Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive327

User:212.253.112.184 (reported by User:Mewtwowimmer) (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverting vandalism."
 * 2)  "Did you bother to read the sources?"
 * 3)  "The sources for the old Hungarian page were for Romania"
 * 4)  "Restoring the Romanian section, which was changed to "Hungarian" in July by a vandal. (5.46.136.193) I am writing a true section for Hungarian because Romania does not dub adult movies."
 * 5)  "The Iszdb.hu has dubbing information on mature and children's movies."


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Several anonymous IP's, including 212.253.112.184, 212.253.112.8, 212.253.112.232, 84.117.92.217, 5.46.129.62, 5.46.177.38, and 5.46.136.193, are repeatedly replacing references to Hungary with Romania and vice versa, without even paying attention to the sources cited. I added a few more sources to confirm that Hungary does, indeed, dub most adult films and series, but these IP's keep removing the sources from the section, including a long-standing map of Europe. Furthermore, the change from Hungarian to Romanian dates back to July 10, 2016, when 5.46.136.193 changed the country names around. In August 2016, User:Polemicista also confirmed that Romania strictly uses subtitles (not dubbing), but their edits were later removed by the IP's.

On the talk page for this article, I explained that according to Graph QA11 on the Eurobarometer (which is cited in the article itself), 62% of Romanians would watch foreign shows subtitled compared to 15% of Hungarians. 84% of Hungarians said that they prefer dubbing.

I added a hidden header in the sections for Hungary and Romania, warning the IP's to not switch the country names around, because that would conflict with the sources provided. I am starting to get very annoyed with these IP's removing factual sources, and would highly suggest a range block on 212.253.112.X. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Status update: 212.253.112.184 removed one of my messages from their talk page for no reason. I have pinpointed the vandal's city to Bagcilar, Turkey. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I noted your complaint here by accident. Mewtwowimmer you should be careful when pointing out other Users for WP:OUTING and WP:PRIVACY, which can be construed as harassment. Whilst your complaints might be justified, you yourself could be sanctioned for such behaviour. If the issue is WP:3RR, then stick to that argument and try not to stray to far from it. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected three months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. If this information about dubbing is important enough to include it is important enough to source properly. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported: Four (so far) users from Swedish Wikipedia working together: User:Adville, User:Elzo 90 (defending the reverts), User:Dnm & User:Le Lapin Vert

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: Talk:Prince Bernadotte

Comments:

Four users from Swedish Wikipedia are acting as a group and reverting information which I believe should be discussed by editors who are uninvolved in personalized disputes between all 4 of them, on one side, and me, SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:SergeWoodzing is warned not to keep restoring material from an apparently self-published website at http://ristesson.tribalpages.com to Wikipedia articles unless he gets consensus that it's a reliable source for this use, for example at WP:RSN. In the case of the Prince Bernadotte article, he is conducting an edit war over what appears to be a minor tweak in a coat of arms that was conferred in 1951. Unclear why this is such a weighty issue that it's worth getting into an edit war for. There is also a discussion at Talk:Prince Bernadotte where it looks to me that Serge is overusing primary sources. The indefinite block of Serge Woodzing on the Swedish Wikipedia was concluded on 16 September per a thread at sv:Wikipedia:Kommentarer om administrationen av Wikipedia/SergeWoodzing (you can use Google Translate). EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your neutral input! I was hoping to find some understanding in this forum for my surprise at two editors coming to English Wikipedia only to revert something without using an article's talk page, no matter how badly I may have behaved myself.
 * Of course I will abide by consensus. I always do. I cannot see that consensus has been reached yet, but if it is, and the finding is that the citing of the Ristesson paper is inappropriate, that will be OK by me.
 * What has happened to me at Swedish Wikipedia and why, if relevant here (?), is much too complicated to go into on this page. Suffice to say that Swedish Wikipedia greatly differs from English Wikipedia in all aspects which facilitate conflict resolution here.
 * I have addressed your question about the little arms issue's importance on the article's talk page. Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Arianewiki1 reported by User:Tarl N. (Result: No action, diplomacy suggested)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 740881056 by Tarl N. (talk) Removing this leaves the quoted variable star magnitudes unexplained. The proviso already formally says "not perfectly defined for the following reasons.""
 * 2)  "Commonsense does not need to be referenced. It is either maximum brightness or an averaged maxima, as proven on the talk page.."
 * 3)  "I've proven this true in the Talk page. Refute the logic, as it is commonsense."


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


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


 * Comments:

I'm not quite sure how to handle this case. It's six reverts in ten days, not exactly WP:3RR, but the increasingly shrill statements that either he's "proven it" or that it's commonsense so needs no citation are irritating.

Presumably the statement that he's proven it on the talk page refers to the section Talk:List_of_brightest_stars which hasn't been edited in 14 months.

I may be the wrong person to get involved here, I've butted heads with this editor before (as you'll see in the above section and others), as has User:Lithopsian, so an external viewpoint would be helpful. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I do feel I am being deliberately targeted in editing this page (and a few other pages.) Lithopsian has refused to engage with any discussion with me. I.e. States "And I'll say it one last time, stay off my talk page." They refuse to engage is discussion on talk pages, gaining consensus and refuses to offer anything is solving the actual problem. I.e. Such issues also appear at Talk: V399 Carinae  As User:Coffee has said: "@Arianewiki1: I spoke with Lithopsian regarding this matter, and they have refused to speak with you further. In lieu of me fully protecting this article, I request that you take this to WP:ANI and lodge your complaint there."  (I have not acted on this.)
 * So how do I gain the formal engagement to make edits here?
 * As for this particular page and the questionable edits were discussed in length under 'Given Magnitudes of Variable Stars' Talk:List of brightest stars starting here in July 2015, with Lithopsian unable to support any argument to support his contention my statements are/were wrong.
 * IMO, requesting some citation for this text is unnecessary because the text given is only a guide for users using this table to avoid contentions with non-specialised readers and editors. (It is why I added this originally text.) The proviso of this article clearly states "Any exact order of the visual brightness of stars is not perfectly defined for the following reasons:" Methodology often depends on the researcher and the available data being used, but the principles are fairly simple defined to satisfy most. Lithopsian falsely accuses of 'personal research', even though I cite examples within the Talk page and NOT the article.
 * My support for including the contentious edit was explained as follows: "Betelgeuse, as exampled here has the magnitude of +0.42, whose range of variability is +0.2 to +1.2 - a range of 1.0 magnitudes over a main period of 5.7 years. If the quoted value in the table is the 'average', then the magnitude quoted should be +0.7 not +0.42. If you look at the AAVSO light curve displayed on the Betelgeuse page under the heading "Recent studies", the line draw through the peaks of the maxima, find the magnitude of +0.42. At +0.7, being the alleged average, the number of points below a line through +0.7 is about 15%-20% - showing clearly this is not an average value."
 * The actual table in the article now says "0.50 (0.2 - 1.2var)". (I didn't add this.) This very close to the value of +0.42, which is the average maximum brightness determined over many cycles. The text in question explains how this is derived in just in simple terms. (Note the average magnitude is not +0.7, derived as the average of +0.2 and +1.2, as explained in the article note too.)
 * As for deeper knowledge on magnitudes, User:Tarlneustaedter / User:Tarl N. [] has already been explained by me some of these issues (which are not very straightforward.) The reverting of this edit seems a bit unfair within this context, especially in light of my own expertise on variable star analysis determining periods and behaviour of light curves using Fourier analysis software. In light of this, this current revert of this edit seems perplexing, especially not explaining the revert but instead just begins blaming/targeting the editor.
 * User:Tarl N. only complaint here is that the text is uncited, even though I've explained exactly why.
 * I have already tried to improve this text further, and will try to formally cite it.
 * Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I should have also said that a preexisting discussion on brightness and averages appears on Betelgeuse, showing the text here is not contentious at all. Note: Although not really necessary, I have just added a citation on this issue, which can be reviewed and verified here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not strictly broken WP:3RR here, so this complaint becomes immediately invalid.
 * Furthermore, the statement by User:Tarl N. in a WP:ANI stating "...increasingly shrill statements that either he's "proven it" or that it's commonsense so needs no citation are irritating." are neither objective nor extends to edits follow WP:GF nor, incidentally, have they follow the rules in reporting WP:3RR incidents. I request that either these be directly withdrawn here or possible sanctions instead be used towards User:Tarl N. for ignoring them.
 * Lastly, the words "Presumably the statement that he's proven" is sexist, and should be expressed as neutral gender. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This section isn't/wasn't the place to debate the merits of the particular edit, that belonged on the article's talk page six reverts ago. The complaint was filed due to your edit warring behaviour, and in particular your contempt for the possibility of administrative sanctions (User talk:Arianewiki1). I mention above that I may not be the best person to be involved, because of previous run-ins with you, which is why I brought this here - someone more objective needs to address the issues. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 13:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Enough is enough. Saying "...and in particular your contempt for the possibility of administrative sanctions." is plainly silly. You must prove beyond doubt that there is a violation of the WP:3RR rule and show that attempts has just been made to gain consensus or discuss the issues on the Talk page. The dispute IMO is basically saying that the statements need to be cited, which is not the case. The text in question has been written to explain the order of stars by brightness, but the problem is there is no absolute way of defining it as the data can be interpreted in different ways. I.e. There is no "right' answer. My 'contempt' is your arguments for a complaint is quite feeble and weak, especially is that you've made not attempt to prove the argument in the Talk page.
 * So far, your arguments fail because you have not proven the case towards Edit warring, and it seems that the administrators looking at the evidence concur. What is questionable here is the motives behind the complaint, which from your response here, is now attacking an editor and not the complaint. Frankly, you own words do look more like a personal attack or payback for some past indiscretion rather than address the problem. I.e. By saying: "...because of previous run-ins with you, which is why I brought this here" clearly display the desire for WP:PA rather than the specific problems of WP:3RR. Furthermore this revert by you was clearly made for other reasons, because I have made significant efforts to explain my point of view and have explained why it is very difficult to maintain a definitive list by magnitude. Arianewiki1 (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. There isn't a 3RR violation, but User:Arianewiki1 is surely capable of editing more diplomatically than is shown here. You've been blocked twice before for edit warring, once for a week. Since you appear to be a real content contributor, it's in your interest to be more harmonious. As another editor told you last June, EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

User:NVG13DAO reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: and numerous earlier ones, and now two more since this report was first made:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, also at WP:THQ,

Comments:

Edits have repeatedly added the same unsourced material, and most have also removed sourced text. Editor has claimed sockpuppetry on behalf of other editors, but has not presented evidence thereof. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Behaviour continues next day with the removal of cited material after warnings given. Attempts to add uncited info with the rationale "if information awaits a citation, that does not mean information is incorrect". I'm seeing this as a COI issue and have expressed that concern on his/her talk page.   Aloha27   talk  14:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The evidence of sock puppetry is there in the under the page's View History -- the same self-promoting vanity additions in the same language, throughout January and recurring now. This is not a war, it's a siege -- someone wants to use this entry for their own self-promotion and to further their own agenda, rather than present impartial and relevant information, and that must not happen.NVG13DAO (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. User:NVG13DAO is critical of material added by User:Msturm 8 while making unsourced additions of his own, regarding another film about JT LeRoy that said to be just released. He also deletes references to the NY Times for no apparent reason. This happens over and over. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Tarl N. in association with User:3primetime3 reported by User:103.9.40.129 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

Users being reported:
 * (3x reversions one after another) and
 * (change of user account for 4th consecutive reversion).

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:

Noted edit history of User Tarl N. shows they have a habit of removing viable content from others by making reverts to previous versions. User seems disinterested in collaborating with others to improve content.

User made no attempt to provide own content in the case above, and simply reverted without contributing new or re-written content. User made no suggestions via talk to improve existing new content before reverting it, in this instance. User never discussed content before reverting it.

User shows no instinctive initiative for discussing and creating content, and tends to rely on Wikipedia "lawyering" to excuse their essentially disruptive and unproductive behaviours. Shows no tolerance for the contributions of others. Apparent lack of empathy. Shows no good faith in edits from others. Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor. Uses terms such as "idiocy" to describe another contributor, exhibiting a limited capacity for making any effort to understand or work with others.

User seems generally uninterested in providing counterbalancing information in articles where content might involve complex histories or accounts from a variety of sources. User seems to favour censorship over collaborating to provide a greater range of information, and appears opposed to increasing understanding or facilitating understanding by sharing knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me also point out that the anon did not listen to any of the warnings left by Tarl and Favonian on his page and deleted them. Both Tarl and I have also discussed the edit in great length on both his page, my page, and the anon's page about the edits by the fact his edits violate WP:NPOV, yet the user continue mentioning that it's 100% correct information.
 * Let's go over the dubious claims that the anon created:
 * "User made no attempt to provide own content in the case above, and simply reverted without contributing new or re-written content." I may be wrong here, but isn't it okay to revert edits if they are published incorrectly?  This isn't required of an editor.
 * "User seems disinterested in collaborating with others to improve content." Incorrect, see here, here, and here. Tarl has responded all of them with valid reasons to the reverts, yet the user continues to state otherwise.
 * "Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor. Uses terms such as "idiocy" to describe another contributor, exhibiting a limited capacity for making any effort to understand or work with others." He did this because of your edits here and here.  You simply copied the warning onto his talk page and tampered with signatures.  He's also not calling you an "idiot", but rather the actions.
 * "Exhibits a disparaging point of view about edits made by an "IP" contributor." I have yet to see this.
 * "User seems to favour censorship over collaborating to provide a greater range of information, and appears opposed to increasing understanding or facilitating understanding by sharing knowledge." Besides the false warning left by the anon, Tarl has never ignored any messages about this matter. I have yet to find an instance of when he censors your post.
 * This has been beautifully written, until you realize that there's actually no backbone in evidence with this. You've also never left Template:An3-notice onto either of our walls to notify us about this.  How nice of you.
 * -Primetime (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In careful thought;
 * please consider that "the anon" (being a freelance IP contributor disparagingly referred to by User 3primetime3 in this instance) did clearly heed the "edit warring" antics of User Tarl N. and User 3primetime3 and so took up their challenge in reporting them here.


