the fact that he posted it in the first place is further evidence of a deeper issue here.

CONCLUSION

Help please. The project would be improved, and hopefully Scott will get the message, if he is blocked for a week. Also, I know this is the EW board, but would some uninvolved admin please give Scott the DS alert for US politics? I already gave one to myself.
 * PS I am posting as Scott says he has to get to work, so please give him plenty of time to reply before taking any action.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Scott Perry's reply to NewsAndEventsGuy (News Guy)
I will attempt to summarize News Guy's sizable 6-page treatise just above. (Yes I printed it out so I wouldn't miss anything and it came to 6 pages!) It appears to me that the entire treatise primarily revolves around two fairly simple sentences which I added to the LaVoy Finicum article here, and which sentences News Guy appears to strongly disagree with. I must apologize, but all of the other 98% of his treatise appears to me to still primarily be an attempt on his part, to remove these two sentences from the article. Answer the question he raises about these two sentences first, and the rest will probably fall into line. As I understand it, due to the fact that News Guy has a personal theory that Lavoy Finicum did not intend to start any kind of a revolution, he feels that no mention should be made in the background section of the LaVoy Finicum article regarding Finnicum's recent apocalyptic novel, or of his news release regarding the "Oregon Freedom Revolution." In Finicum's news release, he described the Malheur occupation as a "revolution." In Finicum's novel he also described an American "revolution" which seemed to parallel the Malheur occupation in many respects.

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is designed to present the best information possible with as little editorial bias as possible. It seems to me that News Guy instead prefers to withhold the best information possible, and instead to present our readers with his undocumented theories (thus editorial bias) about what News Guy believes Finnicum must have "really meant" when he described the Malheur occupation as a revolution.

I do not fully understand why News Guy has preferred to write a six page treatise on why these two sentences should not be allowed in Wikipedia, when all he would have had to do, as I have asked him to do, would have simply been to have documented and supported his own personal theory (that Finicum didn't really mean what he said), rather than attempting to inject his own unsupported theory (which theory appears to myself to be almost directly supporting and strengthening Finicum's odd belief system) into the article without any documentation whatsoever. I have yet to know why News Guy is so concerned to seemingly try to get WP to effectively support a man who essentially wanted to start a revolution, by his own recorded and documented admission.

Scott P. (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * (A) Absent from Scott's reply is any mention of the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, which is the cornerstone of this filing. Indeed, it is his lack of appreciation and comprehension for BRD that begs for an educational one-week block to benefit the overall project going forward.
 * (B) On the back side of an educational block, I hope to see Scott's other problematic behaviors (GF and NPA vios) abate, but would not be surprised to find ourselves at AE.... but first someone needs to give him the DS alert on US politics.
 * (C) The scope of the content dispute is much broader that Scott has described, and I'm prepared to talk at article and project talk about those matters. This isn't the place and since that's all he said above, I don't plan to reply here unless an admin asks.
 * (D) Once back at project and article talk, the BRD process can only be expected to function if Scott understands how it works and why it is vital. Hence my request for a block to wake him up on that score.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


