Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive325

User:Manning954 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "consensus has been reached. Refrain from disruptive reverts. Thanks"
 * 2)  "consensus was reached"
 * 3)  "sources are in the body of the article. Isn't the intro supposed to be a summary, where sources are necessarily required, especially if it is included in the body of the article?"
 * 4)  "dispute has been resolved. The only other guy disputing this has given up his dispute. Take a look at the NFL wikiproject talk page, my own talk page, and the talk page for this article"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 737037343 by Crash Underride (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 736963600 by Crash Underride (talk)"
 * 7)  "added info to intro"
 * 8)  "removed information not pertinent enough for the intro"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on David Carr (American football). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The editor was blocked on 19 August for edit warring on the same article. As far as I can see no consensus has been reached. The editor also decided to give me a vandalism warning for reverting his edit. Marianna251TALK 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright where do we begin. The dispute here is what information is relevant enough to be included in the intro of David Carr (American football). Several users including an IP user and Crashunderride have insisted on Carr's Super Bowl ring information to be included. I don't believe that is relevant enough to be included in the intro. I still maintain it is not relevant. Despite that, I let it go AS LONG as the information regarding his draft bust legacy is included as well, which is far more relevant information. I make an edit including that information in the intro and apparently it was the equivalent of throwing kittens into the river. I've had no less than 5 people reverting that edit. I decided to hold my ground and reverted those edits. As a result that was the cause of the temp ban earlier this month. Lizard, as noted in his comment on the NFL Wikiproject talk page, said that ban was bullshit. I got "strong armed." Plain and simple. I got banned for adding a relevant piece of information to the intro of that article. You can look at my talk page, the NFL wikiproject talk page, and the article's talk page to see the discussions we've had pertaining to this dispute. Lizard was one of the guys reverting my edits and even we've come to an agreement on the issue. We either include both pieces of information or remove both. Either option is fine with me. The only other person disagreeing was Crashunderride. He abandoned his argument once he could not dispute the fact that the draft legacy was far more relevant that the super bowl ring information. Well at the very least it is 2-1 in my favor and really it's 2-0 since crashunderride abandoned his argument. Looks like a consensus to me. Now after it appeared it was all over, I added the draft legacy info to the intro and then UW Dawgs and Marianna251 come and engage in an edit war. They revert my edits which were the result of a consensus. Unlike those two, I'm not a baby and I don't ask for people to get a timeout in the corner. I don't want any of them to get a ban. All I ask is they respect the consensus and not revert my edits. Manning954 (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I should also note that the earlier ban was for "edit warring." If that were the case, why was I the only one that got banned, when there were a number of people that were also reverting my edits who were also participants in the "edit warring." I've posed this question on my talk page and in appeals for the block and have not received an answer for that. Manning954 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we have an further example from 14:49 today (EDT), following the 3RR warning, to restore his preferred version over a compromise edit which received at least one other editor's support at the article Talk page -
 * 14:49 today. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Missed this one at 14:41 today] as well. JohnInDC (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Possible sock of User:Edday1051 who has multiple (2?) blocks long ago for editing the same article (David Carr (American football)) with thematically identical content edits .  Special:Contributions/Edday1051 recently stopped editing on 23:04, 29 August 2016 and Special:Contributions/Manning954 then resumed from an absence on 09:19, 30 August 2016. Note, outside of this 3RR context, many editors can reasonably be in thematic agreement with the content of these edits and should work towards consensus on language and location.  Only raising a question narrowly about socks and WP:GAMING, with no negative aspersion directed towards Edday1051. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppetry concerns should be raised at WP:SPI Neil N  talk to me 19:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done - Sockpuppet investigations/Edday1051 (for editors who were also considering filing). UW Dawgs (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Turnless (Result: Protected)
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: User talk:Turnless

Comments:

This user is removing valid information of transliteration of the name of the region to the relevant name in Armenian, as the majority of the region is Armenian. provided sources of why the name is relevant, but that did not stop the user from continuing to edit war and removing that information. I am no longer going to revert as that would lead me to breaking the 3RR policy as well. The user is also edit warring on South Ossetia by installing his preferred name for the region which is not nearly as common and usually only used by Georgia for official reference to the region. Everywhere else on the article the region is referred to as South Ossetia as that is also the article's name. He was the one who started a discussion on my talk page by telling me to use the talk page for his POV information that he is adding, that is the discussion that I linked above. In that discussion, I also mentioned his edits on Javakheti, and warned him that he will be reported if he continues removing valid information and edit warring however, that didn't stop him from doing so. His last revert also says to stop changing the information until a consensus has been reached despite the fact that he was the one who made the new changes by removing the information that was already present on the article. This user has been blocked before for edit warring (see block log ) not only on the English wikipedia but, to my recent realization, also on Commons, where he was indefinetely blocked until not too long ago. The user has also just started a discussion on Javakheti after once again removing the information from the article. Starting a discussion is good however not when it is paralleled by the user's continuous push for his preffered version of the article, despite already being given arguments and sources. --Turnless (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've explained to you to use talk page but instead you were reverting, so if you report me and you have good faith you should report yourself as well. I asked you but you can't provide why we should bold neighbor country used name and show it as common name when it is not common in English speaking world. I've removed only bold text and no single source, you can't provide any proper argument why you want to promote that uncommon name and now instead of reaching consensus try to act unfair and report me here (you should report yourself too) . Now about Tskhinvali region interested persons can read this discussion User_talk:Turnless, you are providing your view instead of fact, Tskhinvali region is a common name and used not only by Georgia but by many international organizations. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  20:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You started the discussion after your continuous reverting. Both and I have clearly said why your removal of the information is invalid. I still commented on your discussion anyway regarding the relevancy of the name. As for the Tskhinvali region, I have already provided a link to the discussion, and explained the situation. I don't see why I should report myself as I have not broken the 3RR policy and have responded to your comments, despite your obvious ignorance to them as you are continuing to revert to your edits anyway. --Turnless (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My reverts were because you were reverting so you were engaged in edit-war, also I was first who mentioned that we were near of edit-wars but you decided that only me is edit-warring. No my only will was to leave things unchanged to discuss, to reach consensus and only after that to make changes, but you were simply reverting my edits I didn't saw any attempt to compromise, after Yerevantsi's edit I made compromise because his sources proved that thing what I've left.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  20:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really wanted to reach a consensus you would do that without continuing to revert to your edits, as once again you were the one who removed the information that was already on the article. Your will was not to leave things unchanged as you continued to revert. Your "compromise" was still removing the transliteration and only leaving the sources which makes no sense as that is still what you were pushing for. --Turnless (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The one who first reverted other users edit it was you. I made a change in the article since there was some wrong details, your edit were controversial to mine and instead of consensus you tried to achieve yours by reverts, I know this stuff and that's why I asked for discussion and consensus (also warned that it was close to edit-war), you had no single attempt to consensus this says everything.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  21:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I provided links to all of your edits and reversions. It can be clearly seen that you first made an edit of removing valid information, which you just called wrong details, which I have reverted providing an argument in the description. That followed with you reverting me once again, then reverting you and providing another argument with sources for why the name should be used, you have reverted that too. That lead with me reverting you once again, however you kept being consistent with pushing your version. We went back and forth another time and that is when I stopped as I did not want to go against Wikipedia's 3RR policy. You had a total of 4 reversion plus the edit that you started with. I also once again want to point out that you only started a discussion after your reverts and still pushe for your version being in place. --Turnless (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah now I see that you have no single drop of Good faith since you are lying, I didn't reverted Yerevantsi but after his edits made compromise you still didn't provide appropriate argument why you want to put that name as common in English. Before the report you could reach a consensus with me as I am ready to add transliteration after Armenian name but no you want to do everything like you wish.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not have a compromise, it was just you reverting back to your change but with the sources provided by Yerevantsi, so no I am not lying. I warned you not to continue edit warring before I reported, but that followed with you reverting once again, which is why I reported you. --Turnless (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you believe but I missed your warning (believe or not up to you). Yerevantsi provided sources which say Armenians use this name and that all, the main issue was untouched why we should bold that name and to put it equal to common name, both of you had no argument regarding to this. I was ready and I am to put transliteration of Armenian name (without bold) we could reach consensus but you didn't left any chance. You looked at the talk page only after revert and report that shows your attitude, I opened talk page at 18:44 you appeared at 19:44 after everything. I was ready for discussion before your last revert but you preferred revert. Also I want to mention WP:HOUNDING issue because you appeared in both articles after my edits, having no single contribution before.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, I did warn you, the fact that you did not see that only implies you were ignorant to my comments, which also shows by the fact that you keep repeating yourself. You still continued to revert and push for your change on the article even when you started a discussion, despite the fact that it was you who first started removing information. I already commented on your accusations of me hounding you. I have paid close attention to the Georgia and its two breakway regions articles after the two discussions we had, which once again you abandonned. You are always active on those topics so don't be surprised if I notice your edits there. --Turnless (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Giorgi Balakhadze's editing is disruptive to say the least. His POV-pushing is very apparent. -- Ե րևանցի talk  22:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What is my POV pushing when I am editing with argument and try to receive your counter-evidences, as I said above I was open for discussion and for compromise. I can say the say about POV pushing of Turnless, it is clear from his talk page discussions. At this moment my view was the same as in Wikipedia policies so don't call it POV. If you put something as equal to common name that you should have good explanation why (not just because there is Armenian majority).-- g. balaxaZe   ★  06:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name in the article. Since you brought up my talk page discussions, there are two titled POV pushing. One has a question mark after it as it was me who called the user out for POV pushing, nevertheless a long discussion went on and the issue was resolved. The second being odd as it was quite short and random and I received them after the opposite of POV pushing but changing to more neutral wording. All that can be seen in the discussion. Either way, those discussion are quite irrelevant to this issue. Your view is definetely not the same as Wikipedia polcies as this is why you were reported for violating the 3RR policy and continuing to edit war. It's a shame you still refuse to see that. --Turnless (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not try to represent everything like you wish, you also kept reverting and pushing your changes. The fact that the region has an Armenian majority is a very valid explanation for including the Armenian name but not for bolding it making as second name, and common name of the article see differences?-- g. balaxaZe   ★  08:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Shame is that you see only your opponent's "edit-war" (to achieve your goal) while you are hiding yours.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  08:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The quotation marks around "edit-war" in the above comment demonstrates Giorgi Balakhadze's attitude towards edit-warring: one of continual denial or a lack of understanding. Their statement saying "I am not edit warring :)" is further demonstration of this. This is despite a block just one month ago. CMD (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * CMD what would you say if I report Turnless as well? I knew that we where close to edit-wars and warned him and I opened talk page but no one appeared there. So who is real edit-war maker me or him? I was ready for discussions instead of reverts!-- g. balaxaZe   ★  14:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That previous issue was in connection with you and that's why you mentioned it, I can repeat my words that, that time you reverted not only copyvio text but other information as well. And I wrote down everything there but I will not comment admins decision... I know where are lines of edit-war and I try to not cross them, I had big experience with that and in this case I warned the user to not stat edit-war. No need in more comments, I wrote everything now I'll wait for result, if admin read all this and will have more questions I'll answer to him/her.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  14:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Turnless' actions are up for scrutiny here as well, as are those of every participant. Your unwillingness to contribute more than one substantial comment in Talk is not a positive indicator for your readiness for discussion. CMD (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I try to be very careful with edit-wars and never break the 3RR rule, which Giorgi Balakhadze did break, which is why even when he continued to revert another time I exited the conflict. I also did participate in the discussions he made however, he still pushed for his edit despite of making them by continuing to revert. His continuous blame for my actions rather than understanding why this report was made really shows his attitude to this issue and his lack of willingess to cooperate. Even in his last comment, he talked about wanting to report me as well, despite not having reached breaking the 3RR policy, rather than understanding his personal fault in this conflict. --Turnless (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: The Javakheti article has been fully protected one week. Use the talk page to try to reach agreement. Consider opening an WP:RFC. Armenian topics are covered by the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration decision. If there is a pattern where a user will always edit in favor of a particular nationality, we may ask if they are capable of neutral editing in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lamg123 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff Aug 14
 * 2) dif Aug 14
 * 3) diff today
 * 4) diff today
 * 5) diff today
 * 6) diff today