 * The reported user's Primetime reply on this page is clearly partisan and deliberately misrepresentative. They fail to address any of the other users whose contributions User Tarl N. disruptively removed through reversion, as can be seen in a quick perusal of Tarl N.'s user history.


 * User Tarl N. has no valid reason for removing content by reversion, other than an apparently intolerant temperament and propensity for "edit warring" by insisting on reverting valid content contributed by many other users.


 * There are more constructive ways to improve content provided in good faith than removal, including adding citation and or providing counterbalancing (cited) material. In this instance User Tarl N. could have discussed such content in well considered talk statements before initial reversion, but didn't. The user could have set an example by rewriting the content in a style they preferred, but failed to do that as well.


 * In good faith it would be fitting to remind User Tarl N. and their accomplice accounts to exercise more empathy and compassion. Or to encourage them to collaborate productively with others on challenging topics. On the other hand, if such users as these have in the past (as shown in previous reports on this page at time of writing) asked for others to be blocked or banned for reverting content then perhaps such action should be taken against themselves.


 * Neither User Tarl N. nor any contributions made under the account 3primetime3 were of any "great length" in this matter, contrary to User Primetime's misleading and inaccurate claim that they were. They preferred instead to revert edits and paste "boiler-plate" copy onto talk pages. It would seem fitting to treat this matter without much waste of time in response, considering their own efficient approach in dispensing with much talk previously. Investigate their accounts (and permanently ban them for often disruptively reverting the content of a number of good faith contributors), or if time constrains then simply give them all a cooling off suspension period of a week or two in view of their plainly disruptive techniques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Extensive back-and-forth on talk pages on this case (mine and the IPs), you'll see a fair amount of it in the history for User talk:103.9.40.129. Including a warning by @User:Favonian for edit warring, after the IP had deleted my previous warning and copied it to my talk page. On my talk page history, you'll see where the 3RR warning was precisely copied, making it look like I had warned myself. Until SineBot came by, forcing the IP to fix up the signatures. Truly amazing. May I suggest that since Favonian has already touched this case, perhaps that's the right administrator to close it? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note that another edit war is brewing at History of Vienna, see here. I wonder if this complaint is going to be amended to include @User:Green Cardamom as another sock of me. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 03:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We both have green names. Clearly a matching sock. -- Green  C  03:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – Filing IP blocked 48 hours. He is the only one to break 3RR in this dispute. The IP's additions at Anschluss certainly look to be original research, and he is warring to keep his changes in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ŠJů reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the relevant text restored and extended by sources"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 741149245 by Khajidha (talk) - my god, there are basic facts!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 741149003 by Khajidha (talk), a vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 741148274 by Khajidha (talk), Bohemia was never a "region" nor a "province""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 741147146 by Chris troutman (talk), Bohemia was never a "region" but is a land"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Before you start edit warring */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Before you start edit warring */ I recommend you take some time off Wikipedia, today."
 * 3)   "/* Before you start edit warring */ asking for a second opinion"


 * Comments:

I'm not fluent in Czech and the only Czech I know on Wikipedia recommended I file a report. This is a content issue but ŠJů has passed three reverts in 24hrs and the responses I'm getting are partisan claptrap, not a discussion of source material. I don't know if ŠJů is a good-faith contributor or not but we can't be edit warring, regardless. Also note I've already returned the page to status quo ante once today and don't intend to do so again. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Regrettably, the edit war was caused by two users who have zero knowledge about the item and zero capability and will to judge substance of the edits, but have no restraints for absolutelly nonsense allegation of me from "POV" or some "partisan" actions. How to discuss with editors who have no knowledges and no serious objections and make nonsense reverts to the version with errors and defects?


 * Yes, maybe I (and not only I?) violated the 3RR rule, from the helplessness from the situation, but I also completed the requested sources to my edits (paradoxically, just nothing previous in the poor article have its sources). Both of the two edit wariors can do similarly and find sources and verify the facts they doubt and don't know. However, they seem prefer assaults, fights and conflicts above the constructive work. I don't prefer to waste my (and your) time in meaningless personal allegations and defends. Who is able to improve the articles, let do so. Who is not able nor willing, let himself not bother editors and damage articles. --ŠJů (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * As a non-partisan observer may I suggest both users take some time away from Wikipedia and be prepared to make up and be friends on return. If the only reason for your difference of opinion is whether Bohemia should be named a province or region or a land, then count yourselves lucky and preserve yourselves and Bohemia in good faith by having a rest.


 * Your situation could be resolved on return by agreeing to acknowledge all three terms might be reasonably applied. Each User in this instance could agree to provide cited arguments in favour of each disputed term and include all these in the article, under a minor sub-heading named "Academic discussion on the status of Bohemia" (or such similar title).


 * Please, be open to understanding others. Explore your semantic differences by sharing and agreeing to publish cited descriptions for each phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My edit contained more repairs of inacuracies and addings of missing detail information. However, they were reverted en bloc. Of course, I can resign to quality of the article and go back away from whichever vandal, ignorant etc. The world will not crash from some small nonsenses and errors in one Wikipedia article. However, I nevertheless feel some liability. Theree's nothing for discussion on the facts that Czech lands are lands and the Czech constitution mentioned them etc. There is no real controversy in the whole edit. Only there appears two editors who like conflicts, and one of them who love to create assualt pages as this one with precisely cited diffs etc. I would like to not support this his hobby and not to waste time on it. --ŠJů (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a valid discussion. "A land" really does express the romanticism of Bohemia quite well. To some English speakers the words "region" and "province" could evoke red tape and modern bureaucratic divisions on maps, whereas people from other parts of the world might read "region" or "province" in ancient tribal or more loosely territorial terms. "A land" evokes an un-possessed natural landscape, beyond anything that might be expected in a Kingdom and a precursor to Crown land concepts. These terms together construct a historical picture in changing semantics and attitudes to property. Perhaps it is a good idea, in the age of the internet, to remind readers that "lands" really do exist outside story books and that such fairy tale concepts are founded in ancient concepts of real estate and relative environmental freedom. Be interesting to see what happens to the article. In any case I do like the phrase "a land", it is still used by folk such as us and surely there must be other citable evidence for it in oral as well as paper history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:TimothyHorrigan reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Discretionary sanctions - 1RR violation */ new section"


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

The article is under 1RR restrictions, which TimothyHorrigan apparently considers bogus. Since September 14, this editor has repeatedly added the same content to the lead against repeated objections from other editors (also a violation of the discretionary sanctions restriction prominently advertised in an edit notice), while bypassing discussion on the talk page. In this diff (his third revert in 24 hours), he changes content contrary to the outcome of a recent RfC.- MrX 00:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Well this is really unsurprising. It is a good idea to expect such page will be controversial at the moment. Suggestion: don't bother edit warring it, who in current circumstances would believe anything published on the page either way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The user does not appear to have been warned before they made their 2nd and 3rd revert: that said, there is a whopping notice about 1RR on the article itself, that this user could hardly have failed to notice. Since this is a slow-moving edit-war, I believe it will resume soon enough, and so I'm inclined to block here. If no other admin weighs in in the next few hours, I will go ahead and block. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

User:74.76.67.208 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Semi, Block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It is clearly a secondary source. On top of it the original sources are more than sufficiant. Either actually read the article or take to the talk page why this fact should not be included."
 * 2)  "You can deny the truth all you want Steve but  I have never been wrong. College research institutions are one of the most reliable sources you can have. Please get the help you need Steve."
 * 3)  "Sources are hard evidence and clear as day."
 * 4)  "Sorry but here's more hard evidence. You clearly did not read the article. Undid revision 741132220 by Stevietheman (talk)"
 * 5)  "You have no idea what you're talking about. There was clearly already a source and I directed you to it. Have several seats."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/Jenimcphersoncow Bahooka (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the IP has been blocked two months per the WP:SPI complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  5th revert in same time frame added at 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Dbdb has now engaged on the talk page, but continues to revert to desired version. Meters (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the page's edit history, Dbdb was concerned about the removal of an entire section. It seems the section just disappeared without any attempt from the removalist to re-write or refine the section. Why not leave the section up for now, when it covers a matter relevant to the topic?


 * To resolve the situation, have a think about what worries you in the section you wished to remove. Then try re-writing a draft in a style you can cope with, before suggesting your version to the creator on a talk page. Facilitate quality publication covering the theme or meme discussed in the removed section. It is contemporary and appropriate for internet editors to discuss memes associated with Wikipedia topics.


 * Take the pressure off yourselves by letting the section be. It is a valid contribution, if hastily drafted. Think about ways to strengthen the content instead of just removing it.


 * Be brave: nobly make peace and help the other editor find more citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the IP who suddenly showed up today had actually looked at the history he or she would have seen that I was not involved in the edit war. I made one minor removal of a direct quote that was not cited. Other editors have been removing the bulk of the material. I simply raised a 3RR report on a clear violation of 3RR. In fact, Dbdb has now added the material 6 times and is at at 5RR in 14 hours.  This addition is contested and is under discussion on the talk page. It's up to the editor attempting to add it to get consensus from other editors that it is appropriate for the article and properly sourced. It should remain out until that happens. I will restore the original state of the article pending talk page consensus and this 3RR investigation. Meters (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the User who claims he was "not involved" was really not involved, then such user would never have involved themselves in removing content or reporting the incident. In any case, User Meters who claims he was "not involved" has clearly removed content under the guise of "undoing" and ought be admonished for misrepresenting such involvement.


 * User Meters (of socks, as their user page would suggest) might improve relations if he considered how to work diplomatically and supportively with conscientious restorers, whoever such persons may be, before reporting them or instead of engaging in sock puppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I clearly and correctly stated the extent of my involvement in that section of the article up to the time I made the above post, and I clearly stated why I was going to restore the article to its pre-edit war state. Accusing me of socking with no evidence is a personal attack. Please remove it. Meters (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Is it possible that User:Dbdb and the IP who posted above could be the same person? The encouragement to 'nobly make peace' doesn't fit well with a pattern of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, the IP is all over this page in multiple discussions, plus being investigated for a separate edit warring incident. And calling everyone a sock (quack quack). -- Green  C  13:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I got Oshwah's attention on IRC, and he's semi-protected the page for a week. Dbdb seems to have attempted block evasion using two similar (but different) IPs:  and .  Neither are currently blocked. -- Gestrid (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbdb Meters (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * 1)


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Comments:

The user Lemongirl942 has been editing the first sentence of the lead for one month to push the idea that Han Taiwanese are Chinese and to add the term "Taiwan Han Chinese" to the sentence. Although the user is unable to provide relevant evidence on the talk page, he repeatedly reverts the article to his version. Lysimachi (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh great! A retaliatory report now? That too with a bunch of old reverts. Do your realise that you are the one who was edit warring against multiple users now? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Content Comment; Well, the Han Taiwanese article is a loaded front, just the first sentence has seventeen citations. That is extreme WP:OVERCITE and a perfect example of in-article conflict. If you have five reliable sources saying one thing and five reliable sources disagreeing with that statement, then you only need 1 or 2 of those sources to verify that there is a disagreement and apply due weight by stating both positions. Even in a 5 v 2, if the sources are reliable and is stating a opposing statement, it will suffice. There is no need for 20 citations across one sentence. Add; A quick look at Han Chinese gives me the impression that "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what overcite has to do with the current report. Regarding the equivalence of the terms, please note Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. The overcite is an observation and as I said, a comment on content not the report. 2. The RS that are cited to statements within Wikipedia are reliable sources, even if Wikipedia is not. For that matter, Taiwanese people says the exact same thing with different reliable sources as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked both pages. There is no proof that everyone thinks "Han", "Han people" and "Han Chinese" are the exact same thing, that every author uses them interchangeably in any context, or that "people" and "Chinese" are synonyms.
 * Even if you think these are the exact same thing, could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent", as Lemongirl942 repeatedly did? Lysimachi (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * .... That is in part a disappointing response. You've built yourself a strawman and then proceeded to knock it down. I have made no such claims as those that you have presented (for clarity; "that everyone thinks" I have only said what I think). I'll take a stab at addressing the actually worthwhile question you have; could you explain why "of Han descent" in the lead sentence must be changed to "of Han Chinese descent" that depends only on the sources available. To me it does not appear that a distinction between Han descent and Han Chinese descent exists, they are synonymous. I would find it relatively unusual for a Han not to be of ethnic Chinese descent (that does not mean they are or identify as being Chinese) given that the Han people is a reference to the Han Dynasty of China. Where else could the Han Taiwanese come from but China? it sounds to me so similar to Australians - where else could they have originally come from but the United Kingdom? Mr rnddude (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

What also concerns me is the user's behavior of removing large amounts of text without first discussing it or tagging the problems. It seems that he was only trying to prove his point. He even removed the same text again after additional references explicitly mentioning Han Taiwanese were added. His additional edits include removing sourced text, without first discussion, based on peer-reviewed studies that explicitly mention Han Taiwanese. It seems all his edits on Han Taiwanese are adding "Chinese" to the lead, demonstrating he has a point, or removing texts he doesn't like, instead of really trying to improve the article. Lysimachi (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * [] is getting close to breaching civility rules. Either way, it all seems very silly. (like most nationalistic disputes on Wikipedia) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this was uncivil. Redacted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Good work. It takes far more class to accept a mistake than to make an excuse. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The reporter needs a WP:BOOMERANG for tendentious editing and edit-warring. This is another POV-pushing editor who is inappropriately pushing a nationalistic agenda.  He has been WP:BAITing Lemongirl942 for days.  He has been told repeatedly to stop edit-warring, but continues to argue minutae and push the issue. What I am seeing is a bad case of WP:OWNership and a bad case of using mockery and imitation—anything a user does to caution this person, he will promptly to do them. Not good   Montanabw (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; if anything, the axe is going to drop on the reporter. -- slakr \ talk / 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Lysimachi reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please bring it to talk, Montanabw, stop nonsense edit war. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:LEAD, WP:REDUNDANCY, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:SYN"
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ add"
 * 2)   "/* Taiwan Han Chinese */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* "Han Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese Hans" */ reply"
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Comments:

Although not a 3RR violation, I am asking for an indefinite block for this editor who has already been blocked twice previously for edit warring on this article. The editor has no intention of understanding that discussions are important and will continue to edit war and WP:OWN their version of the article. They have been blocked twice already and I see this as a severe case of WP:IDHT. More importantly, I also see language issues and often they never reply properly to queries. This is wasting an enormous of time and I think the way forward is an indefinite block. If not an indefinite block at least the editor should be restricted to suggest changes on the talk page and not edit the article directly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am asking for an indefinite block... Why not an indef or temporary pageban? If the editwarring is on one article than it seems far less punitive to PBAN them than to indef block them. Or if preferred, a combination of both a short escalated block (say 1 week) and a PBAN (say 3 months or whatever). An indef at this point, with only a 24 hour and 48 block is an extreme punitive measure. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on my previous interactions with the editor, I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN. They have done this edit warring on another page as well and considering that this has been going on for a month or more, my patience has run out. Part of the problem also seems to be English comprehension. I have tried discussing this at DR (moderated by, but the editor stopped responding) and also at ANI but nothing came of it --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am highly sceptical that they would adhere to a PBAN - I like to think of it another way, if they adhere to the PBAN and their other contributions are of a good caliber, then, carry on. If they fail to adhere to the PBAN, WP:ROPE at work. I'll take a look at the DR and ANI threads, my thinking may change, you never know. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This open case was archived by the bots without a resolution, I have undone the bot's actions which resulted in several closed discussions being re-instated. I have re-archived those discussions + 1 extra finished one. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; several editors indicate a growing consensus against 's repeated changes. Given several blocks already, this needs to stop. -- slakr  \ talk / 00:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User: User:MarnetteD (Result: declined, no vio)
Apologies for everyone on this page if I am doing things incorrectly I am very new to wikipedia and overwhelmed with the process of trying to engage in a dispute resolution. And I think I need administrator intervention to help. I have just created an account yesterday. I did this for the purpose of improving the standards of several marxist related topics. However, I'm faced with a lot of trouble with one user in particular. I may be in the wrong on the process so I apologize. User:MarnetteD is engaged in edit warring with myself.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I have posted my concerns on his talk page but he continued to delete them, not respond. I have posted a notification on his talk page about reporting him here, he has deleted it. I have created a talk page on the Leninism topic to help mediate a discussion, he has ignored it and continues to revert any changes I have made without any mention of the merits of the edits. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I spent a lot of time last night trying to improve the Leninism articles according to Wikipedia standards. Can someone please direct me where things are going wrong or is this user engaged in a malicious reversion? He has reverted the edits numerous times and the page is categorized as a start article. Requesting for bold edits, but I cannot do anything because this user continues to twart every edit.

I hope someone can help direct me on mistakes in the process.CrisisSandwich (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note: a) This report is malformed. b) I have only made two edits in relation to this persons removal of content from the article c) I have taken part in the discussion on the article talk page and d) the new account was created because the IP that they had been editing from was blocked. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * + -- slakr  \ talk / 00:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Therealjuice215 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly insisted on capitalizing second words in section headers (that's wrong here; see MOS:HEADERS) while replacing the accurate word "favorable" in the "generally favorable reviews" text from Metacritic with the false word "mixed." It's beyond my comprehension why boilerplate edit summaries are permitted for mobile edits, but because this truly awful idea is our reality, pretty much every edit has been summarized with the lying text "Fixed typo." This user has never responded to several attempts to engage in discussion over this, instead reverting User:Xboxmanwar and myself with the predictable, dishonest explanation. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 18:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Signal boost
Trying to keep the archiving bot at bay. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 18:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for long-term warring. During September they reverted about twenty times at Major Key (album). User has a bee in their bonnet about capitalization of the second word in section headers. Since there is no reply to warnings and no negotiation, it's hard to tell if this will ever stop. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

For Goodness Sake
What a shame that a User was blocked for simply capitalising heading letters! Wikipedia has really gone too far to allow such blocking. If capitalisation was really that important, somebody would have written a bot to automatically standardise capitalisation of all headers.

I advocate apologising to the blocked User for inappropriately limiting their activities for such minor indiscretion as use of Upper Case. It really does seem trivial. One wonders whose bonnet really has the bee in it.

Style notes: some typists only use Upper Case for the first letter of a heading because that is more time efficient for them than pressing the shift key for the first letter of every word. Longer headings also tend to read more naturally written in sentence style. However these typographic purists, which include many of us, needn't think themselves better than anyone else less sensible.

Whatever the idiosyncrasies of deviant capitalists, we must ask ourselves if they ought be treated so harshly by a community once focussed on creating shared content. Using upper case in such reported instance would seem hardly worth a blockage, if that is all they did.

Good grief, I've seen people who write with Caps Lock on all the time and it doesn't bother me a bit! Contrary to popular myth some such folk aren't necessarily "shouting" or even trying to be disruptive, in some situations they're either blind or comics or manually inept and keep pressing Caps Lock by mistake. I know one elderly typist who used Caps because he was too short-sighted to read lower case easily. Such sillyness ought make us smile, instead of becoming miserably punitive to weaker typographists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.9.40.129 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly impressed that you took the time to type all this out, and I'm glad you managed to save your edit before you got blocked for edit warring. Your effort here won't change anybody's mind because you're a barking lunatic but hey, thanks anyways. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - You should probably strike that out per NPA, I was dragged to ANI last year for simply telling someone to go to their nearest optician so it's probably not a good idea to give someone a reason to drag you there too :). – Davey 2010 Talk 22:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I seriously did think twice about posting it; of course, the hesitation came right after I saved changes. And I don't know. I still kind of like it. Because flippant tone aside, I was sincerely annoyed that I'd spent any time of my life at all reading that. Had this person not gotten blocked for edit warring, they might have gotten it for socking or vandalism, if all those walls of text count as vandalism. So I'll make you a deal: I'll keep it, and if the worst-case scenario comes to pass and I end up eating a wheelbarrow full of shit, I'll remind you to tell me that you told me so. Because you're right: it's a very real possibility that I'll be sorry I did any of this. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 23:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * - Your choice, I just didn't want you giving them a reason that was all but hey it seems you're well prepared anyway lol, Anyways happy editing :) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 00:08, 26 September 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:29, 26 September 2016
 * 2) 20:38, 26 September 2016

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Editor was aware of these 1RR restrictions and was at the forefront of getting them imposed on all Kashmir conflict related pages but not abiding by them himself  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Response - misunderstands the meaning if "revert". This was queried on my talk page] and two admins,  and, have explained it. Sheriff would do well to study their responses. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, those two edits are different than the ones reported here. Secondly, I disagree with RP's description about 1RR there, it should take the same definition as 3RR. Your two reverts are not consecutive edits and WP:3RR does not say that it is fine to revert more than three times in 24 hours provided the content being reverted is different. To me, this looks like an attempt to game the system. RP and you would both do well by reading WP:3RR, The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. so if we put this same definition in the spectrum of 1RR, it should read like this, The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Edit warring specifically describes 1RR as such that there is no ambiguity, The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". I am not sure what to call it if its not facilitating just one editor.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You violated 1RR with the two reverts. The only reason I'm not blocking you is because you relied on the advice of . However, that advice was incorrect. Therefore, you are warned that if you violate 1RR or 3RR in the future, you cannot claim you didn't know that the reverts do not have to be of the same material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I was careless in my reply to Kautilya. Regardless, I think Sherriff has a point about 1RR not working and that needs some rethinking. I'm busy the rest of today (and most of tomorrow) but will definitely revisit the sanction later this week. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: The user has reverted the article four times in a matter of minutes Avaya1 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted 4 times. It was a straight up BLP violation. Avaya1 was putting in allegations about a person into an article basically to smear them. This person was mentioned in the presidential debate last night. So Avaya1 was violating BLP in order to push POV. Per WP:BLPCRIME: ''""A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.""''

BLP violations are generally exempted from the 3RR rule and I believed, in good faith, that this one was serious enough to have to remove it immediately (especially since there have been attempts to try and humiliate this person before). Of course I still believe that. Also, it's not like this information is of crucial importance. It's about something - an unfounded allegation - that happened... 18 years ago. Eighteen. Somehow, for the ten years of this article's previous existence NO ONE thought this was important enough to include in the article. But today, the day after this person gets mentioned in the presidential debate, Avaya1 (and one other editor) immediately rush to the article and start with the BLP smears. Apparently now this must absolutely be included! I mean, Avaya1 could have waited to get consensus, he could've initiated discussion on talk, he could've started an RfC, he could've taken it to WP:BLPN. Not like the article would suffer if he waited a day or two (it was just fine without it for ten years). But no, somehow the info had to be included immediately! So he edit warred. This is extremely disruptive behavior even if Avaya1 himself only tip-toed to the 3RR line and since apparently, he's been around, he should know better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And ffs, somebody semi-protect the article already, there's already a bunch of IPs showing up to cause trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP matter, so it should qualify for the BLP exemption to 3RR. I'll note that political campaign often result in the use of sharp elbow around here, and anons are now getting into the reversion act (putting it back in).  I figure once this is brought up here the BLP violation should be removed (if and until it's decided that it's not a BLP violation) and the article locked. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected. There is no reason for VM to be blocked. Plus there was a reasonable case to be made that he was acting to protect the BLP. Dr.   K.  05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Smallbones and Dr.K. There is no violation here; VM's reverts fall squarely within the WP:3RRBLP provision (a reasonable, colorable, good-faith BLP concern prompting the removal (pending discussion) of text related to unsubstantiated criminal allegations). This report should be closed without action. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:184.89.97.229 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 741537143 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 741536849 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 741534939 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 741532178 by Cullen328 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

BLP violations. Will not stop. Dr.  K.  03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=741288960]


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=741323368&oldid=741292557] "Undid revision 741292557 by Frietjes (talk) did not use IBID, no fix needed - STOP LOOK FOR UNNEEDED FIXES"
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=741434463&oldid=741328729] "Undid revision 741328729 by Frietjes (talk) again not IBID type to the point that they can be broken"
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=741435359&oldid=741434720] "Undid revision 741434720 by Frietjes (talk)"
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=741435956&oldid=741435493] "Undid revision 741435493 by Frietjes (talk) again per BRD you were reversed do not change until discussion is done"

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASpshu&type=revision&diff=741436100&oldid=739497292]
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defunct_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=741438049]
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Counter report: CITEVAR, Canvassing, etc.
Both Kintetsubuffalo and Frietjes were notified per WP:CITEVAR that they must discuss Cite changes before they are made not after. So Frietjes should be in violation at 1 edit
 * 1) 15:23, 26 September 2016  References § unexplained
 * 2) 15:49, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID (As point out in edit summary, talk page discussion & at WP:IBID talk page, not IBID)
 * 3) 20:15, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID-type citations per WP:ACCESSIBILITY (not in WP:accessibility)
 * 4) 13:43, 27 September 2016 the discussion is on the talk page, please participate (I was at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources)
 * 5)  again, the discussion is on the talk page (I was there trying to respond, edit conflict, plus she was bold and reverted; you know BRD)


 * Discussion:
 * 13:48, 27 September 2016 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
 * joined discussion at talk page


 * CITEVAR warning

Per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." per arbitration committee ruling in 2006. So, once informed like at the user Diffs #1, Frietjes should have gone to the talk page per CITEVAR. Kintetsubuffalo even claims she is "expert", so she should even need the warning.


 * Vote canvassing by Frietjes
 * Kintetsubuffalo
 * Gadget850


 * Warning about vote cavassing:
 * 13:58, 27 September 2016


 * Kintetsubuffalo "hand waving" the vote canvassing (good way to keep things off the topic)


 * attacks me to attempt to force me to shut up over my block log: "Spshu, you are the last person to talk about edit-warring,..." "Stop being paranoid and get to the issue at hand." Deciding to attack and calling me a liar/paranoid.

I responded to show that I am not a liar. I move on back to the issue at hand in the same post. Then in his response mixes up what members of WP:Scouting did and what Frietjes did at this article. Attacks as if I OWN, which if I am it is an except via CITEVAR as the original author sets the stage for how cites are done (if done in non-error way, if this edit use "ibid", which it did not). Spshu (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This scenario is a hopeless cause. This kind of retaliatory "discussion" and edit warring behavior has unfortunately become the norm for the defending editor, and it appears as if there's no intention of changing on their part. Given how long this behavior has been going on, I suggest that an admin consider an indefinite block. Electric Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page 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: I didnt since I am late to the game here, but very actively discussed on his talk page

Comments:

There are a ton of other edit warring for unsourced content on FIBA Basketball World Cup and Basketball at the Summer Olympics. It is very clear that this new user is here solely to express his opinion without consideration for WP rules. He mostly has been edit warring with. -  Galatz Talk  16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: even after posting this and posting the warning on his talk page he is continuing to edit war on the page. -  Galatz Talk  01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: )
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:

3 of the links are the same and the first and last are well over 24 hours apart? Zaostao (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Blatant lie. User Zaostao knows full well that he made 3 reverts in his edit war, waited for 24 hours to pass, and resumed warring again. He also knows he's already been blocked once for edit warring on this page and multiple editors continued to warn him about his behavior for weeks before this report. He has removed at least one such warning from his talk page yesteday, see this diff. His edit warring on this page is a months-long attempt to whitewash the Jared Taylor page by distancing the subject of the article from the terms "white supremacism" and "white nationalism", despite all of it being extremely well-sourced and more experienced editors explaining to him, for months now, why his attempted POV edits run contrary to Wikipedia policy. He has not shown any sign of understanding this or slowing down his edit warring and this latest attempt is one of many. Rockypedia (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit the diffs like you did here without stating that you did as it makes comments made before you changed the diffs seem out of place. And again, there was no consensus on the BLP noticeboard to keep the contentious white supremacist label in the lede as it was, so a NPOV editor respecting BLP would have tried to reach consensus and not just reverted to reinsert the LABEL without in-text attribution. Also, this is more of the same of what stated at the bottom of the previous filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article—which is why I have said below that I think this BLP issue would benefit from mediation of some form. Zaostao (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation. However, has constantly been edit warring on this page. He has been previously sanctioned for violating 3RR on this page, as well as violated 3RR on subsequent occasions. This user shows no signs of ceasing edit warring, despite multiple editors talking to them about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't comment on the 3RR issue, but I will point out there was a discussion that I raised at WP:BLP/N with unclear consensus results regarding the lede wording, and the discussion continued with again unclear results on Talk:Jared Taylor. I will point out that this is not a clear case of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (as where we'd normally allow 3RR to be ignored) as the material in question, it seems all parties agree should be in the article, it's just a matter of where it is located, that still is a BLP issue but one that shouldn't be edit warred over. --M ASEM (t) 01:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Zaostao was blocked for edit warring on the lead of this article per 3RR back in July per this report. A report about similar warring early this September was declined, per the rationale A follow-up did occur at BLPN, and can be seen here. It is not easy to tell if a consensus was reached about how to describe Jared Taylor in the lead. I personally don't think that Zaostao's edits are exempted from 3RR enforcement due to BLP, because that clause of 3RRNO is intended for removal of unsourced defamation, which this is not. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to report this myself because, as correctly summarized, this is a continuation of an edit war from before as well as the BLPN and ongoing talk page discussions. I agree with Ed vis-a-vis 3RRNO.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The first and last diffs are well over 24 hours apart. This is the continuation of a BLP issue which went to the BPL/N but was archived with unclear consensus about keeping the contentious labels in the lede without in-text attribution. Again, as I say below, I think the BLP issue needs mediation of some kind, but I'd be fine with imposing a 1RR restriction on myself on this article in the future to avoid needless side disputes like this. Zaostao (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring even if not doing >3 reverts in 24 hours. You're continuing the same disruptive behavior that resulted in your last block. This issue is not about defamatory content or some other BLP issue that is exempt from edit warring restrictions. This is widely sourced content that you happen to disagree with. Don't cry blp to justify this. I say this as some generally very accommodating to and hard line on blp concerns even for people I think are deplorable (e.g., on Roosh V).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion has been about BLP, and there was a >100,000 byte discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this very same issue so it's hardly a CRYBLP example. Also, you were the editor who reported for supposedly CRYBLP'ng on this very same article, which was not an example of CRYBLP. Zaostao (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As PeterTheFourth states, this isn't a 3RR violation. I agree with Masem that this is a BLP issue that should be discussed and not edit warred over, which is why I respected 3RR despite the possible 3RRBLP exception and was actively discussing the issue on the talk page, but also why I objected to this edit which made "white supremacist" (the issue of discussion) into the foremost description of the subject, despite no consensus to make such a change and when there was a clearly ongoing discussion about the contentious label on the article's talk page. I believe this BLP issue would benefit from some form of mediation as the BLP/N discussion ended with one side not responding and, as Masem states, unclear consensus. Zaostao (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guessing this is just gonna let sit until stale so it can be closed? I know this is contentious and I know it involves regular editors, but would like to see some resolution regardless of outcome.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Rico Alvarez reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  notice of "No edit warring"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Yazidis. (TW)"


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

The most recent edit on the article talk page was by me regarding a point over which Rico Alvarez has been edit warring. I never got a reply to my question. MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * The editor was also given a notice about their failure to use edit summaries, which they continued to ignore with their latest revert listed above. MPS1992 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Rico Alvarez seems to have an agenda & is not responsive to others. There is not a single edit summary for any of this editor's edits, including the 16 (as of this count) on Yazidis. This editor has removed valid categories from the page & has linked to the deleted Sharfadin article. I think that a temporary block to get this editor's attention & perhaps to respond is in order & long overdue. I am considering reverting the article to the.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27 reported by User:Sparkie82 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: with other editors

-- Edits add candidates to the infobox which do not meet agreed-to criteria --

NOTE TO ADMIN's: There is an IP (198.84.229.179) who is vandalizing the talk page. He made changes on 9/17 and again on 9/26. Please be aware that if you read the discussion today (9/26) after he make his edits, the thread was corrupted.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User Ramires451 is also vandalizing the talk page.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Before candidates began to be added by Prcc27:

(Note: There is a constant noise-level of drive-bys adding their favorite candidates to the infobox, but Prcc27 is a persistent case.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Note: I reverted that 9/5 edit and it was put back in. Then we went to the talk page, discussed it for a couple of weeks with no consensus for Prcc27 edit, so I reverted it on 9/22. Then...
 * 1)  Prcc27 adds a candidate
 * 1)  candidate added
 * 2)  another candidate added
 * 3)  revert again

other reverts by by Prcc27 during the September discussion:
 * 1)
 * 2)

06:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC) - And the war continues...
 * 1)  (this editor may not have known about the edit war/discussion - this is her first recent edit there and she started a new, duplicate discussion thread)
 * 2)
 * 3)

10:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)...
 * 1)
 * 2)

16:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Waited a couple of days for things to cool off, but...
 * 1)  Prcc27 reverted again within 15 minutes of edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016

Comments:

There is a long standing criterion for inclusion of candidates in the infobox of presidential election articles. Prcc27 has been trying to add a candidate that does not meet that criteria. We have discussed it at length. Prcc27 believes that write-in candidates should be included, but that is not the agreed-to criterion. I have asked Prcc27 to open a RfC if s/he would like to change the established criterion, but s/he continues to rv and argue for inclusion of write-ins without any consensus for that (although s/he contines to claim that there is a consensus for her edits). (Note: I don't get into many disputes so I'm not familiar with this form. Please excuse any mistakes in this submission.)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  12:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC isn't necessary for every dispute on a talk page, especially when many users were discussing it already and it has been discussed in the past. In the 2012 article candidates with sufficient write-in access were included. A month ago there was consensus to continue doing what we did in 2012 which was to include write-in access. Then this month that consensus was challenged but so far Sparkie82's viewpoint hasn't gained consensus. Please note that many of the links that they provided were not my reverts but rather edits by other people. Furthermore, my reverts were done several days apart from each other. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not the venue for discussing this, but for the record, the 38-hour-long, late August thread you cited above (consensus) did not gain the consensus you claim and on the same day of that discusion an edit was made to add your candidate to the infobox and was immediately reverted here and discussion of the issue continued (and continues) in the more extended discussion I cited above, which shows there is not consensus for changing the criterion to add the candidate you want.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  02:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * None of us violated WP:1RR. A dispute resolution is probably more appropriate than trying to get us blocked. And it will more likely result in us resolving the issue at hand. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, my edit at 08:49, 25 September 2016 has nothing to do with the dispute over the template. Someone boldly added this photo (which has been requested for deletion) and I reverted it per WP:BRD. I don't know why that edit is included in this report. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)‎ For whatever reason, one of the links basically just shows whatever the most recent edit at the article is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That link was mistakenly added as a diff to current, rather than an incremental diff. I fixed it.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  11:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I just fixed typos in user names above (Pcrr7 -> Pcrr27)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Sparkie82's actions
It appears that today's edit is the 2nd time has made a revert on this page that goes against consensus. The first time was on 14:30 24 August when they removed Castle right after there was unanimous consensus to include him. At the current discussion it is split between including candidates with sufficient ballot access/write-in access i.e. including Castle and McMullin or only including candidates with sufficient ballot access and not write-in access i.e. excluding Castle and McMullin. Today Sparkie82 only removed Castle (even though he has more ballot access than McMullin) but didn't remove McMullin and this went against both of the arguments at the talk page. Therefore if I did not revert Sparkie82 the page would have been inconsistent and would have went against both proposed critera for inbox inclusion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Warned user(s))
User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 


 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DV talk, Category talk, NPOVN, Talk: Serial Rapist, RfC,ANI

Comments:

User is on a month or so long war to remove a category from a dozen or so pages. These are the worst of the lot. After failing to get consensus in the first three discussions, they started an RfC to change the wording of the category, and then proceeded to continue to edit war. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Filing party is a tendentious editor who has obstinately refused to discuss or attempt to resolve the dispute. See Talk:Serial rapist for more. Contributor lied about reading sources and then proceeded to repeat himself with clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ONUS. jps (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh. User is too oblivious to realize I posted the references from the article. And yes, it is a content dispute, between them and about half a dozen other people over about a dozen articles. Timothy Joseph Wood  19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Timothy, you might wish to state the user you are referring to - just in case threads get separated. DrChrissy (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm one of the many editors reverted by jps. His response above is indicative of a pattern I believe intended to frustrate. Of all the above his argument that Castration is not necessarily gendered is the most incredible. Forced Prostitution, which lists "comfort gays" as one of only two subcategories, is also baffling. I find it difficult to compose rational responses to irrational claims, which may be the point. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to say that "he didn't do his book reports" is a novel mark of tendentiousness. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * TIL "refusing to discuss" means discussing in six different threads in five different forums. The book report is a particular case of WP:IDHT that goes something like: I refuse to accept that Paris is the capital of France until I've been given a page number. The repetition goes something like: Paris is the capital of France. The strategy goes something like When I've refused to listen or offer new argument to the point where you give up, I'll do what I want. Timothy Joseph Wood  21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The description at Category:Violence against men is such that it can be interpreted multiple ways. Neither TJW nor jps is wholly correct or incorrect. There's an obvious need for more discussion, but the edit warring is, I think, making them both too frustrated for that to be productive. This is clearly disruptive editing, but I don't think anyone has broken 3RR (I could be wrong).
 * Across the relevant pages (and category pages), my count for number of times adding this category: jps - 24, - 6,  - 2; and number of times removing this category: James J. Lambden - 15, TJW - 9,  - 6,  - 1. (linking to usernames of editors who have not yet participated in this discussion -- not that they need to)
 * Jps has the most (5 of them weren't technically reverts, since jps initiated the changes, but that's still 19). 24 (or 19) is a lot, but 15, 9, and even 6 are also awfully high numbers for reverts of the exact same non-vandalism edit. This doesn't even include edits at Category:Violence against men itself, which were over a different change (but indeed involved more edit warring, primarily between jps and JJL).
 * Suggestion for next steps:
 * A trout or shake of the head or "c'mon you should know better" or warning or whatnot for the involved edit warriors.
 * 2-week moratorium on adding/removing Category:Violence against men to any article, unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. WP:WRONGVERSIONs frozen (although I don't know that protection is necessary) whenever this thread is closed.
 * 2-week moratorium on edits to the category page text (i.e. full protect), unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Several editors behaved badly, myself included. For any editor in your list ask yourself: if this editor hadn't participated at all would the problem still exist - the answer is yes in every case except jps. That indicates an editor problem not a mutual problem. I think your mutual solution is likely to solve the editor problem temporarily but a mutual solution is unnecessarily broad, and once protection expires we'll be right where we are now having the same conversation. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously if the person who suggests/makes the change in the first place never did so, then there would be no possibility for edit warring. The problem for the purpose of this venue isn't the initial edit or its content (regardless of how someone might see it, or whether consensus supports it in the end, it was made in good faith and certainly wasn't vandalism). This venue is more about the disruption caused by edit warring -- and, specifically, stopping or avoiding that kind of disruption. And based on those numbers, if you did not participate (there are other mechanisms aside from edit warring to deal with a tendentious editor) it likewise would not have gone on to be so disruptive. I'm not trying to excuse Jps, I'm not saying it's your fault, that you're equally to blame, etc. I'm saying this wasn't a case of a vandal, and wasn't a case of a single person opposed by everyone else. It's a content dispute with people on both sides, and it took both sides to make it an edit war rather than go another route. Sometimes ending disruption calls for a block, and sometimes blocks can be avoided. What I suggested stops the disruption. Blocking Jps also stops disruption with a stronger admonishment, but also removes him from the active discussion, which is not the source of the disruption. For good measure, a caveat: I'm not an admin. I'm just giving my suggestion having seen the edit warring and having a pretty good sense of the content dispute, without being closely aligned with either side of the edit war. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I've been plenty productive in the interim, which seems to be true of most of those involved. Second, since the editor in question has, as far as I can tell, done nothing in the past few weeks besides work for this particular purpose, I see no reason to think they will stop. Third, since after eight reverts, they finally stopped warring on the cat itself, there is no reason to protect it. Timothy Joseph Wood  23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly interested in commenting other than to say that it's quite clear that we have one user on a crusade. What is done about it, shrug. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Admin comments
 * Creating a section just because of the attention this has received; don't want the admin discussion getting lost in the woodwork. The situation is complex, so I would like a second or third opinion. No 3RR violation has taken place recently. However, the editor being reported is a veteran, with a monstrous block log; they should be well aware of what disruptive editing is, and that they should not participate in it; therefore, I doubt very much that a warning will work. There are not, AFAIK, discretionary sanctions available. Disruption is clearly still ongoing. I am inclined to close with a longish block to WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94, and formal warnings to the several other editors whose behavior here has been sub-optimal. Other admins, please weigh in. Vanamonde (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I was kept off-wiki by real life, and no other admin seems to have weighed in. The disruption seems to have ceased since my statement here, and a block would therefore be punitive. Therefore, I am going to close this with a warning to jps to obtain consensus for any removals, and that further disruption may result in a block without warning. The other parties are also warned that disruption on the part of one editor does not excuse edit-warring: there are several dispute resolution mechanisms available prior to ANEW. Vanamonde (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:75.139.158.188 reported by User:Closeapple (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because it is unessential and unimportant information."
 * 1)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because it is unessential and unimportant information."
 * 1)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because it is unessential and unimportant information."
 * 1)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because it is unessential and unimportant information."