 * BRD states that one should only resort to "reverting" another editor's work after having attempted to consider whether the information in question could be modified instead, which you have not yet anywhere considered, and that afterward you should attempt to engage in a discussion with the other editor. I have repeatedly asked you to provide even the smallest amount of evidence to support your theory that Finicum didn't really mean what he said, and my request for discussion on this lack of citations on your part has been consistently ignored.  BRD was not meant to be a license for anyone to delete anything with which they disagreed, without having to provide any supporting citations, supporting why they disagreed with any given edit. Scott P. (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. That sort of thing is for an admin to evaluate because.....
 * 2. Excusing your own non-BRD by concluding my reverts were in bad faith or somehow unqualified for BRD is the stuff of WP:Wikilawyering.
 * 3. These three articles were playing out at the same time, and you moved the debate to the project page, where I reverted a ton of unfixable stuff per the principle that even project pages must comply with policy.  You restored all of that without discussion in a blazing display of project WP:OWNERSHIP.... and when I asked you self-revert to prevent this filing you replied quite colorfully with the quote in my opening post.
 * 4. You've tossed out several NPA and AGF vios my way
 * 5. Paradoxically, you're complaining about my reverts on the basis that we're not communicating. Gee, I wonder why that is?
 * 6. ADMIN: I'm not attempting to fold the NPA and AGF problems into this.  Maybe later at another venue.  I still think Scott needs a BRD wakeup call first and am hopeful that will also reduce the other behaviors.
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just wait for a neutral party's observations concerning our obvious difficulty in communicating with one another? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Admins? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that perhaps either you, or I, or both of us could stand with a little better understanding of the intended application of our BRD policy. I have just gone over to that policy page, found the last major conbtributor to that policy, who is User:WhatamIdoing, and invited him to come over here to help us through our little disagreement here. I don't believe I have ever intereacted directly with this user before. He appears to post on WP on a nearly daily basis these days. Apparently this Admin-discussion may take a few days to get resolved. I am hoping that this user might be able to help us both to gain a better understanding of this policy. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can join us, but we really need an admin to explain to you that there is only one R in BRD. And by the way, I am what you call "a BRD editor" myself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * this is a content dispute. I highly doubt any admin is going to find the related behavior on either side odious enough to merit use of tools. The bickering here reflects poorly on you both - you are both experienced enough to know better. Please re-read WP:EW, WP:EDITING, and (most importantly) WP:DR, then come back to the article talk page and discuss like adults. And WP:BRD is an essay, not policy. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be; I am quite proud of my BRD at the super hot page Talk:Global warming and intend to bring the same integrity to these other pages. That's hard to do when another ed does BRRD.  I'll be glad to use the article talk pages when we're all on the same BRD page.  I might even be persuaded and might even compromise.  But we need a commitment to BRD first, not BRRD.  There's a heap of NPA and AGF stuff here too, I figured BRD was the low fruit to try first.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've edited policy in earlier days too. But I am looking forward to WhatamIdoing's input. If I am proven to be mistaken in my understanding of the way WP policy has changed over the years, then all the better.  In my 13 years of editing here, I've never seen it applied the way you are wanting to apply it now.  At least for myself, the main thing is for both of us to have the best understanding possible of this policy. Scott P. (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, since I've been invited to express an opinion, then I will say:


 * BRD is not a policy.
 * BRD is strictly optional. You do not have to follow the BRD method.  The first paragraph of that page says, "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus.... In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."
 * Normally, I'd add here that in BRD, there are no rules about who has to start the discussion. BRD says that the person who engages in discussion is the person best following BRD.  That discussion can be started the person who did the first revert.  But in this case discussions have already been started, and the fact that the discussions started shortly after the re-revert rather than shortly before it is truly unimportant.
 * B-R-R-D-ANEW is not "following BRD" either.
 * There are other alternatives to BRD, and sometimes they are more effective than BRD. See WP:BRD if you don't know what they are.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks What. FYI, please see the comment I left at BRD talk page regarding Bold-Revert-Revert, and my belief that it is an WP:EGG.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Purrhaps reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "﻿My contributions are neutral, relevant, significant, verifiable, reader-empowering, perspective-balancing, intelligent-summary facts, vital-to-full-understanding info. Please note: An encyclopedia ...is a type of reference work or compendium holding a"
 * 2)  "My edits empower the reader & are verifiable & vital to full-understanding."
 * 3)  "Your bias shows."
 * 4)  "You can't undo just because you disagree. My edits are relvant, vital, & verifiable."
 * 5)  "Not undue weight. They are the biggest publishers in the world, in "all" languages."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

3RR warning:. Attempt at discussion by :. Edit-warring over scriptural interpretations regarding Jehovah's Witnesses and archangels. GABgab 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:91.122.2.106 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: as ip

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not this time, but see Talk:Binding energy. User was invited to go to talk page twice per edit summaries. Never responds. Was blocked for same kind of edits before. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Other instances:

Comments:


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

User:LionzPunjab reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

See here, just before the bold insertion of unreliably sourced info. Subsequent diffs below are reinstatements of it.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736886759 by Sitush (talk) Stop undoing this unnecessarily and vandalizing the article. All sources are valid."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736886061 by Sitush (talk) Already seen it, there are no issues. All are legit and valid sources."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 736875727 by Sitush (talk) Perfectly valid sources, so it should not be undone."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patti, Punjab. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Patti, Punjab. (TW)"

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


 * Comments:


 * for disruptive editing and edit warring.Bishonen &#124; talk 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:NISMO1968 reported by User:Behaver (Result: Filer indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

I need your kind attention. Thanks ---Behaver (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Freshly registered User:Behaver brought back recently deleted by User:Seraphimblade article called DataCore software but now using modified name, lower case "s" in "software", old one is here DataCore Software. He's engaged in a fake edit war and is canvassing Special:Contributions/Behaver. NISMO1968 (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Behaver indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Truth-in religion reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "how plates were translated"
 * 2)  "how plates were translated"
 * 3)  "Ensign article July 1993 talk by apostle Russel Nelson describes how joseph translated by a rock in a hat"
 * 4)  "ensign July 1993 " A treasure testament" Russel Nelson talks about how joseph used a hat and a rock"
 * 5)  "Ensign article July 1993 talk by apostle Russel Nelson describes how joseph translated by a rock in a hat"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (TW)"


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

Created section for discussion and invited user


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:122.168.65.203 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo, added details"
 * 3)  "added details"
 * 4)  "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar"
 * 5)  "Fixed typo, Fixed grammar, added"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tarek Fatah. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tarek Fatah. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The subject is a self-declared Muslim. Changing the religion to "Atheist" is a BLP violation. The same holds for unsourced rants about him being anti-Muslim. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 24 for edit warring, 24 for BLP violations <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Tradedia reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This Diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning Diff

No discussion was started as WP:1RR information is posted in and on the article already as part of the general sanctions on ISIL articles.

Comments:

General Sanctions: ISIL Articles applies to this report. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks like two consecutive edits? <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The edit summaries indicated "Undid revision" followed by commentary of two separate additions to the module. Have I missed something or did I make a mistake on this one? -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk  22:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A series of consecutive edits counts as one revert. You can make many undos/changes but if they're consecutive edits, all the changes will count as one revert. See WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! I apologize for my misunderstanding (and apparently missing that part of the policy).  I withdraw this in that case. -- <b style="color:blue">Dane 2007 </b> talk  22:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Dynamic IP reported by User:Alsee (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Note: This IP was blocked for 12 hours by Zzuuzz for vandalizing a userpage, which also includes a (FUCK OFF) edit summary as well as reverting admin Zzuuzz's attempts to clean up the vandalism.
 * Note: This IP was blocked for 12 hours by Zzuuzz for vandalizing a userpage, which also includes a (FUCK OFF) edit summary as well as reverting admin Zzuuzz's attempts to clean up the vandalism.
 * Note: This IP was blocked for 12 hours by Zzuuzz for vandalizing a userpage, which also includes a (FUCK OFF) edit summary as well as reverting admin Zzuuzz's attempts to clean up the vandalism.
 * Note: This IP was blocked for 12 hours by Zzuuzz for vandalizing a userpage, which also includes a (FUCK OFF) edit summary as well as reverting admin Zzuuzz's attempts to clean up the vandalism.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  09:14, 28 August 2016 (Undid revision 731467225 by Jonteemil (talk))
 * 2)  12:49, 28 August 2016 (Fuck you Jonteemil)
 * 3)  02:36, 29 August 2016 (Fuck off Alsee)
 * 4)  01:58, 30 August 2016 (Undid revision 736721140 by Jonteemil (talk))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff where I warned the IP about abusive language and requesting the issue be discussed on article talk : The article_talk diff (below) contains a link to Edit Warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of my article edit, including edit summary requesting the issue be discussed on the article talk page:

Comments:

I have no interest in this article, I was investigating Jonteemil's request for help at Talk:Village_pump_(miscellaneous). The IP is clearly abusive, unwilling to discuss, and one of the involved IP address was just blocked for vandalism.