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and see content above that here from their Aug 14 visitation. Comments:

The above "attempt" at resolving the content dispute lacks any good faith attempt at resolving it. I think a boomerang block may be required here. Edit wars are two sided, in this case both parties are in the wrong. EditorDownUnder (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have an obvious stalker: Special:Contributions/EditorDownUnder. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content not contributors. Rules apply to you as well. EditorDownUnder (talk) 10:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * A "boomerang block"? You cannot be serious. It is clear that Jytdog's actions are justified; they appear to fall under the 3RR exemption for BLP. Specifically, Jytdog was trying to remove promotional, unsourced content from a BLP page, and indicated that in the discussion he initiated on the article's talk page. Furthermore the editor under discussion here, not Jytdog, is the one who both initiated the edit war and completed it by instating the content the fourth time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The article still has policy violating content; I left off after three reverts; Lamg123 kept going and has added yet more policy/guideline violating content while this is pending. The content includes PROMO violations including for example "an Emmy-nominated TV host, author, speaker, social entrepreneur, producer, and a prominent leader in the environmental movement." in the lead, and for example violates RS by using IMDB as a source, and other issues.  The editor is not open to learning how WP works.   A newbie editor had taken over an article by edit warring;  I am looking for a block on Lamg123 so they learn to respect the policies and guidelines and the article can be restored to a policy/guideline compliant state.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Lamg123 is warned they may be blocked if they restore material to the article again without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Bgc7676 reported by User:James Allison (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Voting history */"
 * 2)  "/* Voting history */"
 * 3)  "/* Voting history */Leave it omg"
 * 4)  "/* Voting history */Don't test me rn"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Big Brother 18 (U.S.). (TW)"


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

The user continues to ignore all warnings and discussions in the Talk Page. They also continue to make edits that have been reverted by numerous editors Chase (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC).
 * Comments:
 * User appears to have stopped reverting nearly 24 hours ago. Continuing this behavior will result in a swift block, however. SQL Query me!  21:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Noted in the report header that User:Bgc7676 has been warned not to continue this behavior by admin User:SQL. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736906536 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) a part of Amblin"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736898645 by 88.87.168.110 (talk) did not form NBCUNI"
 * 3)  "/* External links */ not a predecessor to NBCUni"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continuing worrying long-term pattern of edit warring with other users. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree with Spshu's edits. The category Predecessors of NBCUniversal is seemingly for individual companies that comprised NBC Universal when it was first formed. DreamWorks was not owned by the company at the time it was formed, so nothing DreamWorks related should be in there at all. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, his activity could still amount to edit warring. Take a look at his block log, if you will, which includes seven counts of edit warring. That, my friend, is troubling. Electric  Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 18:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on IP editor's talk page:
 * DreamWorks NBCU


 * The whole category should be deleted (only predecessors of NBCUniversal are MCA, Inc. and Vivendi Universal Entertainment) and I have been reading up on how to do so. This is a form of vandalism adding a category that doesn't apply or was incorrectly definite. Spshu (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3RR was not violated. The filer of this report, User:Electricburst1996, is reminded they have not yet used the talk page at Talk:DreamWorks while Spshu and ViperSnake151 have done so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Prestbury+2000 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Warned)
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)
 * Result: User:Prestbury+2000 is warned for breaking 3RR at Zombi 2 on August 29. They appear to have a special interest in cast lists and their changes don't seem to enjoy general support. They may be blocked if they make any further revert on cast lists before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:169.1.210.115 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly adding bogus health claims, random characters &c. Alexbrn (talk) 03:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SQL Query me! 04:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kostja reported by User:Hittit (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Content of article before revert warning

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

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

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

Comments: User:Kostja has on five occasions bluntly reverted sourced text by well known source Zahari Stoyanov, describing the original planning, agreed tactics and rebellion targets by the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee. Source is based/refers on the actual meeting protocols of the Revolutionary Central Committee and signed by the main rebel leaders. Argument of User:Kostja for deleting is that content of protocols is not true, however he has not provided any facts to counter his claims. Sourced text provides NPOV and describes the background planning of the rebellion, where use of violence against local Muslim population is agreed and accepted. The rebellion was suppressed thus could not achieve what was planned, however does not remove the fact of the intended actions to achieve its outcome. Deleting this section is POV and tries to hide important element of the rebellion and that also the other side suffered as well. Hittit (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Neither of you has breached 3RR. Both of you have been edit-warring since August 23. And has not notified  of this report. I think that covers it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * SQL Query me! 04:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Content Dispute )
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)
 * Adding a comment just to delay archiving, in case an admin wants to handle this report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute. I don't see 4 edits in a row to the same page to the same version within 24 hours (tho it is admittedly difficult to read with the commentary, and needlessly long explanation). Scott - please be warned however - you do appear to be pushing the boundaries, and could be subject to a block regardless of the number of reverts in a day should you continue edit warring. SQL Query me!  04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:37.186.42.93 reported by User:ThE~fUtUrE~2014 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) No. 1
 * 2) No. 2
 * 3) No. 3
 * 4) No. 4

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

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

Comments:

Repeatedly keeps removing content for absolutely no reason at all.
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP has been removing various bits of content from the article but it is hard to guess what his objection might be. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

also older diffs of the same matter


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm starting by noting that three editors oppose his edits and that concensus against him has been pointed out to him. The main matter at hand across both articles is mainly about a fringe case of Amherst. Two smallpox blankets were given to natives with the intended purpose of infection. The edit warrer tries to paint this singular case as the cause of the smallpox epidemic which has raged on from times of Columbus, completely fringe. Pretty much all sources cast heavy doubt on the effectiness of the two blankets. I could have pointed that out as well but tried to instead just point out two testimonies of the native encampment already having been infected. The edit warrer keeps removing a mention of this.

The second matter is the syphilis splashback. As the natives were infected by smallpox, so was a strain of syphilis brought back to Europe which killed millions. Pretty much all sources support a brought strain being the cause. It's not 100% clear that syphilis never existed in Europe before, but it's clear the killer strain was brought. This is a tiny mention only to illustrate the Columbian Exchange and to point out the unintended epidemics on both sides. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again at Genocides in history or Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. As a brand new editor (created August 29), User:Etsbybetsy should be careful about reverts lest their good faith be questioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, about that warning, Ed, I'm unsure what the takeaway is supposed to be for me. It is common knowledge that (paraphrasing Wikipedia policy): any editor who reverts any edit at any article with or without consensus on a Talk page may be blocked for edit warring, depending on the circumstances.  I'm already keenly aware of that risk whenever I edit (no additional warning needed), but I always edit with trust that "the circumstances" will be carefully reviewed by any admin considering blocks.  Anyone taking a cursory look at the above complaint will find it obvious that Etsybetsy has: (1) ignored Talk page discussions since June (and I initiated them); (2) has inserted the same problematic content at least a half-dozen times using multiple IPs, which have been reverted by multiple editors; (3) has linked to an "attempt to resolve dispute" (above) which actually shows consensus against Etsybetsy's edits.  It's so obvious, I didn't feel the need to even comment here.  So Ed, if the "warning" (to me) is just superfluous rubber-stamp routine, then consider it acknowledged.  Matter closed.  If, however, you intended to spark a change in my editing practice, I'd appreciate it if you'd be more specific. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclubs reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  This diff is also a revert: the user continue removing the number of casualties of 1,200,000, same number he removed in previous edit.

Warning about edit warring on another page was removed by this user from his talk page.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user also edited using two other accounts (this and this). This is something he admits and not an issue here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll not opine on whether this was a violation, but talk more generally. It's generally advisable to at least talk to the person to let them know that they have violated WP:3RR and give them the chance to self-revert. It is my practice to self-revert in such cases whether or not the complaint is correct. In this instance, Guccisamsclubs self-reverted their last edit in response to this complaint, and actually their interlocutor reverted them, agreeing that they were probably right. I fail to see what MVBW hopes to achieve with this complaint, since they have never edited either the talkpage or the article. Actually I suspect the answer, but I will leave it to others to evaluate. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 04:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am thinking why exactly this user (an IP and two named accounts) refrain from making any comments on administrative noticeboards, even after a complaint about him like that one. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I don't care—and neither do the people I was "disputing" with. And you're the one accusing me of stalking? Guccisamsclubs (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you care about 3RR rule? Are you going to comply with this rule in a future? My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given no response here (although this user is currently active), I would expect the same behavior to continue, i.e. violation of 3RR rule and self-revert if reported on this noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kendall-K1 reported by User:Mercadix (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

User Kendall-K1 is war editting RooshV page, giving all pro-RooshV quotes, adding partisan pro-RooshV stuff without any 3rd party reference, writing at the end  which are simply his pro-RooshV beliefs.

Also user Kendall-K1 keeps on adding spam links to commercial website rooshv.com and returnofkings.com which are commercial websites owned by exactly RooshV, where he sells his sex guides Bang.

Kendall-K1 deletes third party neutral websites as Anti Defamation League, and instead adds more links to rooshv.com commercial website.

Kendall-K1 is obviously either RooshV, either a commercial employee of RooshV, considering his obsession of daily editing partisan pro-RooshV stuff.

Please restrict or ban Kendall-K1, as he turns wikipedia in a commercial, money-making business redirecting the traffic from Wikipedia directly to RooshV's commercial websites where he sells his sex guides

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercadix (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I can only find two places where I reverted, you: . Are there others? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * if you have concerns about the content or sourcing of an article, you should bring those concerns to the article talk page. This page is for reporting violations of WP:3RR, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. clpo13(talk) 16:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You can report insertion of commercial links at WikiProject Spam, and concerns about whether I represent Roosh at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. General concerns about neutrality of biographies can be reported at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3RR was not violated. If you have other concerns about User:Kendall-K1 see the above suggestions. At first sight, this appears to be normal editing rather than spamming. When you file at this board, please list the diffs that seem to show an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Coconutporkpie reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (NOTE: User has repeatedly deleted that thread in its entirety.)

Comments:


 * User is repeatedly attempting to remove threads from the article talk page -- either his own faux pas or comments on his faux pas (see related inappropriate ANI if desired ) -- by extremely prematurely archiving threads and/or closing his own RfCs and archiving them, and by removing entire threads and replacing them on user talkpages instead. Softlavender (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The thread that was moved to was a thread of entirely personal commentary that had no bearing on the content of the article, and so clearly didn't belong on the article talk page. It was a relatively innocuous conduct dispute between two editors, which reached a natural end with this edit. Why User:Softlavender wants to insert himself or herself into that dispute, I'm sure I can't imagine. But I do find it curious that in scolding me for removing other users' comments, he or she has now thrice deleted my comment explaining the move,  here, here and here. Looks like a clear breach of the three-revert rule to me.