(I changed the numbering here &mdash; one of these wasn't of the blanking; I must have checked the wrong diff instead of the one with the blanking. I think there are 11 after the block. --Closeapple (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC))
 * 1)  "The "racist tweets" portion of this page is unessential and unimportant and therefore, I am removing it."
 * 2)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion from this page, because it is unessential information."
 * 3)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion from this page, because it is unessential."
 * 4)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because this is not an essential part of said page."
 * 1)  "I am removing the "racist tweets" portion of this page, because this is not an essential part of said page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

None by me, but I haven't edited the article either. Another user did post a first-level warning to the IP's talk page after the block expired. It's not clear whether the block (for "vandalism") was partially based on the user's blanking or not. --Closeapple (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Once before being blocked on 2016-09-26 (for "vandalism" according to the log), and repeatedly after coming off block, has been blanking exactly the same paragraph of Melissa Villaseñor. This IP has made substantially the same removal 11 times in the last 36 hours, saying it is "unessential"; other users, both IPs and logged-in users, have put it back, sometimes using edit summaries mentioning that the paragraph has sources. It has HuffPost and some (well-known) tabloids as sources. I'm reporting to AN3 because (1) the user was already blocked, and it's unclear whether the block was based partially on the first blanking; (2) there's the bit in WP:3RR rules about BLP issues being borderline; (3) another user has already warned the user about the article now. No indication that the user has engaged with any previous warnings. It appears that the user wants to make sure that this information is not in the article when Melissa Villaseñor debuts on the season premiere of Saturday Night Live, which happens at 2016-10-01 22:30 U.S. Eastern time (so 2016-10-02 03:30 UTC) and runs for two hours. --Closeapple (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:79.69.119.28 reported by User:Karst (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Zutons didn't reform for it - stop edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 741903436 by Karst (talk) Let's stick to the facts, not your wrong take on events"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 741903294 by Karst (talk) No they didn't."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Viola Beach tribute. */ new section"


 * Comments:

Tried to resolve this issue. Instead I was told "Get on with it fella - keep pushing incorrect info from tabloids. You obviously like edit warring, and not actually contributing anything to articles." On my Talk page. Karst (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semprotected one month. One user with two different IPs trying to insert the same change, with no indication they will wait for consensus. The dispute is about whether the band actually re-formed in 2016 for one or two performances or if only some of the members did. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

User:PollyNYC reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (logged out and followed logged in 10 minutes later with a non-RS ref )
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Slightly slo-mo edit war by an SPA whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to post this misinformation on the Nisha Ganatra article. Ganatra directed only three out of the ten episodes of S1 of Transparent, and she was one of three consulting producers on S1 of Transparent.. Not sure why the SPA wants to post misinformation on Wikipedia, but they won't discuss, heed warnings, or take no for an answer. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Getting a massive whiff of sock here: . Should I go through the trouble of an SPI, or will you kind folks take care of it? Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know what prompted me to look at this when it came up in my watchlist, but I am so glad I did. The editing pattern and style from both users are the extremely similar to those from, who also socked under , , and . The mannerisms are way too coincidental.  Wes Mouse  T@lk 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with or  being related to any of those users. I don't see anything that links them at all and they don't even seem to be American, as the Ganatra SPAs obviously are. The two Pollys are obvious socks, as they are both exclusively Nisha Ganatra SPAs and have the same username and so this is a super-obvious no-brainer. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC); edited 10:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * A third exclusive Nisha Ganatra SPA: {{{{userlinks|Rufus Clyde}}, who made identical edits to the master . -- Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected. {{user|PollyPrissyPants}} and {{user|Rufus Clyde}} have not edited since 2007 so are not an imminent threat. You seem to have accepted PollyNYC's insistence that Ganatra was not a co-director. It is unclear where either of you are getting your information because the sources for her work in Season 1 of Transparent (TV series) are not obvious. There remains a possibility that PollyPrissyPants and PollyNYC are the same person, though both seem inexperienced. Report again if the abuse becomes more obvious. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Laurel Lodged reported by User:78.17.239.203 (Result: No violation)
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]
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

The user = Laurel Lodged = cites County Dublin as a "former county", on the basis that its administrative county council was abolished and divided into several smaller units in 1994. However County Dublin still exists in several guises outside of the administrative function - being cultural, sporting, postal etc. I deem this sufficient to require more nuanced language when discussing the county in a general article. County Dublin is universally understood as one of the 32 traditional counties of Ireland, and to say County Dublin is a "former county" is overly simplistic. There are several discrepancies between Ireland's traditional counties and their administrative counterparts (for example, the six counties of Northern Ireland are no longer administrative units as NI is divided into council areas with completely different borders, but there is no suggestion of calling County Down or County Antrim "former" counties. Yet Dublin has been singled out here for reasons I would regard as nothing more than overbearing editing. The user keeps reverting to his/her previous edit without regard despite my efforts to improve the articles clarity.
 * Reply This IP just won't take "no" as an answer. I'm not sure what part of "was abolished" he fails to comprehend. My comments have been terse but accurate. A casual perusal of the page's archives shows how much painstaking effort over many years has gone into the creation of the current status quo. It represents what most editors can live with. It's a compromise between literal purists (like me) and ardent irridentists (as the IP appears to be). Let him answer two questions: (1) What is an Irish County? (2) What is the function of an Irish County? Let him then say if it is more accurate to describe Dublin as a current or as a former county. By the way, none of the above diffs purporting to link to the talk page actually links to the talk page. That's because he refused to take it to the talk page. Must we realy go through this for every newbie ediror that can't be bothered to read their way into a topic? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * – See instructions for creating a 3RR report. Please use the talk page to agree on how to refer to these counties. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:18D:8600:327F:BD87:61F9:2E08:6D1D reported by User:Eteethan (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 741848299 by Echoedmyron (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 741846088 by Eteethan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 741844710 by Muboshgu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 741778446 by Echoedmyron (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected two months, due to IP-hopping revert warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Gothicfilm reported by User:Depauldem (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After making a valid edit to add Clint Eastwood's name under the music section of the infobox, GothicFilm reverted based on an unsupported claim that only names listed in the film's "billing block" could be used. There is no such rule and ample sources were provided showing Eatwood's name is, in fact, included in the actual credits of the film, not to mention the soundtrack. All links to reliable sources were discarded by GothicFilm, as were repeated calls for her to offer any rule or policy that supported her edit reverts. Depauldem (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Just hash it out on the talk page (which seems to already be underway). Ping me if y'all get it resolved sooner than the three days. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:94.117.95.202 reported by User:Keri (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742049551 by Keri (talk) status quo has no special status. you haven't justified reverting. quibbling over a definition in a report is not appropriate"
 * 2)  "they are. it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article to quibble over the meaning of a word in a report"
 * 3)  "rm opinions"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lacking Citation */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Shirley Porter */ new section"


 * Comments:

User does not wish to engage in discussion, either at user talk page or at article talk page. Behaviour indicates they intend to continue reverting repeatedly without discussion or consensus. Keri (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User is harassing me by posting unwelcome messages on my talk page, after being clearly instructed not to do so. For someone who does not wish to engage in discussion, I am posting a remarkable amount of discussion at the talk page.  This is a spurious, petty and vindictive report which should be deleted forthwith. 94.117.95.202 (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * . You are free to revert this editor at will. This is Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Known range, known articles, same edits, same sociopathic results. Kuru   (talk)  12:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:37.38.21.38 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The fuck stop undoing my edits."
 * 2)  "I'm surprised nobody has added this yet."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 741871427 by Artichoker (talk)"
 * 4)  "This anime is drama so stop undoing it already jeez"
 * 1)  "This anime is drama so stop undoing it already jeez"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has been warned on their talk page about this more than once. Fei noh a  Talk 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC) The problem has been solved. I don't think we should block him from editing because he provided the link for his edit and it's reliable. Deidaramonroe (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Did violate the 3 revert rule. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. The IP broke the 3RR rule. Use the talk page to decide which awards to include and what categories to apply. See WP:DR for your options. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:182.189.108.242 reporter by User:Barthateslisa (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Has already reverted three times, hence breaking the rule, kindly intervene. Kindly take the necessary action and please revert the page back to the version before him/her, thanks. I would also like to add IP's use of colorful language on the talk page, not very subtle may I add. Barthateslisa (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 86.22.8.235 (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone may comment on this board, but only admins should close reports. EdJohnston (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. The named IP made at least four reverts on October 1 and kept on warring while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:XavierItzm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Page that shows the 1RR warning for this article: 

Comments:

The contributor twice blanked out new direct quotes from the Los Angeles Times in less than 18 hours. Unfortunately, this contributor (who sometimes makes very valuable contributions) has been blocked three times already this year, most recently 10 days ago, so he is probably quite aware of the 1RR and the fact it is a bright line policy.. XavierItzm (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The OP here is adding content to the article which is already present [about prior islamic radicalisation]. His content is not new information, although the way he places it in the article suggests that the OP believes that to be the case. The OP has not responded to Parsley Man's comments on the article talk page about the pre-existing content on radicalisation, but instead has made this report. Mathsci (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments have been responded to. Please note the 1RR violation precedes the report. Thank you.  XavierItzm (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The words jihad and martyrdom were quoted in the article in the section entitled Self-radicalization of the shooters. The OP has not acknowledged in his latest response that in this particular context these terms are used exclusively in connection with Islamic terrorism. Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * – 2 weeks. There is a difference of opinion on the attackers' motives, but any back-and-forth about that has to live within the 1RR. Parsley Man went over the 1RR and hasn't acknowledged any problem with his edits or offered to concede the point, even when his 1RR was pointed out on the article talk page. Due to his block history, we are expected to take some action. If this continues the next step is probably a topic ban under WP:GS/SCW. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap reported by User:Phantom147 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

not trying to resolve the dispute. keep editing and reverting my edits even after a previous dispute over the same matter was resolved. also has a history of edit warring, at least 2 times.Phantom147 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My reversions are justified in light of the circumstances: One POV-pushing user (Phantom) is removing reliably-sourced information about Malia Bouattia: that she is black. He is also removing several top-flight sources (e.g. the Guardian) that refer to her as the first black president of NUS. PHantom's misconduct can ironically be seen from the diffs he shares, which show me re-adding RS to the article.


 * Bouattia is a British student politician who identifies as black based on her Algerian (North African) heritage. Whatever we might make of her racial identification in the United States, there is precedent in Britain for classifying North Africans as black.


 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Northern_Africa and black British; the latter page notes "[t]he term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain. This is a controversial definition.[6] "Black British" is one of various self-designation entries used in official UK ethnicity classifications."


 * Moreover, Bouattia is classified as black in almost every reliable source in British media. See her wiki page and check out the sources in the lede. A minority have criticized her identity on the grounds that she is not sub-Saharan African, and these sources are covered in the article. In light of this, the best approach seems to be to describe her as Black British while noting that she is not sub-Saharan African, and covering the controversy about her racial identity.


 * Instead, Phantom is insisting that all references to her being black (apart from those that make reference to criticisms of her identity) be purged from the article. Defensible though his position may be at an intellectual level (the young lady is fair skinned, moreso than most North Africans), it is OR and can't be tolerated in a BLP. That's where my reversions come in. Steeletrap (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing a violation. Prior history doesn't necessarily mean anything (unless Steeletrap just got out of a block for edit warring over this very topic in that article or something).
 * That teal deer belongs on the article's talk page, not here. 3rr doesn't include an exception for one person or the other being right.
 * Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see that Steeletrap has invoked WP:BLP, which is a trump card for 3rr if played correctly. Still, no violation.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Cladeal832 reported by User:Ntb613 (Result: 6 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Because I've been to Ottawa. You are now willfully removing information you know now is accurate. http://www.google.com/search?q=134+cowley+avenue+champlain+park+ottawa&gws_rd=cr&ei=39PvV4bTBIKf-wHAhrjIDg"
 * 2)  "Frank does satire of facts and broken legit news stories before. Either way Butts family address right here. Cowley Avenue is in Champlain Park (which is part of Westboro) http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpDtls.html?corpId=9734422"
 * 3)  "Frank Is a reliable source. Add yourself. I put accurate information. Should matter most."
 * 4)  "http://frankmag.ca/2016/09/whose-subsidized-house-gallery-gumshoes-sniff-around-butts/"
 * 5)  "from http://frankmag.ca/2016/09/whose-subsidized-house-gallery-gumshoes-sniff-around-butts/"
 * 6)  "Cowley Avenue is in Champlain Park http://frankmag.ca/2016/09/whose-subsidized-house-gallery-gumshoes-sniff-around-butts/"
 * 1)  "Cowley Avenue is in Champlain Park http://frankmag.ca/2016/09/whose-subsidized-house-gallery-gumshoes-sniff-around-butts/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The user has been warned in the past about edit warring behaviour at least 4 times (that are visible on users talk page). Ntb613 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I added accurate and sourced information. I was removed and other users personally insulted me or used weak reasoning and clearly showed by hadn't read the sources. User:Ntb613 is not focusing on actually making the article accurate nor focusing on others since nobody can have an edit with nobody else. I will try to have a better and more open effort in dealing with concerns of accuracy, but I am not going out of way to create conflict. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you need to provide evidence in the form of diffs regarding claims that you were personally insulted by others. Otherwise, those claims by you may be considered personal attacks on others.  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The user is repeating this behavior in another page as well: -- Ntb613 (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TheMagnificentist reported by User:Calidum (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742179633 by SnapSnap (talk) WP:SYNTH is irrelevant in this issue. Provide a WP guide saying that a musician is not a *genre*-musician because he produced only one *genre*-song."
 * 2)  "He has made few songs by this genre so it should be added. Any disputes should be discussed on the talk page before reverting unnecessarily."
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 742099862 by Ymblanter (talk): Source refers to one song, made by Calvin. Whatever genre of the songs he makes should be listed as his genre. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 109.147.189.208 (talk) to last revision by Binksternet. (TW)"


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

User in question has posted on the article's talkpage, but the latest revert came after his post there. Consensus so far in that thread is against the proposed change.  Calidum   ¤   06:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is content-dispute related, I can report you and the other guy for the same thing. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 06:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * TheMagnificentist . Pretty clear 3RR violation. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ceoil reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Page deleted at user request)
Page: User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/cassianto

User being reported: User:Ceoil

7th deletion:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 6th
 * 5th
 * 4th
 * 3rd

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/cassianto

Comments:

User:LaughingVulcan is actively collecting material for an ARBCOM case against User:Cassianto for incivility. User:Ceoil keeps deleting the material arguing that User:Cassianto has said he has retired from editing. I see no reason to not continue the case, the editor can return anytime, and we need a decision on what the level of incivility will be tolerated. If the editor returns, it will be difficult to recollect all the information. I also was collecting material for the case and it was deleted, then restored when I brought the case to ANI. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed that page a few days ago and was appalled at it. Particularly considering that we've lost three FA writers, and I felt someone should have slapped an MfD tag on it. Obviously Ceoil shouldn't be edit warring, but at the same time, the arbs haven't yet voted to accept a case nor have they decided the parties, if there is to be a case. My advice would be for a non-involved admin to send the page to MfD asap. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You should be appalled at the language used by Cassianto, and not appalled at the collection of the differences documenting the incivility. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Information about the possibility of opening a case is here. As yet the vote has not reached a majority. Note that no parties have been chosen yet, so RANorton's information is misleading. Furthermore, keeping pages such as these add greatly to the heat of a situation that needs coolant, not fuel. Victoria (tk) 00:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Deleting the collection of evidence and the preparation of statements is terrible in any legal proceeding. Imagine preparing for any legal case and the other legal team keeps throwing the opposition's notes and depositions in the wastebasket. The ARBCOM case in infoboxes may not be the same case, people are actively preparing a case based solely on incivility of Cassianto separate from infobox arguments.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's again hyperbole and honestly that's exactly what we should be doing - throwing it in the trash. This is about infoboxes; pure and simple. Which is a corrosive and intractable situation. Had the people who reverted Ceoil kept fingers of keyboard, had you kept fingers off keyboard and not filed a report, had LaughVulcan kept fingers off keyboard and not blatantly kept a page with a blow-by-blow account of the Noel Coward situation (which is only one of many many such long winded discusssions), then we'd all have a better chance of working together collegially and writing an encyclopedia. Instead collecting and keeping evidence about enemies seems to be the preferred pastime. Again, I suggest strongly that an uninvolved editor read the open ARCA re infoboxes and slap an MfD tag on that page asap. A similar page was MfD'd a week or so ago and in my view that's the way to go. Victoria (tk) 00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another great WikiCatch 22, to prepare a case for ANI and ARBCOM, you have to collect evidence, but if you collect evidence it is "keeping evidence about enemies" and it must be discarded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The page was started a a month ago, which is a very long time to keep an evidence page per talk page guidelines, which states: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." I've seen pages like that sent to MfD much more quickly - in my view a month is beyond "imminent". There have been three retirements within that time-frame, an ARCA, the possibility of an arbcom case (again with no parties). Unless LaughingVulcan is prepared to open an RfAR tonight, then the page should be deleted. There's a time to disengage and this is it. If people aren't willing to disengage, then I suppose they have to be willing to go forward with a case. The last case was extremely toxic; another would be even worse. None of this is helping. I'd like to see this report withdrawn in the spirit of disengaging from a corrosive situation. Victoria (tk) 01:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to set a hard date for when evidence must be deleted, then work on gaining consensus for one. In the meantime this is about 3RR, not setting a value for that date. Your argument would make more sense if there was not an active case at ARBCOM where they are collecting evidence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Victoria, since my first clash with Cassianto I have written up three separate Arbcom requests. Yes, that's been in the last month or so.  I filed none of them.  I think I could send them to you if you want.  I never got to diff-inclusion phase on them and that was the first point of that article.  Since Cassianto never replied in the infoboxes request for Amendment, and since he is a named party, and since the arbs went from deliberating block on comments to DS and now debating opening a case..... Darn straight I need that evidence.  There's more to the story than that, too.  But from this point on I'll open a blank sandbox, copy/paste and not commit the edit if I want a Wikification of my evidence.  And yes, I agree that we need some industrial grade coolant at work to chill out C's legacy for some of us.   Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 03:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please supply a diff of the active case at ARBCOM where they are collecting evidence. Victoria (tk) 01:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

RAN, I appreciate your taking this to bat, however, this is a bunch of people doing various things. Victoria, if you're the same V - look at the Infoboxes request for amendment and you'll see that the Arbs are considering reopening a case on Infoboxes. Everyone else, please chill. Ceoil is ticked at me for many reasons and apparently found this page. Whatev. I have been taking care of a real-life emergency at work that I was paged into today and have been unable to be responsive for much of today because of it. I will be working a 12 hour day tomorrow trying to continue to fix the shitstorm that opened up on work today. I do not work weekends, normally I work Mon-Fri. But I'm also on call to do what is needed when it is needed. So I am real life stressed. I am about to go to bed. This WILL wait until tomorrow, people. Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 03:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Add: User:Ceoil should sure as hell get a 3RR block, IMVHO. However, I now have a local copy of the evidence page. You are wrong, Victoria, on many levels. But for the sake of peace I'm now db-userreqing that page, and requesting this issue be closed without action - again for the sake of peace and not because I'm not right. In return I request, and not require, Cassianto's user talk page be blanked for his continuing reference to an edit of mine - the one I took out the diff of and was REVERTED for. The one that stands as his last parting shot to me. Want the diff? I will supply it. But this ain't the forum for it and I have no stomach for transcluding yet another goddamn thread about Cassianto into AN/I. Sorry. I'm Tired. I'm Pissed. I've read an edit history of Ceoil that says "retired" and quite frankly I don't want to be a causing factor or falsely congratulated for "contributing" to the "retirement" of another editor. Now, for GOD'S SAKE, will everyone chill a bit? Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 03:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not own your comment? You made it, and your actions did contribute to good editors retiring. Your other subpage is quite alarming, however it shows your opinions and I would recommend owning them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh. (sarcasm) Love people commenting quickly, it makes it easy to engage instead of not getting sleep. (/sarcasm)  Why not accept that I've tried apologizing and taking that comment back... oh, I DON'T GET TO DO THAT?  Hmm.  OK, here's my ownership of my original edit where I said.... Oh, I can't diff or quote myself because my evidence page above is now history and I'm not asking for a refund on it for that.  But I meant the diff where I said I didn't want to read a bunch of "stupid text," Johnuniq.  Click the diff on Cassianto's talk if you want to read my original since it is still there.  Nobody ever asked me if I thought I was referring to FA writers, or editors in general, with my "stupid" comment.  Maybe I was even thinking with that original comment something like reading 8,000 words of text - Noel Coward is currently 10,000 plus including biblio etc. -  to find one fact (age of death) that isn't in an article because nobody thought to put it there (a standard function of the bio infobox) is a..... less than intelligent idea?  Or would you prefer to defend the thesis that everything an editor comes up with is so brilliantly intelligent that it in no way could ever be categorized as stupid?  Or should I allow Cassianto to own that his words are stupid???  Interesting hypothesis, but I don't agree with it.  Never had.  He's uncivil to the point of distraction to the project, that's all.


 * Also, why not recognize an "alarming" sandbox is kind of like an "alarming" litterbox. Once I'm done trimming that other subpage, you bet I'll own it by publishing it as an essay.... When I'm ready.  When I'm not sure that it was written in frustration.  I'm also really REALLY thinking I now own my history of the Infobox Wars and that one is nearing publication outside of sandbox space.


 * You want to own everything you think about writing? Or have written in a sandbox?  But the ego some of the FA contributors have.....  yeah.  I can say the ego of some of them gets in the way of the rest of us having mainspace article edit time as well as community time.  Yeah.  I can sure as hell own that because it is the truth.  Just as that some FA editors do seem to be all that, as my "alarming" essay begins.  Wait, didn't want a tirade?  Maybe you shouldn'ta just dropped a metric ton of fuel on this thread.  Or you can transclude this discussion to my text.  Or maybe you should chill, too, like I'm trying to do right now and failing miserably.  Bah.  Since I'm now short sleep on a bad workday.... time for another Wikibreak for myself, too, so I don't have to respond.   Laughing Vulcan Grok Page! 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * has had the page deleted at their request. Blocking at this point would serve no purpose.  If Ceoil thought the page should not exist then an MfD should have been started. The page was blanked originally and not deleted so the material was still visible in the history if required. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Eckstasy reported by User:NickW557 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742265050 by Andrewgprout (talk) Users need to stop violating the policies set against removing other people's discussion comments for no valid reasons. Disgusting behaviour."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 742263095 by Ahunt (talk) There is no advertising, promotion, scaremongering or propaganda. Infact this article is a SOAPBOX. it is one sided propaganda, the comment is asking to alter it"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 742261126 by Ahunt (talk) An improvement was clearly suggested to add all sides of the story. Did you read the comment?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 742257692 by Arnoutf (talk) There is no off topic discussion here, there is definitely a valid point. Wikipedia isn't a propaganda tool for one sided stories."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

A warning was given to Eckstasay between the third and fourth reverts. Eckstasay then proceeded to issue their own edit warring warning to other users (here, here, and here), before performing a fourth revert themselves. The fact that they're giving other users 3RR warnings suggests to me that they're very aware of the 3RR restriction. This user is continuing the edit war that is blocked for. Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 18:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The user was blocked by  while I was navigating the Twinkle prompts.  Withdrawn/already blocked. --Nick&#8288;—&#8288;Contact/Contribs 18:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:ChiefPrinceAndDuke reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed declarative statements that are not backed up by citations."
 * 2)  "These are not Igbo communities. Always get your facts right."
 * 3)  "Igbo Jews are members of the Igbo ethnic group who practice Judaism and not a distinct ethnic group."
 * 4)  "Added links and content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Igbo people."


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


 * Comments:

This user has been trying to disrupt the article Igbo people for a while now. inflating population figures, without citation, removing content that are well sourced, just because he disagrees with the information. Basically, he is just been trying to push his own views into the article. Spot checking his other edits, it seems this user is not here to build an encyclopaedia, as larger percentage of his edits (that are often Igbo related) are always reverted, and there are several warnings on his talkpage. Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – If you believe the editor's changes are wrong or can be disproved by sources, you should be making your argument on the talk page. Admins aren't likely to issue blocks when 3RR is not violated and there is no evidence of any discussion on the article talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:Aviationspecialist101 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:

I'd like to get a total IP block on the Southwest Airlines page. It appears that there is a sock puppet that continues to change focus city information without providing a source. Thanks for the help. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. A widely-hopping IPv6 is reverting the article without using any sources. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately reported by User:Adamstom.97 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Original version: Original disputed edit:

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

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

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

I came across this dispute after the accused had been asked to start a talk page discussion, done so, then decided that no reply within an hour meant that they got to choose the discussion's consensus. I reverted the subsequent change, and explained that the discussion needed to be completed first, contributing the next comment in the discussion to help facilitate this. However, the reverts continued after this, showing behaviour that is hardly conducive to working out the issue and finding consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:IvanAbrenica reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Eddie Gil Article corrected again. Because the image of the true copy can't go through"
 * 2)  "Eddie Gil Article corrected"
 * 3)  "Mr. Eduardo Gil won the case a long time ago. So this is irrelevant already."
 * 4)  "Please, who ever you are. PLEASE DON'T SHOW THIS AGAIN!!! This is irrelevant information about Eddie Gil"
 * 5)  "Please, do not show this information again. This is completely irrelevant and we have proof to show you."
 * 6)  "Latter part of article was irrelevant"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly removing content- the article subject is known personally to the editor and has als made a legal threat. Muffled Pocketed  14:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:213.205.198.74 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result:IP Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

by the time someone gets around to looking at this I'm sure there'll be a few more reverts to add

Also, on a related page, Southern Poverty Law Center:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Eh, it's not really constructive enough to have a discussion about it, it's more or less IP putting in sketchy info into an article, but here is some

Comments:

This isn't a brand new user. Here they mention the guideline WP:NOTAFORUM, no way a brand new user knows about that. Here they indicate that they've been following my edits for a long time.


 * To the unsigned comment above by Marek, I haven't "followed his edits for a long time", I merely went to his talk page to discuss his edit warring and found that it's a long list of arguments and edit warring. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Marek also failed to notify me that I was being reported here. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Danishkan reported by User:106.209.153.145 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:


 * As indicated on article's talk page, the article comes under discretionary sanction underwhich WP:0RR is applicable. User has reverted me twice, reverting a typical twice and reverting other edits once. 106.209.153.145 (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ip is a disruptive sock, DS is active on such articles but no 0PR has been activated. Danishkan (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the article's history would also show that the user has performed total 4-5 reverts in their total less than 50 edits on Wikipedia. The user is also without any evidence accusing me of being a sock and even reverting grammatical corrections i made. 106.209.153.145 (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Go use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather This article is up for deletion. Many issues are being identified at the talk and AfD. The article is being improved since then. So, I suggest that it should not be fully protected. -- S M S Talk 06:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I saw the AfD and that there are more than just the one editor reverting. Rather than block all of them they can now discuss on the talk page and make edit requests. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:213.205.198.74 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "SPLC is not a reliable source"
 * 2)  "remove unreliable sourcing + restore NPOV"
 * 3)  "if you revert this further you will be breaching the 3RR and as you have a long history of edit warring I don't think that would be a very good idea"
 * 4)  "the source clearly states that SPLC are anti-christian"
 * 5)  "stop vandalising wikipedia because you disagree with sources, if you further vandalise wikipedia you will be reported"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 742410651 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742410651 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"


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


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

No attempts have been made by this editor to justify their edits on the talk page when challenged. clpo13(talk) 15:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I explained every edit and provided sources in each edit summary. 213.205.198.74 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 86.22.8.235 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer_Marek reported by User:Solntsa90 (Result: Page protected)
4 reverts in the last 24 hours of the page Richard B. Spencer, beginning at 16:14, 3 October 2016, here again at 14:00, 4 October 2016, here again at 14:10, 4 October 2016, and finally again at 14:16, 4 October 2016.

That is 4 reverts in the last 24 hours, a clear, blatant violation of the 3RR rule by someone who knows the rules very well, made even more contenious by gross potential BLP violations and using headlines (as opposed to the actual content) and gleaning off these by-lines to make assumptions about a living person known for being libel-happy with WP:ORIGINAL. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I forgot about the Oct 3 edit. I self reverted. However, Solntsa90 is utterly and completely wrong in his claim that this is "gross potential BLP violation". In fact that's ridiculous - putting in what the subject is actually notable for, backed by a half dozen sources is not a BLP violation. Here is the talk page, where consensus is pretty much for ... including information about what the subject is known for. Notice who's NOT on the talk page? Solntsa90 who started this edit war. He's just pushing POV there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Should also mention that Solntsa90 was blocked before for edit warring, as well as stalking and harassing my edits. I actually thought he was under interaction ban, but I guess not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note also that my edit, though it restored content being removed by SOlntsa90, also added three additional sources so I'm not sure if that really counts as a revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

You knew very well about the 3rd October edit; I even put an 3RR notice on your wall regarding the article, which you subsequently deleted, so it was either your deliberate ignoring of the warning, or you knew very well you were in violation of 3RR.

