Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive328

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (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:

Comments:

User was warned last week and the page was locked, as soon as the page lock expired he immediately comes back and begins his reverting without attempting to discuss. In what to me appears to be an attempt to avoid the admin realizing he reverted an older edit rather than the more recent one. -  Galatz Talk  14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I get some a proove to show this

Evidence for incorporating SFRY team records in this article:

Claim: For FIBA records and statistics, Serbia is (indirectly) the only sucessor of SFRY. A successor's records should incorporate the records of succeeded teams. Source: Pages stating "Year of affiliation: 1936" for Serbia on FIBA World Championship 2006 site [4] Source: A FIBA news item stating "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." [5] Source: Listings of "Participation" and "Achievements in FIBA competition" for Serbia (or Serbia&Montenegro) on FIBA World Championship 2006 site stating "SERBIA & MONTENEGRO (SCG) 13th appearance (3 consecutive)". [6] (moved to #2.1) Claim: International news organizations represent Serbia as successor to the previous Yugoslavia federations Source: Listing of international competition history of Serbia National Team on EuroBasket.com references complete statistics, starting at 1950 through 2006: [7] Source: InsideHoops.com combines records for SFR Yugoslavia 3 and 2 FR Yugoslavia championships (Total 5) [8] Source: InsideHoops.com article: "It was Yugoslavia (now known as Serbia & Montenegro) who defeated the USA Senior squad and eliminated it from medal contention at the 2002 FIBA World Championship..." [9] Source: CBC article: victory over defending champion Serbia and Montenegro.....which won the gold medal in 2002 as Yugoslavia, but only one player from that team was back to defend the title. [10] Source: Inq7 article: "The third world championship in 1959 was won by Brazil; the fourth in 1963, also won by Brazil; the fifth in 1967 by the Soviet Union; the sixth in 1970 by Yugoslavia; the seventh in 1974 by the Soviet Union; the eighth in 1978 by Yugoslavia; the ninth in 1982 by the Soviet Union; the 10th in 1986 by the US; the 11th in 1990 by Yugoslavia; the 12th in 1994 by the US; the 13th in 1998 by Yugoslavia; the 14th in 2002 by Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia); and the 15th in 2006 by Spain." [11] Source: ABC sport (.au) "In late matches, Spain ousted defending champion Serbia and Montenegro" [12] Source: Radio New Zealand "Spain beat defending champions Serbia and Montenegro" [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crnibombarder (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Continuation of an edit war that has already led to protection of the article. A large fraction of all his edits seem to be reverts. This user has also removed posts by others at Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Partyclams reported by User:Yoshiman6464 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  — Removed information from the Juanita Broaddrick article because her twitter account is "unverified".
 * 2)  — Removed information again, falsely claiming that "Broaddrick's Twitter account authenticity has been called into question as it's unverified"
 * 3)  — Repeating the false claim: "That may be so, but Broaddrick's Twitter account's verifiability has been specifically been called into question and cannot be confirmed at this time", even though the information was presented with reliable sources.
 * 4)  — No comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Yoshiman6464 insists on citing Tweets associated with an unverified Twitter account that is now being questioned for its authenticity. Partyclams (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't citing directly to her tweets, I was citing reports that discuss these tweets, such as the Washington Post and Politico. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:44, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
 * 2) 18:38, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
 * 3)  "/* Religion */"
 * 4)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 5)  "/* Middle Ages */"
 * 6)  "/* Middle Ages */"
 * 7)  "/* Ottoman Albania */"
 * 8)  "/* Republic and monarchy */"
 * 9)  "/* World War II */"
 * 10)  "/* Communist Albania */"
 * 11)  "/* Ottoman Albania */"
 * 12)  "/* Religion */ Mother Teresa was 100% Albanian, her dad was an Albanian businessman  and part of the league of Prizren, and yes she is again 100% albanian!!!"
 * 13)  "/* Middle Ages */"
 * 14)  "/* History */"
 * 15)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 16)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 17)  "/* Antiquity */"
 * 18)  "/* National parks and World Heritage Sites */"
 * 19)  "/* Religion */"
 * 20)  "/* Religion */"
 * 21)  "/* Religion */"
 * 22)  "/* Demographics */"
 * 23)  "/* Language */"
 * 24)  "/* Religion */"
 * 25)  "/* Climate */"
 * 1)  "/* Religion */"
 * 2)  "/* Religion */"
 * 3)  "/* Religion */"
 * 4)  "/* Demographics */"
 * 5)  "/* Language */"
 * 6)  "/* Religion */"
 * 7)  "/* Climate */"
 * 1)  "/* Language */"
 * 2)  "/* Religion */"
 * 3)  "/* Climate */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mother Teresa */ reply"