 * As for ending my own RfC, Requests for comment explains, "An RfC tag generally remains on the page until removed by the RfC bot or the originator [...] The question may be withdrawn by the poster". I was the originator of the RfC, and I removed it. So, guilty as charged there. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't remove or move threads from any talk page except your own. Don't archive threads prematurely without consensus just because you don't like them. Each time I replaced the thread you repeatedly deleted, I added a note at the bottom as follows: NOTE: This discussion has also been copied and continued at User talk:DionysosProteus. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC), to note that fact that the thread had been copied to 's talk page and had further comments there. WP:3RR is not breached unless there are more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Per talk page guidelines, "At times, it may make sense to move off-topic posts to a more appropriate talk page [...] Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion". The talk page in question had several instances of such distracting, off-topic commentary. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the latest episode in a long line of antagonistic and disruptive editing at that talk page by Coconutporkpie. Having attempted to argue in this forum that the editor had experienced incivility, and received many responses that clearly didn't validate that sense, Coconutporkpie decided to archive it all away, despite having occured very recently (stretching back over the past two months with a sequence of other editors). So far, the most recent action has been objected to and reverted by three different editors, each of whom Coconutporkpie has chosen to ignore.  • DP •  {huh?} 01:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Accusing another editor of "antagonistic and disruptive editing" is pretty serious; this would be the place to show some concrete evidence of it. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A perusal of the material you are archiving confirms "antagonistic and disruptive editing" easily enough. Once again, I encourage you to rethink your priorities and focus on actually improving the article in question.  • DP •  {huh?} 02:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Coconutporkpie, the thread was an instruction to you not to prematurely archive the article talk-page threads; you moved it without consensus and edit-warred to keep it removed. You also omitted the rest of that TPO guideline: "Your idea of what is off topic may be at variance with what others think is off topic; be sure to err on the side of caution." -- Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that following "instructions" is how Wikipedia works exactly. Nor am I aware of having made faux pas at Talk: Ajax (play). If anything, it is the inappropriate and personal remarks by other editors that are an embarrassment to the project as a whole, and merely clutter the talk page with long paragraphs of irrelevant text. Dispute resolution explains, "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct [...] Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree with that Coconutporkpie has been extremely disruptive on that talk page, having made 90 edits on it since July 4, and also having filed an extremely time-wasting ANI about the talkpage: . I don't know if this is the correct forum, but I believe he needs some sort of sanction to prevent further disruption -- say, a topic-ban from that article and its talk page. Softlavender (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to close this with no action taken per my note on Coconutporkpie's talk page and with the understanding  realizes that they'll be blocked for disruptive editing if the same behavior resumes. Topic bans need general community input and cannot be enacted here.  Neil N  talk to me</i> 14:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned for talk page edit warring. Since the above comment by NeilN, User:Coconutporkpie has responded again (at 21:51 on 2 September) and appears to believe that it is fine to move material to talk archives against the wishes of of the other participants. The next time he archives Talk:Ajax (play) without prior consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Piha ilman sadettajaa reported by User:Moira98 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edits are unsubstantial and do not warrant discussion, imo. Moira98 (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The brand-new user (September 1) is warring to add original research to this article. The changes are problematic under WP:BLP since he is making unsourced criticism of living people. If this continues an indef block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:222.71.88.222 reported by User:Murza-Zade (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

I do not know exactly where to go with the request.

Anonymous variable-ip. On the talk page is not going to answer. Anonymous introduces false information. Removes confirmed by sources information. Threatened on my talk page. []--Murza-Zade (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Handled at WP:RFPP <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Soundwaweserb reported by User:Serialjoepsycho (Result: protected + blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

A Consensus was established via RFC Talk:Novak_Djokovic. All reverts were done to undo the consensus. The justification seems to very much be a nationalistic sentiment. The Editor has been twice before banned for edit warring on the very same article about a month ago. I can't see any reason that they should continue to be allowed to edit this article. With them attacking Croatian and Chauvinists without any realistic justification it's clear that this article and subject matter is far to personal. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, as person who's involved in that article. Kavonder 23:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.108.202 (talk)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 02:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:MARSELIMADHE reported by User:Antidiskriminator (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

My edits were reversal of reversal of others' edits of my additions which are fully referenced. MARSELIMADHE (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Norschweden reported by User:4TheWynne (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 4TheWynne (talk) to last revision by Norschweden. (TW)"
 * 2)  "this "source" just says its metal, not that its heavy metal"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 737059124 by Norschweden (talk): Kind of vandalism. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 737059124 by Norschweden (talk): Kind of vandalism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Hardwired... to Self-Destruct. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Why heavy metal!? */ Weighed in"
 * 2)   "/* Why heavy metal!? */"


 * Comments:

Bogus warning for disruptive editing when it was in fact he/she who was editing disruptively by genre-warring, and with several other editors before me.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  08:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * you ignored references, and changed the genre with a reference that says nothing, and now you blame me for your mistakes Norschweden (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Even though you have finally been able to provide us with a reliable source on the talk page, continuing to revert when a consensus has not yet been reached – particularly when it looks like it might go the other way (and that IP wasn't me, by the way) – won't help your case.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  09:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * until the consens is found it should be this way, and btw hard roch (with out a source) is also wrong Norschweden (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. One editor, User:Norschweden, made four reverts but it appears that agreement may have been reached on the talk page. If the fight continues let me know. Whether this album should be described as 'nu metal' has been discussed on the talk page since 2006. (Search the talk page for that term). It is reasonable to expect good consensus for a genre change when the issue has been disputed for so long. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Needbrains reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

    
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

The editor in question made 5 reverts within 3 minutes on the article's page. His reverts: removed more up to date information I added, reintroduced outdated information, and reintroduced information that was contrary to cited sources. The editor also took a really hostile tone in the edit summaries that is contrary to WP policy on Civility and Assuming good faith from fellow editors. I sent him a 3RR warning and asked him to cancel his edits, as well as to discuss the issue. However, after examining his previous edit history (behavior), I though that I shouldn't wait before reporting the 3RR violation. This is because he had already received at least two previous 3RR warnings, as well as two warnings about making personal or uncivil attacks against fellow editors. Two of these warnings (one for 3RR and one for uncivility) were little over a month and a half ago. He himself proudly called all these warnings his warning medals, with a smiley. This lead me to believe that he does not care about the warnings, 3RR or the policy on civility and assuming good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment @EkoGraf So far as I can tell in the article's edit history, Needbrains seems to be manually undoing a few edits that you've made. So technically, Needbrains has only violated 1RR. Also, you didn't start a discussion in the article's talk page to try and resolve the matter, instead you went here??? You didn't even bother to inform the editor about this report, and you seem to have a history with the article via article's talk page. With all that said, this seems to be a flop report. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * JudeccaXIII First, Needbrains didn't undo a few edits, he made four separate full reverts of me, plus a fifth of one other editor. I linked all five reverts up above. Second, like I already said, I asked him on his talk page to cancel his edits and discuss the matter. But, as I explained, after taking into account his hostile/uncivil behavior in the edit summary (contrary to WP policy), along with his history of personal attacks against other editors, his 3RR edit wars in the past, and that he considered his previous warnings as his badge of honor (for the lack of better words) I thought I should continue on to the noticeboard here. Third, as for notifying him of this report, I thought he would get the notification after I already linked his name up above. Finally, yes I have a history on the talk page of the article (don't know what's wrong with that) where I previously discussed issues with a few other editors until we found a consensus. In any case, the editor made five full reverts, expressed hostile/uncivil behavior, made unverifiable claims, his reverts replaced updated with outdated information, and his reverts inserted information that is not per the cited sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf As I said before, the editor was manually undoing your edits you've made today. Also, you're the one who should have started a discussion per WP:BRD. The past disputes of the editor does not show any involvement with Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present) article, though the editor is involved with related topics. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * JudeccaXIII I got four separate notifications Your edit on Kurdish-Turkish conflict (1978-present) was reverted. How is that not four full reverts? Also, I already said, I asked him to cancel his reverts and discuss the issue. But, after seeing his history of edit warring (3RR) as well as personal attacks against fellow editors, which he all proudly considered his medals, I thought it should be prudent to continue to the administrator noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can try talking to him, but again, his past behavior shows he does not engage in civil attempts at compromise. If that happens, what would you than suggest? EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I read the 3RR policy about the consecutive edits thing, the way the sentence was composed, at least to me (English not my primary language), I did not understood that consecutive edits don't constitute more than one revert. Fine, my bad, but again, advise what to do if the editor continues with his uncivil/hostile tone? EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Basque&Roll and User:79.167.10.188 reported by User:TastyPoutine (Result: )
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

This is not a WP:3RR violation but is turning into an edit war on several pages. The editor and the IP have made several page moves without seeking consensus. In addition, the page moves were being performed via a cut and paste.

The changes were reverted by other editors and warnings given to User:Basque&Roll about both the move and the cutting and pasting.
 * . After the first round of reverts, User:79.167.10.188 entered the fray and started making the same page moves as before, and in the same fashion. The user has not replied to any talk page messages so wanted to file this report in an effort to stop what ultimately will be an edit war over these pages.<b style="color:blue;">TastyPoutine</b> <sup style="color:red;">talk (if you dare) 09:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the initial warning and report, IP user did a 4th revert on BBC Etzella Ettelbruck.

1: 2: 3: 4: Again, there has been no communication from either offender on this matter.<b style="color:blue;">TastyPoutine</b> <sup style="color:red;">talk (if you dare) 21:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

User:107.77.225.7 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Animals and exhibits */"
 * 2)  "/* History */"
 * 3)  "/* Animals and exhibits */"
 * 4)  "/* Animals and exhibits */"
 * 5)  "/* Animals and exhibits */Fixed typo"
 * 1)  "/* Animals and exhibits */"
 * 2)  "/* Animals and exhibits */Fixed typo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Hoaxer edit-warring with me (had to ingore 3RR because of this guy's disruptive editing) and claiming that the zoo is closed. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I have semi-protected the article for a week. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Safehaven86 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has repeatedly removed well-sourced content from the article. A 2:1 WP:CONSENSUS exists on the talk page, and in article history, for including this material. Have made significant attempts to engage editor and hash out policy disputes, but even in the face of a talk page consensus, editor has an WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality which has unfortunately led to edit-warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)}

 Response: 

This is a clear case of BOOMERANG. Safehaven86 was warned about edit warring here. And warned these edits violated WP:POV and WP:UNDUE here as well as on the Talk Page here and most recently here.

Instead of working collaboratively with editors of opposing viewpoints to reach consensus, Safehaven86 responded with the following edit-warring filibuster:


 * 1) here
 * 2) here
 * 3) here
 * 4) here
 * 5) here
 * 6) here
 * 7) here
 * 8) here
 * 9) here
 * 10) here
 * 11) here
 * 12) here
 * 13) here
 * 14) here
 * 15) here
 * 16) here
 * 17) here
 * 18) and here.

I should also point out that, contrary to Safehaven86's claim, my mass revert was fully explained here.

I should also note Safehaven86's mass edits were done while 3 editors were actively working on a consensus of the wording for this section. I should also point out that this occurred after Safehaven86 "warned" me about warring! So Safehaven86 knew full well what this massive, non-consensus edits were doing. But just like the honey badger, Safehaven86 don't give a ****.

It's also important to note that Safehaven86's response to violations of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE is always that they are reliably sourced. Which only proves that, despite repeated requests, Safehaven86 refuses to submit to either policy, which notes that sources aren't the sole concern in these cases. Again, Safehaven86 meets honey badger. Further, Safehaven86's sources themselves are frequently either outdated; or they themselves violate WP:IMPARTIAL. Safehaven86 also ignores WP:BALASP. But again...

It's also worth noting that Safehaven86 edit-warred at the very moment the user was filing this "edit-warring" complaint against me! Safehaven86 also intentionally ignored the fact that I had already noted that my explanation for the mass reverts was already on the talk page. And again, here it was.