As far as an interaction ban--you were the one who interacted with *my* edits this time, not the other way around. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I forgot about the Oct 3rd edit because it was ... 23 hours ago (man, you just managed to squeeze that in, didn't you?) and it was of a different nature. You first were WP:WEASELing text to push POV:
 * So edit warring is fine if you forgot about how you previously restored material yesterday that was also removed by an editor citing BLP? Zaostao (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing "Richard Bertrand Spencer is an American writer, publisher, and self-described "identitarian" known for promoting white nationalist views" to "and identitarian known in the media for his white nationalist views", which is about the most transparent attempt at POV pushing I've seen in a while. "Known in the media" basically means "described by sources as".
 * Then you doubled down and just started removing the sourced text entirely. You were trying to start an edit war - or rather to escalate the edit war by NPalgan2. And you were successful. Hint for next time - make at least a comment or two on the talk page for appearance sake.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This has literally nothing to do with your blatant and obvious violation of 3RR. 'Forgetting' the rules doesn't justify violating them. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, how could you forget about the 3 October edit when I even put a notice on your wall telling you about your 3RR violation, which you subsequently deleted? Solntsa90 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has edited the article before you arrived at it. Your first edit was yesterday, his was in April. As VM has self-reverted, you are now both at 3RR. This doesn't entitle either of you to revert again at 24 hours + 1 minute of course. Solntsa90, give over. He hasn't exceeded 3rr. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec - reply to Solntsa90) It has everything to do with them (and like I said, I self reverted my last edit) - it shows you purposefully escalated an existing edit war and that your claims of BLP violations are just a bullshit cover for your own tendentious POV pushing where you're trying to whitewash an avowed racist (in case anyone is in doubt, here is the subject standing with a sign that says 'Wanna talk to a racist?'. And why in the world are you removing my comments from this page ? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * (For the 3RR template, the fact that you stalked my edits and got blocked for harassment just made me think you were just doing that again).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Self-reverting at the last minute (and only after someone reports you for 3RR) negates the consequences of 3RR? The More You Know™. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying, Doug, that it is OK to edit war on various articles on a daily basis like VM is doing unless they break the 3RR directly? That's an odd understanding of the edit warring policy! VM has now also taken to stalk my edits and invariably revert my noncontroversial edits such as here or, here just because he believes me to be a sock puppet of a banned user in his edit commentaries. Without of course ever presenting any evidence whatsoever, and he is not a checkuser an not even an admin either. How long will this behaviour be tolerated?Paul Keller (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ((re|Paul Keller}} I'd revert anyone who tried to use WND to comment on a living person, we've been very clear that it is not a reliable source. Removing that twice isn't edit warring. Doug Weller  talk 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ((re|Doug Weller}} Oh God, have mercy, how many sources do we need to provide for the elementary statement that the CPUSA has been endorsing Democratic presidential candidates for decades? It's already there in Communist_Party_USA as a common fact. And while 2 reverts may not necessarily be edit warring these particular reverts were baid-faithed acts by a disruptive querulous editor. Paul Keller (talk) 15:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Paul Keller is a fairly transparent sock puppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit. I've pointed it out and he hasn't even bothered to deny it. I'll get to filing a proper SPI soon but it's a pain and he creates so many socks, and I'm sort of busy, it will probably be later today.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You of course have the right to turn to the relevant authorities with your allegations for proper proceedings, while you have absolutely no right to stalk an editor you just insinuate to be a multiple account. Which is what you've been doing with following and blindly reverting absolutely all my edits, no matter how helpful. Also, I have no burden to "prove" my innocense as you seem to claim now. Paul Keller (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, it's pretty much WP:DUCK and you're not even denying it. How many users who are either from or have in depth and esoteric knowledge of things Estonian and Finnish, who are also interested in far-right politics, and who like to correct political affiliations of various political parties do you think there are on Wikipedia? I mean I guess you skipped the Ukrainian-bashing this time (I think) but come on! We've done this song and dance, how many times now? Just go and start your new account already or get active on one of your sleepers. And yes, banned users can be reverted on sight, especially when they have such a long history of disruptive behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So far you've been the only one to advance this conspiracy theory and your belief alone, no matter how firm, certainly gives you no license to vandalize various articles. Also to remind you the thread here is about your daily edit warring practise, not about me. You apparently have nothing at all to say in defense of your own misbehaviour. Paul Keller (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, my behavior has already been addressed by myself and Doug Weller. You're still not denying that you're Lokalkosmopolit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Rules apparently don't apply to certain power users. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on edits like that (see also edit summary) and other behavior, I think user Solntsa90 is not really here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly controversial. She self-identifies as Jewish, and the article is about Jewish issues. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking about "Jew", you do not mean religion because he is not religious. You speak about ethnicity. Why do you think that ethnicity of this journalist is so important in this context that you edit war to keep it in the page? My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 'he is not religious'

You appear to know so much about Masha Gessen, you don't even realise that "he" is in fact, a woman. Pardon me if I discount the rest of your opinion from hereon now. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I would never advise banning anyone based on one disputable edit alone, but if someone's whole editing history consists of endless revert warring on a large variety of topics, BLP violations, offensive talk page comments filled with vulgarities like "fucking", "shit", "arsehole" etc, completely unwarranted accusations of political bias or sock puppeteering directed against other editors (by far not just me), along with the virtual absence of any encyclopedic content writing, then some kind of a solution has to be found. Sorry if I got too long, but I just took aa look at the issue with some depth after VM started bullying me yesterday. Paul Keller (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are not learning. Here is whole your edit history. This is less than 100 edits. After looking at your edit history, it is obvious that: (a) you are not a new user, (b) you jump to edit controversial subjects, follow and revert other contributors, and (c) you WP:BATTLE by complaining on this noticeboard after making less than 100 edits. This is a "disruption only" account. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would never have intervened in Volunteer Marek's dealings, whom I did not know until yesterday, had he not started bullying me and following my edits across all topics I happened to edit. Obviously I had to defend myself. Paul Keller (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody's bullying you. You were perma banned for bullying others and have been returning with new sock puppets on a regular basis to continue more of the same since then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I was also a recent victim of Volunteer Marek's edit-warring: His list of arguments included:
 * 1) oh, this one is particularly stupid
 * 2) when the policy says that the burden is on those wanting to include, then yes it is a valid argument. So is "nothing on talk suggests inclusion". What's NOT a valid argument is saying random things like "that's not valid" "that's not coherent" - essentially BRD is misguided and consensus is irrelevant
 * 3)  Actually that = WP:SYNTH|synthesis - arguing it's synthesis to infer "husbands" in 1930s Hungary were "men"

Between the frequent edit-warring reports, AE reports - I count 5 in the last year, two discussing coordinated editing with My very best wishes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) - I'm surprised he hasn't been topic-banned but not surprised, considering the absence of any sanctions, this behavior continues. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Perhaps this should be brought to the attention of concerned mods. Solntsa90 (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was already brought to the attention of concerned mods That's why he's linking AE reports. And guess what happened? Can you say WP:BOOMERANG? Yup, other people got banned, not me. For good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience Volunteer Malek can be a somewhat aggressive and blunt editor; who can sometimes be goaded into rash actions. However in my experience he always is honestly trying the improve the project. To me this discussion seems to a storm in a teacup. To those filing the complaints here I would say: "grow up", to Volunteer Malek I would say "Control your temper". Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is just the regular slate of disruptive users (like Solntsa90 who was blocked for stalking and harassing me) and returned sock puppets of perma banned users, like Paul Keller aka Lokalkosmopolit, trying to get me because I won't let them push their stupid POV in peace. Yes, stupid, because it's almost always something to do with some far-right nutjob conspiracy theories. It happens all the time. I'm used to it. They drag me here, to ANI, to AE and most of the time they get boomeranged. Shrug.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Those requests show a number of established, apparently non-partisan editors concerned about your behavior. "My behavior was justified" should not be the takeaway - that suggests a problem.
 * To the closing admin: you might want to review Marek's previous reports and evaluate this report in that context. I don't have time today to compile a list but if someone wants to that'd be helpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They show nothing of the kind. What they show is exactly what I described above. If you were right, wouldn't there have been some kind of a sanction? Why wasn't there? Why is it that it's the people who file these reports that get WP:BOOMERANGed? Your own edits were very problematic, I objected, which is why you showed up here to pursue a grudge - that's actually how these boomerangs get afloat, you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The first case linked above that I drew upon did not show any 'boomerang' applied, it was simply closed with no action, so you are being dishonest even here. The case was detailed and manifold and the fact no sanction was deemed necessary back then left you and your meat-puppet emboldened for even more violations of exactly the kind discussed there in the report. Sometimes this all bordering on travesty. E.g. would you still be sincerely claiming tag-team edits like these two reverts, are a mere "coincident" due to "similar interests and watchlists" you alleged back then? This is getting both funny and sad.Paul Keller (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Marek: re "they show nothing of the kind":
 * "Marek's behavior was sub-par" –Vanamonde93 (admin)
 * "My suggestion would be for a 'topic ban for MVBW for Eastern Europe and post-1932 American Politics, and a 0RR restriction for Volunteer Marek for American Politics." –The Wordsmith (admin)
 * "you've not been subject to, or privy to, the frequent drama that surrounds these two editors. I believe the community is tired of it and that it needs to stop." –Softlavender
 * "The evidence I've looked through so far is damning. I hope Volunteer Marek and My very best wishes can explain why they've clearly tag-teamed articles during edit wars for years, and why they continue to do so to this day." –Coffee (admin)
 * "I have also been at my wits' end with this editor, but eventually I decided to do nothing about it." –LjL
 * "I'd like to hear any justification/explanation Volunteer Marek can offer for those diffs. At first look they appear to be clear personal attacks and incivility and breaches of Cannanecc's warning." –Spartaz (admin)
 * "Per Bishonen, any action taken here should address more than the apparent incivility of Volunteer Marek." –Spartaz (admin)


 * And that's just AE requests. I didn't even look at other noticeboards. How many different editors have to complain and how many reports showing the same behavior across multiple articles have to be submitted before an admin takes action? This disruption is long-term and ongoing. Protecting a single article won't end it. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Page has been protected for 1 week to allow for dispute resolution without edit warring. Volunteer Marek is no more at fault than Solntsa90, and with regard to 3RR specifically, yes, self-revert negates the violation, as it shows there was no intent to violate 3RR. This doesn't mean that edit warring below 3RR is OK, but it was page protection or block multiple people. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jerry Stockton reported by User:Calidum (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING ANY PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES.""
 * 2)  "WP:LEAD "It [the lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, INCLUDING ANY PROMINENT CONTROVERSIES.""
 * 3)  "removed puffery text WP:FLOWERY"
 * 4)  "WP:LEAD "The lead ... including ... controversies." Deflategate"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 742587986 by WikiOriginal-9 (talk) WP:CITELEAD "citations in a lead ... controversial subjects may require many citations")"


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


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


 * Comments:

Users contributions for the last month have been the same pattern of edit warring over the lead of the Brady article.  Calidum   ¤   04:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours, hopefully that will get his attention. Blocks will escalate very quickly if it doesn't. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:96.238.61.167 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This blurb was a part of this article for multiple years and was repeatedly deleted within the past 2 months."
 * 2)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."
 * 1)  "This blurb was a part of this article for multiple years and was repeatedly deleted within the past 2 months."
 * 2)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."
 * 1)  "This blurb was a part of this article for multiple years and was repeatedly deleted within the past 2 months."
 * 2)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."
 * 1)  "This blurb was a part of this article for multiple years and was repeatedly deleted within the past 2 months."
 * 2)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."
 * 1)  "This blurb was a part of this article for multiple years and was repeatedly deleted within the past 2 months."
 * 2)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."
 * 1)  "Can anyone explain why this fact was deleted? It is supported by an academic study and the most important figure, which was previously listed here exactly as I posted it for 7 years before being deleted last month."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Clear 3RR violation, after warning message had been posted to their talk page. Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:5.29.102.252 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

This is the version before Lugnuts started reverting!] 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] I made it clear on the talk page

Comments:

Comment: It's perfectly normal on Wikipedia to include sections describing an artist's political view on Wikipedia. De Niro and Springsteen have whole sections dedicated to their political views! So why does this user insist on removing this referenced fact on the artist's political stand from the article? Maybe he finds it uncomfortable that Russian artists support Crimea's accession to Russia, but that's not a valid reason to remove a referenced piece of information. 5.29.102.252 (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I was accused of being a sock. My IP changes automatically and my original block on my previous account expired long ago. The only reason I was blocked then was because I wasn't aware it was possible to complain to admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.102.252 (talk) 10:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month by User:Ymblanter. There has been more discussion at User talk:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742747021 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) Decorative purposes, pictogram already shown via calendar, please stop of violating MOS"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sportsfan 1234: You should be the one who stop, they are no rules to say that every Games coverage should have icon, can you find one for me about the policy. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 742744290 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk) con is not use for decorating purpose, see WP:ICON"
 * 4)  "Reverted edits by 陈佳宇090905 (talk) to last version by GreenC bot"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2014 Asian Games. (TW)"


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

As Sportsfan 1234 did also.
 * Comments:
 * All i did is comply to the WP:ICONS, where pictogram already exits via Calendar and no reason to be repeated again without mandate reason. They are no policy to say that every Games coverage should include pictogram, where i will fight to maintain the consistency of article. --Aleen f 1 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing request Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NPalgan2 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742538835 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 742506646 by Grayfell (talk) No, the burden is not on me. Read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 742504999 by Grayfell (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 742504311 by Grayfell (talk) If Spencer denies he Wsup, howvr ludicrous it may seem, BLP requires that his denial and a reliably sourced rebuttal be given. Don't revert, go to talk"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 742503757 by Grayfell (talk) Yes, because the sources are not good enough. wonkette.com? Read WP:BLP"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 742503757 by Grayfell (talk) Yes, because the sources are not good enough. wonkette.com? Read WP:BLP"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