 * Comments:

Disruption. Longterm edit-warring adding picture of Mother Theresa to the article without consensus. Also removes pictures of Enver Hoja without consensus. Does not participate on talk. Will not stop. Editor has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Dr.  K.  18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. The user reverts constantly but has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * — This was the status quo when the article was page-protected from anon IPs. The disputed section at this point used the neutral subhead "Criticism"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  — Revision as of 15:46, 8 October 2016, in which the editor changed the neutral term to the loaded "Racist behavior"
 * 2)  — Revision as of 17:09, 8 October 2016, in which after a reversion to the status quo, "Criticism," he again used loaded, non-neutral language, "Racism controversy"
 * 3)  — Revision as of 17:22, 8 October 2016
 * 4)  — Revision as of 17:35, 8 October 2016
 * 5) — Latest revision as of 00:27, 9 October 2016. After a second, uninvolved editor restored the section subhead to the status quo "Criticism", Wash whites separately edit-warred again to make the subhead a slightly better yet still non-consensus version. Even without this fifth revert, however, he has defiantly made four — essentially saying the 3RR rule doesn't apply to himself. And as WP:CSECTION notes, "Criticism" is standard and "Controversy" should not be used except in rare situations that do not apply here. "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

In order not to do a fourth revert myself, I've left the article at his latest edit. He is behaving emotionally and uncivilly, with one edit-summary reading, "Fixed the grammar so the domineering princess can understand the sentence"
 * It's worth noting that the emotional response came after he referred to my edit as "horrific" and also made threats against me. Even after I conceded to him about the grammar of the writing, he still decided to nitpick and report me because of the title of the section. He's just as emotional as anyone else, pursuing petty conflicts to the greatest lengths, all with a touch of condescension. —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my edit summary, which refered not to his edit or him as horrific, but to "horrific grammar" that as, phrased, called Chinese Americans "things": . In any case, it doesn't mitigate his edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. User has been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Woovee reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User wants to add this sentence: "Others who embraced neo-psychedelia include Siouxsie and the Banshees [1] and The Glove [2]."
 * The issue here is one of WP:ONUS and WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I placed elucidate next to the text and argued my case on talk page, writing that indiscriminate namedrops of random artists is laundry list trivia that could potentially be stretched to infinity, and that the info is better located at List of neo-psychedelia artists. I suggested that if he wants those bands to be acknowledged, then he should find a source that discusses the subject as more than a passing mention (i.e. something in the vein of "[X] was a major figure of neo-psychedelia who influenced many artists of the genre").
 * He responded by citing WP:OWNER and WP:RS, but not before engaging in an edit war over the "abusive" tag I had placed. After giving a 3RR warning, he began removing other sourced content from the article, which looks to me like WP:DISRUPTPOINT.

Reply from User:Woovee:


 * 1) I added completely new content yesterday.
 * "Journalist David Stubbs remarked that Siouxsie and the Banshees's music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8] Critic Ira Robbins stated that The Glove integrated neo-psychedelic elements in their work in 1983.[9]
 * I have put another source and 2 very different sentences. Each time, I've changed and improved my edits. I wp:STICKTOSOURCE, I used wp:RSs and there is no wp:OR.


 * 2) This report is bizarre because the plaintiff has done 4RR which I didn't.
 * Here's his 4RR, he should have never reported someone while doing this:


 * 1)  18:51, 5 October 2016 in which the plaintiff completely erased my first edit with 2 reliable sources
 * 2)  13:45, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff again reverted my edit
 * 3) 23:29, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff accepted one of the revious source and a new one while adding an abusive tag, which is his new tactics
 * 4) 23:50, 6 October 2016 same rv than above
 * 5) 13:01, 7 October 2016 same rv than above
 * 6) 17:22, 7 October 2016 same rv than below


 * So, his report is abusive, and inappropriate. Woovee (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – One week. This looks like a two-person edit war. Try to get agreement on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 743357845 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)for the reason you just gave which can only serve to push bias here now I see your goal and you too are a bias pusher"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 743356027 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Current_events#Reverts.2Fedits.2Freverts..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 743354420 by Shearonink (talk)I have answered your question over on talk and as for the other it is not political it is a hack/theft/crime and only for that is it in the portal"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 743351932 by Shearonink (talk)this is not a newspaper and that is just bias pushing political spin"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 743333428 by FallingGravity (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2016 October 7. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* October 2016 */ Self-revert, please."