But it's also very important to note that Safehaven86 has been POV pushing this same, single issue on this article for over a year. Since June 2015 on the talk page alone. See here.

And this series of edits follows a pattern of this user's POV pushing on this article, which goes back over a year. Here is Safehaven86's June 2015 filibuster, which starts out harmlessly enough, then abruptly changes:


 * 1) here
 * 2) here
 * 3) here
 * 4) here
 * 5) here
 * 6) here
 * 7) here
 * 8) here
 * 9) here
 * 10) here
 * 11) here
 * 12) here
 * 13) here
 * 14) starting here
 * 15) here
 * 16) here
 * 17) here
 * 18) here
 * 19) here
 * 20) here
 * 21) here
 * 22) here
 * 23) here
 * 24) here
 * 25) here
 * 26) here
 * 27) here
 * 28) here
 * 29) here
 * 30) here
 * 31) and here.

So it is seems likely that there may even be some OWNERSHIP issues with Safehaven86 regarding this article. But even as far back as 2015, other editors complained to Safehaven86 about the POV pushing edits. See here.

It did not go well then either, as can be seen:


 * 1) here.
 * 2) here.
 * 3) here.
 * 4) here.
 * 5) here.
 * 6) and here.

So this is not Safehaven86's first rodeo. Safehaven86's POV pushing on this article has been objected to by several different editors over more than a year - and still, Safehaven86 persists. So I'm not sure if a BOOMERANG block would be effective here. After all this time, it seems more likely that only an article and its talk page topic ban of Safehaven86 on this article will finally end this. Unfortunately, given Safehaven86's long history of flagrant disregard for policies - even after being repeatedly advised of them, over a year - by multiple editors. So I would have to support such an article and the talk page topic ban. Otherwise, we'll just be here again with the next editors who try to fix Safehaven86's long-term and determined, POV pushing on this article. X4n6 (talk) 03:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool story, but nowhere in this large wall of text do you deny edit warring or address your own behavior on this article. If you had concerns about my editing on this article, which it sounds like you've had going back a year now, you should really bring that up in the proper form (probably WP:ANI). The fact that you've chosen to air these apparently very serious, honey-badger related concerns only after I've filed this report against you seems suspicious. All of your many diffs above only show the validity of my original report: me and User:clpo13 are in agreement on the talk page, and you're continually reverting both of us. Your reason for reverting this edit is not sound. Consensus was reached, and it was to include the material--that's why both clpo13 and I added the material to the article. The fact that you reverted both of us--two editors who had built a consensus on the talk page--because you didn't like that consensus, is edit warring. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It speaks volumes that you don't deny anything I've addressed. I even tried to warn you about BOOMERANG when you launched your ill-conceived "warning" on my talk page - which was apparently easier for you than just editing collaboratively in the first place. But everything I said was accurate. As I've already shown and linked to in my response:


 * 1) You were wrong when you claimed I had not explained my mass revert. I had.
 * 2) You also knew you were wrong, because I had already noted in the edit log that the explanation was on the talk page in the edit immediately prior to yours. Yet you reverted anyway.
 * 3) You even continued edit-warring after you lodged your complaint here.
 * 4) And as the edit log clearly shows, you have been POV pushing this same claim - with your outdated and biased sources - since June 2015.
 * 5) Other editors have also complained to you about your POV pushing - and you ignored them as well - just as you ignored me.

So you have no answer for anything I've presented. But there's more:


 * 6) As to my behavior - the edit log is also clear that with each revert you listed: I either expressly asked you not to edit war; or I specifically cited which policies your edits violated.
 * 7) What's more, you forget - it also takes two to edit-war. So you've ignored that in every case where you cited my reverts, your own reverts either preceded them - or followed them:


 * A) here.
 * B) here.
 * C) here.
 * D) and here.

Also, I need to discuss your clear misunderstanding regarding CONSENSUS. Consensus is not defined as two editors who agree ignoring the opposing view of any other editor(s). Consensus is "marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." While determining consensus is "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Your arguments failed on their own merits; and they failed to follow Wikipedia policy. So you never had consensus. Instead, you had WP:TALKDONTREVERT, which states: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." What you also had was an example of tendentious editing, explained as: "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."

But the additional fact that for over a year, other editors have repeatedly told you that these exact same edits - either violated policy; or were just factually wrong - indicates that, if any "consensus" exists, it is against you. And for over a year, you have repeatedly ignored that consensus.

Finally, as to your claim that I didn't address these concerns before your report here? Once again, not true. I tried to warn you here. But honey badger just didn't give a ****. And now that you've made it clear that you'd rather litigate than collaborate - your longstanding tendentious behavior on this article is finally being addressed - and should be addressed. X4n6 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is really TLDR, and I doubt any passing admins will have a desire to weigh in here. It's not actually too complicated, though. You removed longstanding material from the page. Clpo13 reinserted a version of it. You then removed the original content and more. I reinserted it per WP:BRD. You removed it again, saying it was "pretty clear" why you removed it, but declining to discuss on the talk page. I reinserted after me and Clpo13 had a discussion about it on the talk page. You removed it again, ironically stating "please do not edit war" in your edit summary. I made a series of edits, some relating to the content in dispute, but most not relating to it. You undid all of the edits. It would be one thing for you to tag or remove the disputed content, but I do not understand why you would also undo a variety of housekeeping type edits (adding archived links, correcting redirects, WP:MOS copy edits). Clp013 reinstated my edits, calling them "clearly beneficial" (this editor also used the "thanks" log to thank me for making these edits in the first place). You undid these edits again. I reinstated them because you had not, in fact, explained why you had undone all of the edits, and two editors were in agreement that the edits should stand, while one editor, you, was not. Even if you believe you have consensus on your side, there is no justification for edit warring per Edit warring. I brought this complaint here because you didn't give any indication that you were going to stop reverting me and another editor. I'm glad you now seem to have stopped. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, the time to rationally discuss this with you is passed. You have consistently refused every invitation to edit rationally. Instead you've doubled-down on your POV pushing. You were repeatedly offered collaboration on the article's talk page. You consistently refused - claiming as your excuse, either some non-existent "consensus," or flat out lying in the edit log, saying my reverts were unexplained. You knew better. You just didn't like the explanation. You also knew we were right in the middle of a 3-editor discussion and collaboration on what content we could all agree should be included. But you couldn't wait for a real consensus and collaboration. Instead you unilaterally bulldozed your own opinion into the article - by making 18 consecutive edits right in the middle of consensus building! This was after you "warned" me about the 3 revert rule. So what about your 18? If 3 merits a temporary block - 18 warrants a permanent topic ban.


 * You also failed to notice that even in your latest comments above, every revert I made only came after your own reverts. Except for the last one - which was followed by your last revert. Which I have left in place. Editors may see it. I was trying to collaborate. As, I'll assume, was the other editor. You were trying to bulldoze and intimidate. So you were reverted. Just as you're trying to intimidate me with this complaint. But that's fine. Since now that I've exposed your almost year and a half long campaign of relentless and disruptive POV pushing, in due course, you will also be given every opportunity to defend yourself and your actions to other editors. Instead of me. X4n6 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, you "exposed" me for my efforts at mitigating the years long undisclosed WP:COI editing that has been happening on this article. Something about an organization's staffers repeatedly adding press releases to their group's Wikipedia page doesn't sit well with me, call me crazy (or call me honey badger, it seems you prefer that). In any event, thank you for ceasing the edit warring. I appreciate it. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow... I can't believe that's your defense for POV pushing - blaming the foundation's staff for your own POV pushing? As for your latest edits, I'm content to let others - or admins - scrub your policy vios. I just don't know if being a conspiracy theorist has ever been used as a defense for disruptive editing. But you've just become my best defense here - and your worst one later. X4n6 (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, I'm a conspiracy theorist, that must be it.... Safehaven86 (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are clearly a conspiracy theorist. I saw no unsourced or POV edits, just info and update edits. There were just 16 total edits there from that account, from March 11, 2015 to June 21, 2016. That's 16 edits in almost a year and a half. You had 31 edits there from June 3 to June 12, 2015 alone. That's nearly double in just over a week. You had 18 edits just yesterday. You didn't uncover the problem. You are the problem. And if you believed there was a COI in 2015, you could have reported it, not edit-warred. You did not. Bottomline: none of it justifies your own POV pushing. Period. Either then - or now. X4n6 (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:X4n6 is warned for edit warring on this article. We should give him the irony award for removing 5,000 bytes from the article in the middle of a discussion, while suggesting in his edit summary that there will be no edit war if the other parties cooperate. If he reverts the article again before getting a clear consensus in his favor on the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment' I object to your warning - and the "award" that came with it. Since as your basis, you said I removed "5000 bytes from the article in the middle of a discussion." The fact is those 5000 bytes of information were added to the article in the middle of discussion. That is why they were removed. You missed that. You also did not warn both parties. So I object to that too. As the article log shows, I've already voluntarily self-blocked since this thing was filed. While the editor who filed it continued to edit-war. So your warning is moot regarding me; preserves POV text that violates policies; does not warn the editor who made multiple policy-vio edits in the middle of discussion; and continued to edit-war after filing this. That's pretty serious, Ed. So to avoid receiving the blown call "award," you should reconsider your warning. X4n6 (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Rocan Pandaso reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "was vandalism"
 * 2)  "Provocations are started already! (creation of edit warring by friends of RolandR)."
 * 3)  "You need respect neutrality (marxist with very big letter) And is not the same topic. You have no any reason seek consensus (relevant topic). Any your defender on this issue is your friend vs rules of Wikipedia. If you will call them & they agree help yo"
 * 4)  "I found other material and changed it. If you are marxist, is not reason remove relevant material. Please respect contribution of other users."


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


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


 * Comments:

Possible sock of Need1521 RolandR (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * RolandR uses something like vandalism and he has no neutrality (he defends his favourite ideology - he has no real arguments). RolandR, possible you are sock. I ask make warning to RolandR. I not seek consensus with marxists with very big letter (he will never recognize that I am right). I can also ask consensus by any reason (like Roland). And he not will be glad in such case. Rocan Pandaso (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: User is a WP:SPA who only makes POV edits on Marx-related articles. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 22:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also cosnser a suggestion of a person who had been here since December 2005 is a sock by a person who first edited yesterday is questionable at best.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Your note means nothing because I do not hide that I am here to edit articles about Marx. Is my right, you must know. Rocan Pandaso (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Bishonen &#124; talk 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And now indeffed as sock. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

User:Claudevsq reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In the space of a month, and now within a few days, User:Claudevsq has reverted my edits five times—slow edit warring, with no edit summaries. The edit I have tried to introduce is regarding Jesús Cuellar, a boxer whose full name of Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar is not used on the title of his WP article, per WP:COMMONNAME. User:Claudevsq is nonetheless adamant that his full name be used via piping, which is completely unnecessary as the article title in question only uses a two-component name, as do most search results: "Jesús Cuellar" brings up around 64,000 more Google hits than "Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar".