NPalgan2 began editing on 21 August 2016. I'm intrigued by a possible connection to, who was also interested in Spencer... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I'm not Connor Machiavelli. Also, I remind you of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BLP/3RR#BLP_vio_removal_and_3rr In what universe is wonkette a RS for contested info in a BLP? NPalgan2 (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't like Wonkette, but that doesn't explain why you outright removed, without explanation, a NY Times citation that also supported the article's lead, in between your edit warring changes.
 * I have also noticed that you're quite well versed in Wikipedia policies and formatting for someone who started an account just over a month ago. You may or may not be, but if this is your first and only Wikipedia account, I'll eat my keyboard. Rockypedia (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that NYTimes article described Spencer as a WN. "Richard B. Spencer, the 37-year-old president of the white nationalist National Policy Institute in Whitefish, Mont., embodies this new generation." It describes Dylann Roof, Don Black et al but conspicuously *not* spencer as WSs. It's the only use of WN in the article and thus significant. It's a fair cop guv, I'm also NPalgan and Kolyaaylok (I forget passwords.) But I have never misused them, I just stopped using those two. Please compare the sockpuppet's accounts and mine and see that we have ... very different interests. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is related to the report below by Solntsa90. Basically Solntsa90 jumped in to continue the edit war started by NPalgan2 once the former ran out of reverts. Yes, there was one unreliable source given for the info (wonkette) but it was one of THREE sources, the other ones being New York Times and Slate. I've also tried to add additional sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no nytimes article. There was a) a slate article that used WN and WSep in the body, WS only was in the headline, and frankly slate getting very clickbaity with headlines these past few years b) wonkette c) a unscripted rachel maddow clip. not sufficient sourcing for using wikipedia's voice for something the subject makes a big song and dance of denying. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The diffs presented here show that violated 3RR to restore material that was removed by an editor citing BLP. This is something that they do regularly, but usually avoid violating 3RR by having another editor like,  or  carry on the restoration of the challenged material. This is more of the same of what  stated at the bottom of a similar filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article, except in this case user:Grayfell violated 3RR. Zaostao (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, did I violate 3RR? Was it when I tried to add another source right after a revert, or when I added the POV template? Grayfell (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Update
The article has now been protected (viz section just below), so we can be confident that NPalgan2 won't edit-war again on this article for the next six days or so. Anyone want to lay odds on whether that editor will end up in another 3RR violation later on that article (or on a different one)? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We need an administrator to explain to Nomoskedasticity that 3RR does not apply to a BLP claim with crappy sourcing; wonkette.com, Rachel Maddow's gabfest and a clickbait Slate headline not supported by the article body is not RSing for a claim the subject contends. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you intend to carry on edit-warring once protection expires... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like you intend to carry on ignoring the points I bring up ... NPalgan2 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Seppi333 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Skin: rv misleading primary info; only exists in vitro"
 * 2)  "Skin protection: recent research, no implications for human skin | Assisted by Citation bot"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 742607472 by Seppi333 (talk)per WP:BRD at Talk"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 742606370 by Zefr (talk): See previous comments. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted to revision 742604462 by Zefr (talk): Rv unexplained edit; see the research referenced; this is beyond WP:PRIMARY. (TW)"
 * 6)  "/* Skin protection */ subtitle misrepresents the substantial primary nature of this research; insufficient evidence to include"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Notice that  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) created the warring dispute while making no comments for the reversals. I provided edit comments and initiated the dispute on the article's Talk page. --Zefr (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While I admit I probably could've communicated my rationale for reverting better in my first 2 reverts, I did do so in my 3rd. However, simultaneously violating 3RR and creating a talk page discussion does not excuse you from violating 3RR for the same reason that it doesn't excuse me from reverting you a 4th time while engaging you on the talk page.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * I initiated the Talk page discussion with points to debate.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) has made no effort to engage productively. --Zefr (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit disingenuous to say this at the exact moment that you create a talk page discussion.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I provided a clear warning about 3RR in my 3rd revert with a link to this policy in lieu of a templated userpage warning. Zefr chose to revert a 4th time anyway.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢)) 18:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * has since performed a 5th and 6th revert since I posted this notice.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:Zefr and User:Seppi333 are warned that either of them may be blocked if that person reverts the article again before a talk-page consensus is found. There is no exemption from 3RR which allows you to make this kind of revert without consequences. Only one person went past 3RR but both parties were edit-warring. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is Zefr's 7th revert just outside of a 24 hour period which followed your warning on both of our talk pages. There was no discussion on the talk page about removing this material prior to this revert; he simply left this message.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even with a warning to not war again in place,  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) made a non-consensus re-insert of material disputed as "woo" by a third experienced editor on the Talk page. I simply removed the quote and made other constructive edits to the section, feeling this was normal constructive editing not really part of yesterday's edit war. Seppi will argue and argue interminably, so I would encourage his taking a timeout from this article, as I was prepared to do and have done with other WP editing. --Zefr (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's easily verifiable from the article history that I haven't reverted any material since my 3rd revert yesterday, hence saying that I "re-inserted" anything is quite misleading.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snapdragon2727 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding abilities that a DS hater deleted"
 * 2)  "Added missing abilities"
 * 1)  "Adding abilities that a DS hater deleted"
 * 2)  "Added missing abilities"
 * 1)  "Added missing abilities"
 * 1)  "Added missing abilities"
 * 1)  "Added missing abilities"
 * 1)  "Added missing abilities"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned. Muffled Pocketed  04:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User has not edit warred since being warned, and should've been given a more proper explanation beyond generic vandalism templates that don't really say what the problem is.
 * I do see the possibility that Snapdragon2727 might not wait out the full 24 hours before reverting again, but I did try to indicate on the article's talk page (where user is now participating) indicating that if they could be blocked for reverting even if they do wait 24 hours. What I'm expecting is maybe a few more posts attempting to argue for original research before yet another new user just gives up and never logs in again.
 * Unless Snapdragon2727 reverts again, I'm not seeing any reason to take action yet. I'm not going to close this report in case another admin feels otherwise, though.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead and close it- I would not have raised it here if I had noticed. I mistook the last edit to the TP as being to the article, apologies. Muffled Pocketed  06:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok then. No problem.  He technically did violate 3rr and I could've blocked him, but yeah, nothing since being warned.  Ian.thomson (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that an IP-hopping user was edit warring with the exact same edits on both Deathstroke and Jason Todd just before this suspiciously new account popped up on the same day and continued doing the same thing . What makes this even more suspicious is that the Deathstroke edits are Snapdragon's only edits. DarkKnight2149 15:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are accusing at IP of being Snapdragon2727 (which I'll grant is plausible), then I have to ask where you've attempted to communicate with said IP in the past -- and not just vandalism or disruptive editing templates, but talking to him like an actual person. Even then, I'd have to ask if there's been any indication that he actually received said communication (since, he was, after all, an IP-hopper).  Since this has gone on for a few months, I'm going to guess that he didn't get the message either way.  His behavior at Talk:Deathstroke is more in line with a user who has never been told how things work here.  IP editors and new editors are still editors, and new editors need to be shown the ropes instead of hung from them.
 * Also, that bit about the Deathstroke edits being Snapdragons2727's only edits being suspicious is a seriously unreasonable assumption of bad faith. If the IP had continued to edit war on Jason Todd during this time frame (though during times that Snapdragon2727 was otherwise not active), that would actually help your argument that we have someone who is intentionally disrupting the site in bad faith (and not just a newbie making mistakes in good faith).  But without it, it's just ridiculous to accuse an account with less than three hours of activity and less than a dozen edits of being a single purpose account (even if he previously edited as the IP).
 * If you want to prove that this is a disruptive editor, you need to show that either:
 * he was editing as an IP in roughly (though not exactly) the same time frame as Snapdragon2727 was at Deathstroke (logging out to avoid scrutiny)
 * that the IPs are consistent in their behavior but geolocate to radically different areas (though this is still possible with innocent users)
 * that there are previous (or future) accounts that might be sockpuppets of this same user.
 * Otherwise, it looks like we just have a newbie that you bit the hell out of from a paranoid assumption of bad faith. Not everyone who causes a bit of trouble is a sockpuppeting vandal out to destroy the site, we have plenty of new users who just don't know what they're doing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing the user of anything. Rather than jumping to conclusions, I was pointing the highly suspicious nature of the account, which means that they could be that user. In fact, the Talk Page discussion is probably one of the only things keeping me from believing that. The anonymous vandal clearly showed that they had no intention on collaborating with others, so starting a Talk Page discussion (albeit too late) or even interacting with other users would be uncharacteristic from what we have seen from them. And the account being single-purpose is a possibility, but again, I'm not directly jumping to conclusions as you would believe.


 * Another reason I brought it up is because the user's only edits were at the Deathstroke article, so they had to have known what the warnings were for (and that's without taking into account that they were continuing a pre-existing edit war). And even if they weren't aware exactly what they were doing wrong, the sheer number of warnings should have tipped them off to stop what they were doing and ask. Being inexperienced seems like a thin excuse for this user's actions. But with all of that being said, I still stand by my claims that this is suspicious. DarkKnight2149 21:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Thomas0000 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Take short the plot"
 * 2)  "Plot"
 * 3)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on LOL (2012 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is also socking:. So I think that puts them at 7RR. GABgab 21:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sparkie82 reported by User:Majora (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rv 742326723 at 01:53, 3 October 2016 by DaCashman, WP:BOLD"
 * 2)  "/* top */ an attempt was made to add Castle on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was immediately reverted at 736056459 and the addition of Castle has been challenged/discussed ever since without reaching consensus - do not reinstate any challenged edits"
 * 1)  "/* top */ an attempt was made to add Castle on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was immediately reverted at 736056459 and the addition of Castle has been challenged/discussed ever since without reaching consensus - do not reinstate any challenged edits"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 1RR violation on United States presidential election, 2016 */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

1RR is currently in force on this article per the talk page and Sparkie82 was already informed of this on their talk page (see the discretionary sanctions alert section). I asked them to self-revert and they ignored me. The main issue here is the infobox. Sparkie82 continues to make the same edit again and again over a period of time showing that they do not plan on stopping. See [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=742992554&oldid=742992063][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=742717219&oldid=742658210][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=742140861&oldid=742089889][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=741775167&oldid=741761547]. The back and forth has been ongoing for a while now is has already crossed the threshold into disruptive territory. Majora (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reminder, however, the first revert was to remove a new addition of text at the end of the intro by DaCashman. The second was to remove an edit that tried to restore a challenged edit (trying to add pictures of Castle and McMullin to infobox). The 1RR rule only deals with reverts of the same content. Thank you for your alertness, though.  Sparkie82  ( t • c )  03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I ignored you for 37 minutes.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to reread WP:3RR again. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. (emphasis mine). Replace "three reverts" with "one revert" and you have 1RR. --Majora (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, there were no interviening edits between those two I made. I could have just as easily made them simultaneously in one edit but I separated them out as a courtesy to other editors.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  04:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sparkie82 has not violated 1RR: consecutive edits count as a single revert. I note that Sparkie has made this removal a number of times, but that it seems to be in line with the most recent consensus decision on the talk page. Certainly no consensus has been established for the edit which Sparkie has reverted. Vanamonde (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Hello2u3 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Soccer player Mesut Özil was born on October 15, 1988, in Gelsenkirchen, Germany. The grandson of a Turkish immigrant, he developed his soccer skills alongside friends in the "Monkey Cage," a local pitch surrounded by fences."
 * 2)  "He is Turkish please stop changing it it is apauling"
 * 3)  "Özils mother and father was Turkish reliable source: http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2013/04/09/3886081/i-will-always-be-turkish-why-ozil-is-worshipped-in-istanbul"
 * 4)  "He is not German he is Turkish"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Mesut Özil */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Mesut Özil */"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mesut Özil. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit clearly does not understand wikipedia consensus and guidelines Qed237&#160;(talk)</b></i> 10:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the user is temporarily blocked for legal threats. Note that if the user unconditionally withdraws the legal threat and agrees to stop threatening in the future, they may be unblocked at any time. --Yamla (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The user in question clearly violated 3RR, and would be heading for a block, except for the fact that they are already blocked for making legal threats: and since this has been in place for nearly 24 hours already, extending it for edit-warring will likely be punitive. I am therefore going to formally warn  that if and when they are unblocked, further reverts without obtaining consensus will result in an edit-warring block. Vanamonde (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Afshar khan reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result:Fully protected for 2 days)
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: Afshar Khan has chosen not to use the talk page.

Comments:

Afshar Khan has been edit warring Nader Shah's ethnicity since 29 September. He currently has been reverted by 3 different editors. Afshar has chosen not to use the talk page to discuss their edit and instead has made a total of 6 reverts in the space of about the same number of days, essentially trying to keep off the edit warring reports. Unfortunately for Afshar, continued edit warring over a period of time is still edit warring. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've protected the page for 2 days to see if User:Afshar khan will use the talk page. I've already warned him about not communicating in English. If after the protection expires he hasn't discussed his edits on the talk page and continues to edit war I am likely to block him. It's been suggested that this may fall under " Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts" but I'm not clear if it does. I gave him a DS warning recently. Doug Weller  talk 12:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:78.129.111.57 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi, Block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

I'm not sure what the IP editor's intentions are since they haven't used any edit summaries or explained their edits on the talk page. It looks like they're also warring on Norman W. Marsh and Dan Dunn. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon. clpo13(talk) 20:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This anon IP is one at at least two being used by what is almost certainly blocked User:BaronBifford, who now appears to be block-evading as User:JungLiao. The other anon IP appears to be 188.188.81.129.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Airplaneman. I've blocked the IP as well as User:JungLiao for a month each as suspected socks of User:Kurzon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)