The IP whois lookup reports UK ISP Talktalk. Alsee (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 72 hours for latest IP <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Paulcli1 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "YARDIE IS NOT A GANG BUT THERE WAS A GANG CALLED THE YARDIES. This is not the appropriate place for gang discussion. If you want that make a new page Yardie (Gang))"
 * 2)  "For the last time. YARDIE IS NOT A GANG BUT THERE WAS A GANG CALLED THE YARDIES. This is not the appropriate place for gang discussion. If you want that make a new page Yardie (Gang)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 736635321 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk)"
 * 4)  "Yardies are the the name of a gang but Yardies just mean Jamaican. The page should be renamed to either Yardie (Gang)  or a new page created. First meaning in the Oxford dictionary "(Among Jamaicans) a fellow Jamaican.""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I believe the editor also edited while being logged out, see Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Sahrin reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts (am providing the whole chain here)
 * added the first time here by Sahrin on Aug 10: "Add explanation of why people oppose the amendment"
 * removed here by an IP Aug 26: "unreferenced, and has problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV"
 * restored here by Sahrin Aug 27: "revert possible vandalism"
 * removed here by me Aug 27: "that is indeed unsourced editorializing that someone added to the article, and should be removed"
 * restored here by Sahrin Aug 30: "The source is given in the line. Gun zealots are taking over this page. Guys, what is it you hope to accomplish here?"
 * removed here by me Aug 30: "see discussion on talk and see your Talk page"
 * restored again here by Sahrin Aug 30 with edit note: "Since the section is disputed, I am reverting to the original version of the article before the article was brigaded by revisionist gun types"
 * reverted again here by Del nk Aug 30 with edit note: "this is the consensus version".
 * added again here by Sahrin Aug 30 with edit note: "Attempting to intimidate another editor is extremely inappropriate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif, and again here, and notice of DS on gun control here

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

Comments:

Editor is edit warring on a gun control issue in violation of plain old 3RR and is open to sanctions under DS for the topic as well. Has not used the Talk page once. Please take action. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)\


 * Sidebar: Jytdog did not attempt to contact me regarding the edits at all; and followed up with no less than five notifications about the edit in question.  He never consulted the history of the article (see:  his statement about the consensus version) and repeatedly suppressed an edit that was the thesis of the section in question.  When I attempted to inform him that I viewed his actions as "harassment" he responded by blanking the comment and saying "nope."  No attempt to ever communicate with me or any other editor who did not agree with his viewpoint was made before escalating.  Quite aside from his snide tone and inappropriate demeanor, his effort to cloak censorship in the process is offensive to me, as someone who has been editing for 11 years.  Why the sudden interest in this article, one wonders?  Why the effort to scrub the content of the section, but not the section itself?  To top it off, his final act is to revert an edit with the comment "You must discuss on Talk page.  Not optional."  My advice to Jytdog is to quit harassing other users and simply walk away.  He clearly cannot be objective about this topic, and should leave it to more experienced and professional editors.  Further harassment by Jytdog should be investigated by Admins.   Sahrin (talk) 21:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What you write is contradicted by the diffs above. I even offered specific alternative language on the Talk page in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This was all done after you began your harassment campaign, then brigaded the page. Come on man, just walk away.  You've already said it's a topic you are inexpert on.  I get it, you got steamed because you love guns and wanted to censor some facts that show the gun industry in a bad light...take a deep breath, stop harassing other users, and move on.  You can't 'clean up' your behavior after the fact by reporting someone for an act you created by brigading.  Sahrin (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just.... wow. You have not come to the Talk page of the article even once; instead you have just doled out personal attacks in edit notes, and now even here at EWN.  Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised by Sahrin's response here too. This is a quite clear case of edit warring.  Sahrin's belief that others' good faith edits are vandalism, harassment, censorship, and the work of "gun zealots" and "revisionist gun types" is really over the top and a sign of an inappropriate battleground mentality.  Deli nk (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On a separate note.. where are the admins?? This is such blantantly bad behavior and on a topic with DS to boot.  Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryecatcher773 reported by User:Sfo1980 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Brecksville is a city in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and is a suburb of Cleveland in the Northeast Ohio Region, the 15th largest Combined Statistical Area in the United States. The city's population was 13,656 at the 2010 census.]
 * 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:

The reporting editor (Sfo1980) has not responded on the article's talk page (where the edit I made was explained clearly), nor has this editor weighed the opinion of other editors who concurred with the edit I made to the article. This editor is exhibiting serious ownership issues and is perpetuating the edit-war by not attempting to engage in constructive discourse on the Brecksville, Ohio talk page Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Indeed, he has edit-warred against two seasoned editors, even after being advised by a completely uninvolved editor that their edits were unhelpful. This report is after a vengeance-seeking ANI report. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  17:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sfo1980, you are very close to being blocked for edit warring. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)