Have left four messages on User:Claudevsq's talk page, to no avail. I don't wish to sound petty by dredging up the past, but he does have a history of doing this before, so this isn't anything that surprises me. Furthermore, rather than communicate via talk pages, he has used one lone edit summary to dismiss me as having "threatened" him—I have done nothing of the sort. A bit of pestering, sure, but that's just my style when someone chooses to be non-communicative. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. This was a case of slow edit warring over a period of a month, and the question was if he would agree to stop. User didn't respond to being asked on his talk page if he would abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:LanaSimba (Result: Page protected)
Page Ilias Psinakis was persistently edited by the user Winkelvi on the basis of his/her OWN opinion without taking into consideration facts, confirmed by many reliable sources or discussing. Also the user makes persistent editing of the picture in the page. I need some assistance in the issue. Let some other editors or administrators look through the page. LS 16:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)


 * Erm... You're the one doing the edit warring. Winkelvi has made a series of edits to improve the article, none of which have been reverted by anyone apart from yourself. You've added the same content three times after it has been removed by other editors (the first diff is when you first added it):   . For anyone patrolling, also note that LanaSimba is an SPA who has previously been blocked for edit warring and has continued after a warning. SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for independent analysis by Administrators! Winkelvi did not improve the article, he/she made it poorer, deleting confirmed facts and relevant links, cropping picture etc. This is my opinion. Smartse and Winkelvi a year ago already tried to discard the page, also they were making comments, harming the personality. I ask for protection!LS 17:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> thank you for your help. I wrote this article from the very beginning, and tried to post there only relevant and important issues, fully confirmed by sources, many of which are in Greek. I wrote this article because I know the subject and can easily find and read sources. May be the article was not amended by others before because its contents were enough relevant and there were no need for cardinal edits? Anyway I am always open for REASONABLE edits, or language improvements because I am not a native English speaker, but total reversion of the article, picture and facts, deletion of links (including by reason of Greek language), judging and harming the public image of the personality, are not admissible in my opinion. And all that by people who have no idea about the subject, do not speak or even understand Greek (even can't correctly read a name in Greek). And why do these people are so interested with the article, which subject is so far from their sphere of knowledge? Why do they take such an efforts to understand the sources in different language just to edit an article, unknown to them? I face such things for the first time. As for broadening my interests here, I will think a lot, because anything posted here may be reverted by an unknown person .. I don't want struggle for obvious things with those, who are no way related to me. I just wonder why should I proove obvious things there... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Page fully protected 1 week. LanaSimba, it seems you are only here to edit about this subject. I'd advise you to broaden your interests. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I also ASK ADMINISTRATORS FOR PROTECTION of the from continuing Vandalism by Winkelvi, who at his/her own discretion and without any discussion modified the original file and  the author. LS 14:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)
 * we here at en.wikipedia have no control over commons.wikimedia. I suggest you make a note at C:COM:AN/P, the equivalent commons noticeboard. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 16:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , at this point, that would be forum shopping as she has already started a discussion on her complaints at the Commons Administrators' noticeboard here . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I hadn't noticed. I was just pointing out that there is nothing else we can do from en.wikipedia. -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 16:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now personal insult from WV, in addition to threatening. All the forms of influence to prefer form over substance...--LS 17:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

User:B'er Rabbit reported by User:Ogress (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "revert systemic bias vs Ethiopians - Ethiopians say this was an country in Ethiopia and their extensive traditions and histories on Sheba are relevant and obscured by this trash piece)"
 * 2)  "systemic bias vs Ethiopians - Ethiopians say this was an country in Ethiopia and their extensive traditions and histories on Sheba are relevant and obscured by this trash piece)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 737735902 by Ogress (talk) reason as given before: systemic bias vs Ethiopians - Ethiopians say this was an country in Ethiopia and"
 * 4)  "systemic bias vs Ethiopians - Ethiopians say this was an country in Ethiopia and their extensive traditions and histories on Sheba are relevant and obscured by this trash piece"
 * 5)  "On the contrary, 1) I have only reverted your last edit, not the others 2) many people are familiar with Sheba through Rastafari religion, widen your perspective a little 3) I am not angry as you keep claiming on the discussion page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 737655984 by Arminden (talk) rv kast edit - "by global importance" is 100% your own p.o.v. and totally reveals what it is"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  |Discussion made before warning given

It is entirely unclear why this editor insists the article say, "Sheba features in Ethiopian, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, particularly 'Ethiopian Christian, traditions" rather than "Sheba features in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian, particularly Ethiopian Christian, traditions" - why Ethiopian twice? They have made no response to talk page inquiry and reverted after being warned. Ogress 21:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 3 days by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thought Field Therapy (Result: Blocked)


IP is at 3RR reinserting tendentious material into an article on a quack therapy. IP is undoubtedly user Inquiry201. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Malerooster reported by User:MrX (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv nonsense of editor with obvioud political bias who shouldn't be allowed to edit this article"
 * 2)  "/* Inheritance and further acquisitions */ still not notable, why single out this one sale out of 100s??"
 * 3)  "rv non notable detail, maybe add to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia"


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


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




 * Comments:

The article is subject to 1RR discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAPDS. Malerooster made three reverts. There is a notice at the top of the talk page and a prominent edit notice above the edit window. I also suggested that Malerooster self-revert. He ignored the request and continued editing. The edit warring and the summary on the third revert are exactly the kind of user behavior that ARBAPDS is intended to address. - MrX 13:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Malerooster's response. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This was my mistake. Once MrX posted on my talk page I stopped editing the article and went to the talk page. My edit was reverted. NeilN also posted a warning on my talk page which I appreciate and will comply with. --Malerooster (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Malerooster understands another violation will most probably result in a block. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Yet Another User 2 reported by User:ScottCarmichael (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=720998707

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737984109
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737983479
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737976419

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&oldid=737985641

Comments:

Many sections have very poor sources (such as those funded by/work with NASA), improperly cited sources (such as referring to pages that don't even exist in Sky and Telescope magazine (11/69 issue), and very misleading info that only tells half of the situation and is not verifiable proof whatsoever. When user got mad that these edits were made, he called me a "Conspiracy Theorist" instead of actually looking at edited/removed content and sources. I could have changed much more. I didn't. If he feels those items are factually correct, he needs to correct the sources and/or find other sources that can legitimately say exactly what is presented. My recent edits are 100% accurate. It's not MY responsibility to prove the text he wants to keep that should have never been there to begin with. ScottCarmichael (talk)
 * Six reverts of at least three different editors in less than six hours. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 08:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Sachamcd reported by User:Mk17b (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

<b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  04:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Sachamcd is reverting against the result of a formally closed RfC. If he won't concede the point, I recommend a block. But we should wait a minute to see if he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I am removing material that in MAY 2016 was deemed completely irrelevant to the breadth of his political career and comments which were already disproven in the Canadian Jewish media. [1]

MK17b has a history of editing jewish propaganda into a host of pages on wikipedia, look at his edit history and this will be evident. I suspect he might be operating under the Jewish Internet Defence force and it is he who should be banned for perpetuating his bias and obvious agenda. I am reenlisting the help of admin Oshwah who back in May 2016 helped reverse some edits made by MK17b. MK17b is trying to ban me because he knows this is the only way for him to get his libel to stick. Please help. Sachamcd (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Sachamcd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachamcd (talk • contribs)
 * – 24 hours. His only response was with an attack on another editor. If there is any disagreement about the wording and length of this material, someone should start a new discussion, as noted by User:Cunard, the RfC closer. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Opdire657 reported by User:Epson Salts (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

This page is part of the Arab-Israeli Conflict topic area, and thus subject to a 1RR restriction. Beyind the clear 1RR violation listed above, this editor has reverted the same material 6 times in the last six days  (and a couple of other times earlier in the year), without a word of discussion on the talk page. He has been edit warring on this article since at least October 2015, and was warned about it by administrator -

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

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

Comments:

He has already been blocked before for edit warring, so is clearly aware of 3RR/1RR

You have also violated the 1 revert restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since you have fewer than 500 edits and with using sock puppets like Milkawke91 who created an account on 28 August and made only 2 edits then a user called Jahsnik bagan reverting my edit dating back to 1 February 2016, then another user called Epson Salts which is you began edit warring. There is clearly an exchange of roles between you three to avoid being blocked. You have ignored what the administrator wrote on the talk page "Neither Lebanon nor Palestine were separate countries at the time of his birth. He was born an Ottoman citizen and became a Palestinian citizen during the Mandate period. It is much more sensible to class him as Palestinian than as Lebanese" so you are creating an edit war without any logical reason.--Opdire657 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Please use the talk page. User:Opdire657, don't charge people with sockpuppetry without evidence. You have been previously warned by an admin for your behavior on this article. You are walking on thin ice. If people keep reverting about Shukeiri's ancestry we'll probably put the ARBPIA banner on it, since after all he was a chairman of the PLO. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

User:87.220.186.82 reported by User:Connormah (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: IP refuses to follow WP:BRD despite concerns of NPOV and UNDUE on a BLP. Connormah (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:JDC808 reported by User:Weweremarshall (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: WWE SmackDown Tag Team Championship
 * 1) |1
 * 2) |2
 * 3) |3
 * 4) |4

WWE SmackDown Women's Championship
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

User violates 3RR TWICE in 24 hours on two different pages. He indeed was warned here: |view edit summary Weweremarshall (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see this report that Weweremarshall originally made. -- JDC808  ♫  22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be little disputing that some serious edit warring was going on here. In a surreal twist, Weweremarshall reported himself for vandalism stemming from the edit war to WP:ANV.LM2000 (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is true, though i did not violate 3RR on a specific page, I did commit it over multiple pages. I didn't know if this classifies as 3RR break so I asked for it to be reviewed, thanks to User:LM2000 as I forgot to mention this in the new report. Weweremarshall (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weweremarshall, you break WP:3RR first on each article (strike one - I suggest you carefully note the definition of "revert"), try to get blocked for vandalism (strike two - read WP:NOTVAND), and then file this report (strike three). Have I got this right?  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No you do not have this right. I haven't violated 3RR on a single page yet. And the only reason I reported it under vandalism was mistake I personally made (man enough to own up to that) and the moment I was made aware of this I filed the proper report on this page. Weweremarshall (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, you seem to really want to have me removed. -- JDC808  ♫  01:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weweremarshall, you are wrong., , , --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)  --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN The first link you posted isn't a revert....it's the initial edit? I believe this is where your confusion is stemming from.  And yes, I want JDC808 gone the same way I want all rule breakers gone, Temp. ban 1st time and perm. ban if they still don't play by the rules.  Weweremarshall (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weweremarshall, this is why I told you to look up the definition of revert. "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." You were deleting "WWE" - counts as a revert. Temp. ban for you or can we assume that both of you will knock off the edit warring? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, another person trying to act like they know what they're talking about without looking into the subject >_< . The first edit wasn't a revert because nobody else was trying to add/remove "WWE" from the page's CONTENTS, they were trying to add/remove "WWE" from the TITLE!  I stated multiple times that this was the case, so thank you (sarcasm) for causing the same amount of headache as JDC808.  Weweremarshall (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weweremarshall, at this point the only block I'm looking at is for you. Are you going to stop reverting until and if you get consensus for your change? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban regardless. Second, I'll try to explain this as clearly as possible.  Those WWE championships do not have the word "WWE" in their title, WP typically tends to add the promotion in front of the Championship title because it isn't solely a wrestling site (understandable).  My edits, reflected the official title throughout the page which is the correct protocol, the discussion that is taking place is over whether or not WP should continue using the title with "WWE" added onto it or if they should use the official title.  Regardless of what they decide, the official title is always reflected throughout the pages contents.  But the fact you just stopped participating in the discussion and just outright threatened me instead makes me think nothing is going to be done about the vandalism.  So I guess you can go ahead & ban me, nothing I can do about it anymore, you've made up your mind.  Weweremarshall (talk) 02:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is also reflected in the body of the article. Yes, shorthand names can be used in the body of the article at times, but in the opening sentence of the lead and in the article's infobox, the article title is used, not the shorthand name (there are some exceptions to this). You were trying to change these to the shorthand name. If the ongoing discussions decide that "WWE" should not be in the article title, then what you were doing would be okay, but that consensus has not been met yet. -- JDC808  ♫  02:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Weweremarshall, I really don't want to block anyone here but if you continue to refer to JDC808's as vandalism, I will. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Edit Warring isn't considered vandalism then I won't call it vandalism. But it doesn't change the fact that less than 20 minutes ago JDC808 has once again reflected that he does not understand that "WWE" isn't part of the championships title or the reason why it is used in the article title.  Again, you can threaten me a million times, you can even go ahead and ban me that's fine.  It doesn't change the fact that JDC808 broke 3RR twice and is due a ban, these are the facts of the case.  This war of opinions likely wouldn't have escalated to the point its currently at if the user had received his just ban and I wasn't falsely accused of violating 3RR.  I understand you might feel like you have egg on your face, but it's not your fault as Professional Wrestling is a very complex subject matter that is very hard for people to understand at first glance (and shouldn't be expected to understand if they don't genuinely enjoy wrestling).  I'd like to clarify I hold no hard feelings towards you for this, even if you do still find a reason to ban me.  Weweremarshall (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:3R and complete failure to get the point., you're skating because your edits labelled vandalism clearly weren't but in the future, please be more careful. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Smallbones (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] 01:58, 6 September 2016 as noted above
 * 1)  01:29, 7 September 2016‎  reverted my addition of completely new material
 * 2)  01:49, 7 September 2016‎
 * 3)  02:12, 7 September 2016‎
 * 4)  02:47, 7 September 2016‎  All with 1 hour, 20 minutes!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 
 * Note that this followed Jtydog putting an edit war notice on my talk page after he had reverted me three (3) times and I had reverted him twice (2).  I found this particularly insulting as he prefaced it "Really sad, Smallbones. You tout your experience and you edit war like a newbie."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mylan/Archives/2016 Note that this followed Jytdog's nonsense on the talk page comparing my edit to John Stewart and Benghazi. Jytdog's words often just don't make any sense to me.
 * and following

Comments:

3RR is a bright line rule in the sense that 4 reverts is automatically a violation. Jytdog clearly reverted 4 times in an hour and twenty minutes. I acknowledge that I reverted him 3 times as a result of his attempt at intimidation. Jytdog has a reputation for this type of intimidation and has been blocked by Arbcom twice in the last year for using similar tactics.

has addressed the issue of Jytdog's disrespect for other editors twice and

I have also attempted to resolve this at User_talk:Doc_James but the response seems to just be an attempt to redefine the word "revert"

Feel free to block me for participating in this edit war (but I only made 3 reverts) - I just don't react well when somebody tries to intimidate me. But Jytdog's 4 reverts qualifies as an automatic block IMHO.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Diif of notification of about this discussion   Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that Smallbones felt the need to file this. The Mylan and Epinephrine autoinjector (aka EpiPen) articles have been receiving a lot of attention due to the price hike scandal.  People wanting to add pro-Mylan stuff, people wanting to add "Mylan is satan" stuff.  Up til now it has been pretty reasonable.  Smallbones apparently has issues with me (see here) and when I reverted "his" content (and it is very much is "his" content (see the message he added to his 3RR notice here and see his first remark after I (note "I") opened the Talk page discussion here which i will quote: "t's an anti-trust investigation by the State of New York about a company that has been called before Congress to investigate it's pricing policies.  Please do not attempt to own this article.   Get a consensus if you want to delete my work.That's all I have to say. ".)


 * Smallbones just blew off BRD and discussion, and yes, I followed them in edit warring.


 * After we finished our edit war, Gandy restored the edit and then Capeo reverted it again, and that is where things have stood since last night.


 * Importantly folks are leaving the article alone and discussion is proceeding at the Talk page to determine if this should stay out per NOTNEWS or come in, which is what should have happened after the first revert I made.


 * Smallbones does not seem OK with following our usual procedures for resolving content disputes.


 * I don't see any need for action here but admins may differ, of course. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 4 reverts in 1 hour and 20 minutes. That calls for action here.  Accusing me of edit warring when I had made 2 reverts and you had made 3 - that calls for action IMHO.  And now "I followed them in edit warring" - who are you trying to fool?  You made the first revert, the third, the fifth, and the seventh.  Who started the edit warring?  Who continued it after their 3 revert, despite a notification? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is silly. Yes, both edit warred last night. It's over now. A bunch of editors are there and a consensus seems to be forming. Smallbones should have followed BRD. Their first response on the talk page "Please do not attempt to own this article. Get a consensus if you want to delete my work.That's all I have to say." is NOT how BRD works. You don't need a consensus to remove anyone's "work". The status quo is consensus until a new consensus is established. That first response sounds much more like OWN than BRD. That said Jytdog then proceeded to revert a bunch too. Point is it's over and I see no point in sanctioning either now. Capeo (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Not silly, and Capeo participated in the "edit war" such as it was, so he is hardly a detached observer. Edit warring is edit warring and Jytdog is over 3RR and should know better. He has a longstanding tendency to engage in that kind of conduct, and recently twice reverted an editor over posts at Talk:William L. Uanna, an article unrelated to this. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * (EC)Jytdog's tactics of intimidation are the issue. 4 reverts in an hour and 20 minutes are the issue.  WP:BRD is of course just an essay, and Jytdog used that as an excuse to just revert away to get his preferred version in.  He did not discuss in any civilized way, rather he compared my edit to John Stewart and something about Benghazi - it looks to me like he was attempting to mock me.  I took the time to try to resolve this.  I don't think that the passage of this time, makes Jytdog's 4 reverts any more acceptable.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 4 reverts automatically edit warring?  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Fish for both of you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously. I see no reason to accept intimidation from a user who has been blocked for similar problems during the last year.  If he wants to play out the string of reverts, he needs to learn how to count first.  If he wants to warn me for edit warring, he should make sure that he hasn't reverted me more than I've reverted him.  If he wants to cite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, he needs to read them first.  If he wants to tell me that I can report him here but that I'll be blocked too, then let him accept his block for 4RR.  I just am not willing to accept this type of intimidation. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Things seem stable now so I'm closing this with no action. Jytdog should not have edit warred, but neither should have Smallbones. The fact that you made 3 reverts while Jytdog made 4 hardly makes his actions much worse than your own, and stinks of gaming the system. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:98.224.25.240 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 738264515 by Muboshgu (talk) i provided a video of Kurt Cobain himself saying he wanted Pat in as a full member, yet apparently that isn't good enough. This is ridiculous."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 738263053 by Mlpearc (talk) http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march-1994.php http://www.livenirvana.com/sessions/home/march25-1994.php"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 738262332 by Muboshgu (talk) http://www.nirvanaclub.com/get.php?section=info/nfcinterviews&file=pat_smear.htm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJtm9HomKdE&feature=youtu.be&t=34m25s"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 738260933 by Muboshgu (talk) Provide any source that says he wasn't and I'll agree with you."
 * 5)  "Readded Pat Smear, he was a full member. Quit changing it, you add nothing to the history of this group by leaving out an important person regarding the band."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 738252687 by Mlpearc (talk)"
 * 7)  "Pat was a full member. Plenty of sources including Kurt Cobain himself verify that."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Pat Smear as a full member. */"
 * 2)   "/* Pat Smear as a full member. */"


 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

User:175.141.71.139 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked 31 hours, protected 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

This was not edit warring, but serial vandalism and block evasion. More eyes on the articles that are targeted, as they may need protection. JNW (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . I've also requested semi-protection of Dollah Salleh, Khairul Fahmi Che Mat, Malaysia national football team and Ong Kim Swee. Linguist 111  Moi?  Moi.  15:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dollah Salleh, Khairul Fahmi Che Mat, Malaysia national football team, Ong Kim Swee 1 week  Linguist 111  Moi?  Moi.  07:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Wolfdog (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Not a WP:3RR violation but Torah28's lack of communication is not good. Waiting for their response. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * has been editing but hasn't responded. I'm going to close this edit warring report and have warned Torah28, indicating further undiscussed changes to the lead will probably result in a block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC) <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:69.138.49.229 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on California 37 (album). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

3 ip users have been making the same edits on different Train-related pages (and only pages related to the band Train). I have reverted. Binksternet has reverted and warned. I later warned. Kellymoat (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Multiple IPs are reverting, all from Tennessee. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tiny Dancer 48 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 736046061 by Danielkueh (talk) please address points on talk page. Thanks"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 736055700 by Danielkueh (talk) bold revert DISCUSS"
 * 3)  "" (part of a series of edits)
 * 4)  "Undid revision 737863664 by Maunus (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 737871636 by Maunus (talk) POV pushing after admitting no consensus"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 737863664 by Maunus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 737871636 by Maunus (talk) POV pushing after admitting no consensus"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 737871636 by Maunus (talk) POV pushing after admitting no consensus"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Race_(human_categorization)
 * 2) Talk:Race_(human_categorization)
 * 3) Talk:Race_(human_categorization)
 * 4)   "/* Poll: is there a consensus that race is a social construct and not a biological concept? */"
 * 5)   "/* Maunus suggestion for a new Lead */"


 * Comments:

Give me a moment to add more diffs... Twinkle didn't load them all  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Completed  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING from a WP:TAGTEAM to violate WP:NPOV. This team refuse to add one word in the face of clear sources supporting it, citing "consensus", and present an entire article rewrite (more biased) to change the subject. Multiple page visitors suggested the change, but this team is permanently resident. Article biased towards American sociology rather than international academia. Tiny Dancer 48 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:Tiny Dancer 48 seems to be here on a mission. Diffs 2-9 show them always restoring the word 'ancestry' or 'biological' to the lead of the article. If they need to keep making all these reverts it suggests they don't have consensus. If this continues, the next step could be a topic ban under WP:ARBR&I. A summary of the findings of that arbitration case is at the head of Talk:Race (human categorization). EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Llcoolj89 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Finally, done with the re-organizing, editing and removing of unsolicited citation links. I'll be watching over this one."
 * 2)  "Trying to re-organize it again"
 * 3)  "Someone tried to re-edit this page after I have organized and edit it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Ownership of articles. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on iPhone 7. (TW)"

Summaries and responses imply ownership. ViperSnake151  Talk  07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Result: Warned. Only three reverts so far. The editor won't succeed in their project of restructuring the article with no support from others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaostao reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Declined)
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:

Editor has been previously sanctioned for edit warring at Jared Taylor. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Final revert was in response to this comment on the talk page which stated that the COATRACK veered into BLP territory. WP:3RRBLP. Reporting editor also previously reverted an edit which was the at the time the subject of an ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding 3RRBLP on this same article. Zaostao (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - I don't think this is really a clear case of sanctionable edit warring, since BLP issues are at play, multiple people are warring, and discussion is ongoing. The BLP noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue to help hash out the dispute. Meanwhile, I will watch the page and consider protection if the edit war erupts again. Laser brain   (talk)  16:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 3RR is a bright line rule (as in: it is 'a clearly defined rule or standard, composed of objective factors, which leaves little or no room for varying interpretation'). Do you believe that the edits reverted, which referred to a magazine, were reverts of 'libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material' regarding a living person? PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I noted both at an ArbCom event where that page came up and on the talk page itself after pinged by Zaostao, the claims that the webzine that is managed by this person is associated with white supremacy, a claim that neither this person nor the webzine makes, is being used as a coatrack to negatively connect this person to white supremacy in a factual manner, which is a BLP issue and reversion falls under 3RRBLP. It's fine in the latter part of the lede to put in the documented attributed criticism about their views of which appear to be part of his notability, but not in the subtle coatracking manner that Zaostao was removing. --M ASEM (t) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you believe describing the magazine in this way is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced? PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that the magazine itself does not call itself a work dealing with white supremacy, and instead is what other sources (even highly reliable ones) claim it is about, yes, it's libelous and biased, at least prior to fully introducing the topic. This is completely appropriate once you start getting into criticism about the person/magazine, but not before that point, which is where this contentious statement was being used. --M ASEM (t) 23:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not accept the argument that it is fine to edit war and violate 3RR because something was not correctly ordered in the lede. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Continued edit warring:. No, this is not a BLP violation because it's well sourced. Indeed, it's pretty much what makes this person notable. I have no idea how this is suppose to be a "coatrack" since that applies to articles, not a couple of words. Lastly, to say that this is "libelous" because the magazine doesn't describe itself as such is ridiculous. We don't go by what something calls itself. We go by what reliable sources call it. And reliable sources say it's "associated with white supremacy" (again, this is pretty much what Taylor is notable for). The "decline" above needs to be reviewed, as this is a pretty clear case of edit warring (including breaking a 3RR rule, and then edit warring even more AFTER the report was filed) as well as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "We don't go by what something calls itself. We go by what reliable sources call it." No, BLP says otherwise, and it appears that Taylor actively denies claims he is a white suprmacist or other language now presently in the lede. The coatracking comes in because American Renaissance is not a common household name and so there is a need to provide context (a coatrack), but editors have opted to describe it with a contentious label used neither by Taylor or the webzine. That he is widely regarded in the mainstream press as a white supremacist (with appropriate attribution) is something to include in the lede after neutrally stating the basic facts and his own views which BLP says takes priority. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Masem, I am honestly puzzled by your assertion that "BLP says otherwise." It seems pretty clear cut to me that the reliable sources are the main thing.  To quote from WP:BLP: "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves."  I have to agree with PeterTheFourth that it's hard to buy a statement as libelous based on its position within the article.  Also, as Volunteer Marek has noted, it seems like the 'accusations' are most of what make the article subject notable.  I have no dog in this fight, other than the fact that I see a lot of "we have to balance the RSes with what this subject says of themselves" in various articles, and I think it's a move in the wrong direction.  Thanks.  Dumuzid (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Describing someone as being associated with white supremacy is not a non-partisan statement - that tries to classify his POV into a specific political ideology and thus a partisan statement. Atop that, it appears he has stated he does not have white supremacy views, and BLP emphasizes what a subject says about themselves over what anyone else might claim. (Further, that's just standard human decency to put the subject's own words on their bio page above what others say about him, as long we are talking about subjective aspects like political views). It is complete fair that later, one can note that despite his claim he does not associate with white supremacy, that the mainstream media consider him to be aligned with those views (which is necessary to establish his notability), but that is later after going through an unbiased account of who he is. Even if what makes a person notable are negative aspects and subjective views that cast the person in a negative light, documenting what makes that person notable doesn't have to lead off the lede, as that affects the overall tone of the article - it needs to be in the lede at some point, but after neutrally establishing who that person is as to stay neutral and within BLP. --M ASEM (t) 15:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I think you're applying "non-partisan" incorrectly. That is, the sampling of RSes should be non-partisan.  Not that what the RSes say should be non-partisan (they're allowed to say whatever they like!).  And this concept that 'BLP emphasizes what the subject says' is precisely why I am worried.  Things like WP:BLPSELFPUB tends to cut against the grain of that, to my mind.  We certainly have to be very careful about BLP.  But where a claim is strongly sourced (even if partisan), then it should be included and given due weight no matter what the article subject says--especially when said claim is a prime cause for the subject's notability.  Self-definition is a wonderful thing, but as far as I can see, it shouldn't override Wikipedia policy.  Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not discounting due weight. In the body of the article, there's presently a "Views" section, and here's the right place to drop the majority opinion that his views are considered racist and align with white supremacy. And mentioning this as secondary aspects in the lede thus makes sense to accurately summarize the article. But to start off an article with claims not made by himself as a living person that assigns a contentious label to him is not appropriate per BLP or NPOV. It establishes a tone that the article topic should be considered in the negative in WP's voice because it leads off with that. (Also it doesn't appear his claims are SELFPUB, they are statements made to reliable sources.) --M ASEM (t) 16:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, to avoid this going into BLP policy too much, I opened up a discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I will say this that continued attempts by Zaostao after this case opened with the above concerns is edging on disruption, and there might need to be a re-review of the actions there. --M ASEM (t) 16:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem, that strikes me as the right move. That way I can prattle on somewhere it is marginally more relevant!  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And another revert. He's not stopping. This "Decline" really needs to be reviewed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment - On face value, this looks like a fairly clear case of WP:TAGTEAM. (Diffs:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) Editors who are collectively reverting are just as involved in edit warring as a single editor; even if they do not individually breach WP:3RR. Stop reverting! Discuss! - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Charlotte135 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Charlotte135 topic banned )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Added primary source
 * 2) Revert 1 (09:44 6th Sept)  Readded the primary source after not getting consensus on talk
 * 3)  changing the text so it does not reflect the sources
 * 4) Revert 2 (04:31 7th Sept)  changes the same text so it does not reflect the sources again
 * 5) Revert 3 (4:43 7th Sept)  added text not support by source
 * 6) Revert 4 (4:52 7th Sept)  added same text a second time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

How is this edit warring?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , just for clarity: Since 's last edit on the article was at 08:26 this morning, why did you warn them and then report them in the space of one minute nearly three hours later, when there had been no edit-warring in between? <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They were previously warned by User:Bbb23. This is a long term issue. They have also removed concerns left on their talk page previously.
 * Yes, that certainly seems to make the question "How is this edit warring?" somewhat spurious to say the least. Cheers, <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite not getting consensus the user continues re adding the same content. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In that you made more than three reverts to the same aticle in one twenty-four hour period, is precisely how. Cheers, <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought this rule applied to the same edit? Does it? I'm confused. When was I warned by BB23?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you read WP:EW it says that a revert counts towards the 3RR limit "whether involving the same or different material". The warning from BB23 was last year, in October 2015 diff ~Awilley (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how diff 5 (labeled Revert 3) counts as a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It was introducing the text. The second part was also word for word from the source "30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" so also a copyright issue. We often count the initial introduction of the text as a "revert". Charlotte appear to be under the impression they made zero reverts. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "We often count the initial introduction of the text as a 'revert'." No we don't. We count that as a "Bold edit". We sometimes count an initial removal of text as a revert, which may be what you're thinking of. Whatever other problems the user is having, diff 5 is not a revert as far as I can tell. ~Awilley (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts: This is a different source? This is not a revert? This is not a revert? But this is not a revert? But again, this is not a revert? The stats in this area are extremely confusing as Doc James knows. In fact, I am still waiting for Doc James to provide the source. So far Doc James has not produced the sentence in the reliable source which this is all over. This shows how confusing and how conflicting the stats are in this area. I had suggested we leave the stats out entirely. However, back to this notriceboard, if I kept reverting someone then yes, but I did not revert 4 times. I did not even revert once. That's a fact. So why am I here?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1)  Added primary source
 * 2) Revert 1 (09:44 6th Sept)  Readded the primary source after not getting consensus on talk
 * 1)  changing the text so it does not reflect the sources
 * 1) Revert 2 (04:31 7th Sept)  changes the same text so it does not reflect the sources again
 * 1) Revert 3 (4:43 7th Sept)  added text not support by source
 * 1) Revert 4 (4:52 7th Sept)  added same text a second time
 * I've been catching up on this, and honestly your editing on talk pages strikes me as a bit tedentious, Charlotte135. For the diff you provided in particular, I see that Doc James responded to you, and rather than taking the time to look at his concern you immediately replied assuming bad faith (I believe your phrasing was that you were being "punished" by a revert and an explanation of that revert). The conversation continued, and that you are still "waiting" for an answer from Doc James even though he a.) pointed out that paraphrasing an article from Time while sourcing the WHO is disingenuous (and potentially dangerous on a medical article) and b.) pointed you to the WHO's actual press release for the report so you could see for yourself that Time has slightly misrepresented the report, you still ask for other editors to do your homework for you rather than continue to edit the encyclopedia in other, more productive ways.
 * This has been par for the course for Charlotte135. I use this example because she raised it on this board, but examination of the others reveals a systemic problem. Perhaps this is a hard case to make for 3RR, but honestly if I had spent as much time as other editors grappling with this on an important medical article, I'm sure it would seem like drawn out edit-warring to me as well. We must be bordering on something actionable at ANI if nothing else. Lizzius (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that this seems to have bled over into ANI some, where I'm monitoring. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 17:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And the editor's talk page! <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  17:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Charlotte135 topic banned for one year. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:70.79.24.219 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 738552698 by Linguist111 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 738552582 by Linguist111 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 738552347 by Linguist111 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 738551997 by ClueBot NG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Andrew House. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Andrew House. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Andrew House. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 1 month for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:BYOD Xicano reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Basic biographical information is being ignored. Usually not a contentious issue, but it appears that the use of falsified demographic terms is licensed by a species reading of wikipedia guidelines."
 * 2)  "By this reasoning, the musician would have to not be born in Mexico. Some link to the region has to be acknowledged."
 * 3)  "The reasoning behind designating a musician as American is flimsy: that would require that Santana adopt the nationality of every place from which he toured."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 738195576 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 738195325 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
 * 6)  "There is nothing wrong with being Mexican. Since when is it so polemical to describe someone based on their birthplace? This is basic biographical information."
 * 7)  "He is not 'Latino', but Mexican. This is particularly relevant since page author is referencing a cultural dynamic that exists today: anti-Mexican sentiment in the media/music industry, but not doing so as accurately as the specific term 'Mexican' allows."
 * 8)  "This requires a real citation."
 * 1)  "He is not 'Latino', but Mexican. This is particularly relevant since page author is referencing a cultural dynamic that exists today: anti-Mexican sentiment in the media/music industry, but not doing so as accurately as the specific term 'Mexican' allows."
 * 2)  "This requires a real citation."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Rodriguez (singer-songwriter). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Carlos Santana. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Carlos Santana. (TW)"

General warning messages about continuing discussion on talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Requests to continue existing discussion on talk page in edit summaries I left. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Response to 'Edit Warring' Allegations for BYOD Xicano === RE: User:BYOD Xicano reported by User:Geraldo Perez

This is BYOD Xicano.

I will not submit Geraldo for dispute, but would like to point out the following odd behavior. First, Geraldo simply undid changes that included a citation to the musician in question's website. This also undid a series of changes that included more citations and a comment on a broken link that required server authentication. Thus, not only did Geraldo user undo changes pertinent to a more accurate biography of the musician, but also inadvertently undid changes that improved other sections of the article. Fine, but another issue was that for some non-technical reason, Geraldo also chose to go into a different unrelated page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rodriguez_(singer-songwriter)&action=history and change the biographical information on the page too. Quite bizarre, since there was a legitimate citation from a Mexican newspaper acknowledging the musician's ethnic background. There is no need for contention especially when more sources are being added. The citation is not 'Poor' since that paper of record in the state of Guerrero is also notable for other coverage pertaining to other current events in the region. In other words, reputable sources should be evaluated throughout wiki pages and conclusions derived on the basis of that data. Biographical information should not be disputed in this way.

Finally, we believe that this usage of 'Latino' is fairly inaccurate for all the various problems elucidated elsewhere and there is no citation for its usage, though it is invoked to describe racial tension in the 1960's. Needless to say, most racial animosity references Mexicans directly and thus such a discussion should also reference the actual people affected by it.

BYOD Xicano (talk)BYOD Xicano —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Since BYOD Xicano has chosen to engage in discussion on the article talk page I think no further action need be taken on this issue. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

User:WikiEditor668 reported by User:AlexanderLevian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user repeatedly removes Debbie Wasserman Schultz from being mentioned as a member of the New Democrat Coalition in spite of the source. He began a discussion on my talk page but hasn't addressed my points. He continuously removes the sourced material without explanation. I'm no longer reverting until I can find some consensus and/or resolution from other editors. Alexander Levian (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As I have stated on the Democratic Party talk page, someone who is among the leadership of the coalition would make more sense to be mentioned in the article.WikiEditor668 (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Six reverts in 24 hours by User:WikiEditor668 is too many, regardless of whether Wasserman Schulz's name belongs in that paragraph. This editor has been warring to remove her name since September 3. Her membership in the New Democrat Coalition is well-sourced; the only question is if she is important enough to include in that specific paragraph. This needs consensus to answer and shouldn't be settled by warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please do not BLINDLY REVERT everything. you r opposition was to a paragraph (that has not even be removed!)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to last clean verison; BLIND REVERT -- controversial content I s already on the talk page AND put here in the interim"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 738200822 by Mar4d (talk) bind revert"
 * 4)  "/* Background */ remove religion, its a side show if at all"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 Kashmir unrest. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Hindu/Muslim NPOV */ Reply"
 * 2)   "/* Hindu/Muslim NPOV */ Reply"


 * Comments:

This user is repeatedly making POV edits, deleting sourced content based on OR, and not getting the message that they need to get consensus. This is a current event with fast-moving developments, and the article cannot be held hostage to one editor's POV. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is not a good result. The full protection is demoralising to the editors who are updating information on a daily basis. The edit-warring editor is likely to come back after 3 days and continue to the same behaviour. At the very least, the editor needs to be told how and why they need to seek WP:CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three days by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Gonzales John reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I can't believe this, people now just remove stuff without explanation....."
 * 2)  "No explanation given by remover, thus violating Wikipedia policies, probably done out of bias."
 * 3)  "Not explanation given for how a mere five words, al reliably sourced is "significant". (HAHAHAHAhAhAHAHAhA I sense bias!)"
 * 4)  "Absolutely not. Please provide proof or explanation as to why this is "undue weight"."
 * 5)  "Prominet scholars argue for this position, which is about as noteworthy as scholars arguing that Jesus was not apocalyptic."
 * 6)  "Nevertheless it is a suggestion noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the lead."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * - previous warning by another editor on the same page


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


 * Comments:
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 12:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:66.38.71.69 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, , &

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Comments: The IP was removing sourced content. Finally after the 3rd warning, the IP messages me the reason why for the removal of the sourced content. I responded back telling the IP to take this matter to the article's talk page to resolve this, instead, the IP reverted twice and moved on editing to another article. Though the IP only did 3 reverts, I feel that he/she will not actually discuss and is just going to revert again if I revert back. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The situation apparently has died out so far, the IP was reverted by another editor so I think everything is under control for now. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now, per the submitter's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Vanden12elve reported by User:Yoshiman6464 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&oldid=prev&diff=737560945
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&diff=738342962&oldid=738341639
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&diff=738351451&oldid=738351121
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&diff=738352715&oldid=738352582

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected six months for vandalism/socking by User:Steel. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Wiki2344 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Right. Learning as I go along. All statements are now clearly proven in MSM citations. There is nothing that is not cited independently. Can we agree on this and get on with life..?"
 * 2)  "The FT already has done. Subscribe and you will see. You are deleting independently cited facts about a person and obviously have a grudge that is making you look stupid. Just as you did when you deleted a public domain photo last time."
 * 3)  "No, it is not. I only added facts to the History section. Out of 9 citations 7 are independent and only 2 are from IM (an FCA regulated company). You also removed a perfectly acceptable photo. If you dispute something then evidence it before deleting."
 * 4)  "I have added some relevant statements (all cited) after the culling today. I work for Intelligent Money and whilst we did not create this page, as it exists I have to ensure it is accurate. The photo is now in the public domain and copyright free."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 738671608 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 731448011 by ImageRemovalBot (talk) - This image is licenced for use on Wikipedia by the owner - see www.intelligentmoney.com/terms-conditions/ - so I have undone the"


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


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


 * Comments:

I'm ignoring the personal attack in the 16:45 edit summary; I may 'look stupid'- but I certainly haven't got a grudge! No; this editor, who clearly has a close involvement with the subject insists on repeatedly reinserting cruft, against the advice of other editors, which appears to be intended to promote the subject. The editor has been engaged in multiple discussions (here, here, and here, on 's talk-page. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  16:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * -- GB fan 17:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TL565 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Meh)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 738752667 by Winkelvi (talk) Lol you have zero credibility buddy. Just look at your block log."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 738749601 by Winkelvi (talk) Are you kidding me! I was correcting the original time of the post! He thanked me for it!"
 * 3)  "/* Photo */  Correcting original time of post"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* September 2016 */ +, customize"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Mike Pence. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 738611984 by TL565 (talk)don't change others' talk page comments"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by TL565 (talk): He may have thanked you for it, but it's still not allowed - see TPO and when changing signatures is allowed and when it is not. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Editor is edit warring over a time stamp he should not have changed and continues to change through reversions. I have pointed out WP:TPO to him, specifically, ""If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information...Do not modify others' signatures for any other reason." Note that he did the same thing at another talk page here.

Editor has chosen to ignore the warnings left at his talk page as well as the customized comments I made regarding policy on refactoring talk page comments and signatures. His response to the warnings left for him was to edit war and once again violate talk page refactoring policy. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:Boomerang, Winkelvi own behavior has been questionable lately. For a week he has WP:Hounding User:Calibrador singling out his every move and engaging in wikilawyering in countless attempts to WP:Game the system. TL565 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note Winkelvi's motivation for this is from an earlier feud, so he is now nitpicking my edits for doing someone a favor. Once again, WP:Gaming the system. TL565 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I only see two reverts from that list, not even close to violating the 3RR. TL565 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Policy reminder: Edit warring is not just violating 3RR, it is also a behavior and blocks are often handed out preventatively the disruption such behavior brings. See WP:EW and WP:3RR for the following:
 * "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."
 * -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a lengthy history of edit warring yourself. Anyone one with common sense would see that was a courtesy edit. You clearly have a quarrel with me. Again, stop wikilawyering. TL565 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note You are not even the user who's post I changed. He clearly made a mistake with his signature, which he tried to insert but had the wrong time. I kindly just tweaked it to show the original time and he thanked me later. You waited hours to then suddenly get on my case for that. For someone who has accused me of "stirring up dust" in the past, you seem to be doing that right now. TL565 (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "You have a lengthy history of edit warring yourself." Precisely why I know what I'm talking about. Regardless of your claimed intentions, TPO and 3RR are clear.  I brought TPO policy to you, your choice was to laugh in my general direction ("Lol you have zero credibility buddy." ) as well as mock, attack, and threaten in edit summaries ("Are you kidding me! I was correcting the original time of the post!" ; "I was doing them a favor genius! One even thanked me for it! Your countless attempts at WP:Gaming the system are not going unnoticed" )  Further, it would seem the only one wikilawyering in this report would be you in trying to vilify me (here and at the talk pages of others by making unfounded claims about me: "Something really needs to be done about Winkelvi's behavior. For days he has been WP:Gaming the system singling out a user to serve his own preferences. Now he is sending me bullshit warnings on my talk page for simply correcting the time of some else's posts! One even thanked me for it. He clearly wants to continue a feud with me which I am frankly tired of" ).  Said wikilawyering also includes bringing up my block log in a manner to deflect from your own behavior and claiming that because your intentions were good the first time you violated TPO, you have not violated policy in the least.  You have been warned by three editors in as many days past to stop personally attacking me in talk page comments as well as edit summaries, but you continue with that, too.  As far as the edit warring behavior in order to reinstate your violation of talk page policy, I find that to be the more egregious policy vio and behavior issue and I'm happy to let admins/an admin sort this out and do what they feel is necessary and appropriate.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  22:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you play victim. All one has to do is look at Talk:Mike Pence to see that you are not as innocent as you claim. I'm sorry but pointing out your obvious behavior is not a personal attack. I showed frustration in some comments but there is nothing that went too far. Furthermore, It's interesting how have interpreted my comments from days before we ever had a feud which I didn't call you by name as somehow an attack against you. Today, I really didn't want to have anything to do with you but clearly you wanted continue this quarrel. You waited hours then suddenly Boom! your suddenly on my case over a little time stamp. I have pointed your behavior many times and you never respond to them except play dumb and claim they are "personal attacks" against you. Do you not know what WP:Hounding is? You've done it to another user and now me. You have a clear bias and everyone can see it. TL565 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi is now currently hounding my edits on various pages constantly citing Wikipedia policy because he has a clear vendetta against me. This is not WP:AGF. All one has to do is look at his edit history to see his personal feud with me. This is crystal clear gaming the system and distruptive. TL565 (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Modifying other editors' signature timestamps is not appropriate, and edit-warring to maintain this sort of thing is significantly and needlessly disruptive. As it happens, the timestamp on the comment in question was the timestamp from when Davey2010 signed it (diff). While I think it would be fair for him to have backdated his own comment, there was no "mistake" about Davey2010 electing to use the current time as his timestamp. When I modify my own comments, I typically replace the original timestamp with the timestamp at alteration.

Also, bringing up the complainant's interactions with an unrelated third party is not constructive. The question here is TL565's behavior (and, possibly, Winkelvi's motivation for complaining); how Winkelvi and Calibrador are getting along has no bearing on this issue. If there is a problem between them, it can be brought in a separate complaint. Rebb ing  23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok I will leave out the third party. I apologize if I went too far in modifying the time stamp. I just couldn't help but notice that someone posted his signature incorrectly, then corrected it many minutes later with a much later time stamp. I simply wanted to change the time to which he originally posted his comment. He thanked me and I thought that was that. However, Winkelvi, due to a recent feud we had, waited hours before taking issue with it. He immediately sent me a warning which was not in good faith. Again, he has been using Wikipedia policies to harass anyone he doesn't like. TL565 (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. To be clear, I'm neither asking for nor opposing sanctions here. I'm not an administrator, and this isn't my fight; I just wanted to point out what stood out to me. Also, while you were aware that Davey2010 saw and approved of your change, other observers weren't, and non-technical changes to others' comments are widely viewed with skepticism (and rightly so!). Best. Rebb  ing  23:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note I have self reverted and will take it as a lesson learned. I would like to make peace with Winkelvi and move forward from here. TL565 (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Could I suggest this be closed and for the love of christ everyone move the fuck on, This really isn't worth edit warring and getting blocked over and needless to say I'm extremely disappointed in you WV, I would ask whoever reads this report to simply withdrawn it and not block anyone because this is simply stupid, I'm done for the evening. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sorry but this has to be said .... Are we seriously edit warring over my fucking timestamp.... I mean seriously ? .....This has to be the most stupidiest edit war to date on this project and whilst I appreciate the help here in all honestly it's pathetic from both of you, My reason for not updating the sig was I'd simply forgot but my longer explanation is here,
 * Yes please, I take back all accusations and attacks against WV and would like a reset. There has been enough drama for a week. TL565 (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Closing, mostly to relieve Davey's heartburn over this particularly pointless incident. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Ivano Capuler reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop! and wait  Administrator who knows Russian in million times better than you"
 * 2)  "Administrator who knows Russian on very good level, will check my edit (do not make roolback till this)!"
 * 3)  "It was accepted. Relevant material (founder of the fascism gave knowledge how to do better his ideology - Important detail). Mussolini is former Marxist (his way to got knowledge)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Position on the political spectrum */ new section"


 * Comments:

Warned by another user, article is under 1RR Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   02:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)