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


 * Comments:

User was advised repeatedly to open a discussion on the talk page, but instead simply engaged in a stale revert-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * for violating WP:3RR 86.22.8.235 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

The above warning diffs provide information on nonconstructive edits on these Wikipedia pages: Blockchain (database), Bitcoin, and 1,000,000 socks for Paul Wolfowitz Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – the reverts at Blockchain (database) are stale (October 6). Nothing at the other two articles needs admin attention. There are lots of people expressing opinions at Talk:Blockchain (database) which means that a good discussion should be possible. I hope you guys are aware you can make binding decisions using a WP:Request for comment. If instead you just continue to revert it won't have any useful results. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Travis505 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wrong information"
 * 2)  "Please explain to me why it's so important that you have to be the leader of everyone?"
 * 3)  "The information is wrong the US is not the leader of NATO and they never will be so I will continue to correct the wrong information being spread about NATO."
 * 4)  "We are all leaders in this war not just the US, this is a global war against the terrorists and we all take part and no one is in charge of this war we are all against them. This article had incorrect information once again"
 * 5)  "The US is not the only leading force in the war on terror it's not your war we are all fighting this war together."
 * 6)  "Everyone plays a part the point of NATO is there is no leader all I'm doing is stating the fact, US is not in charge of NATO, the closest thing to a leader there is the Secretary General who is Norwegian not American."
 * 7)  "This article wrongly states the US as leader of NATO, NATO is a joint coalition with no fixed leader so again I am fixing the article and removing the misinformed information that US is the leader of NATO."
 * 1)  "Everyone plays a part the point of NATO is there is no leader all I'm doing is stating the fact, US is not in charge of NATO, the closest thing to a leader there is the Secretary General who is Norwegian not American."
 * 2)  "This article wrongly states the US as leader of NATO, NATO is a joint coalition with no fixed leader so again I am fixing the article and removing the misinformed information that US is the leader of NATO."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Warning of edit warring
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk page discussion to attempt to resolve issue

Claims that the user falsely adding leader among many countries. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 15:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Note also the vandalism and sockpuppetry: . GABgab 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Article semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chanbaek461 reported by User:Junior5a (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 743442116 by Junior5a (talk) This is not vandalism its the truth you can look it up"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 743440451 by Junior5a (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 743436427 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 743436427 by ClueBot NG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Park Chanyeol. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editing warring and Vandalism, Other editors was trying undo it ~ Junior5a   (Talk)   Cont  17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Widr (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Note: he was recently warned for making even a single revert to the article without getting concensus on talk first:.

— Explanation of the wording as instructed by subst:

As mentioned, Xenophrenic (and I) were warned for making even a single revert to the article before getting concensus on talk, at September 1:. At that point I actually already had concensus:,.

I get clearer concensus again:, and make a tiny change to the Amherst portion by adding two testimonies verified by all our sources and the words "a month before" which is obviously quite important:.

Now Xenophrenic reverts that, removing the testimonies for the millionth time and changes massive portions of the article completely chaotically and gets into an edit war with yet another editor, totaling 4 against him now. His argument is that it's a WP:NOTAVOTE. People are at arms about his behavior but it just keeps getting passed over.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Section of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – These diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If someone opened an RfC with specific statements we could get a reading on what wording actually has consensus. It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired of going in circles and will try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ed, of course these diffs do not show a 3RR violation. They don't even show disruptive edit warring on my part.  What do the above diffs show in this malformed report?  The diff of the "previous version reverted to" is just an unhelpful link to the current article.  The diff to an "attempt to resolve the dispute" is instead just an unhelpful link to the whole article Talk page.  The 4 "diffs of the user's reverts" are instead just article improvement edits, mostly consisting of uncontroversial new content and reliable sources.  Any other Admin might assume good faith and mistake this grossly malformed report as merely new user lack of competence, but Admin Ed Johnston should know better.  Ed has been handling this matter for a while now, and knows this report is just the latest in a string of attempts by the single purpose Etsybetsy account to substitute baseless drama-board sanction requests in place of actual collaboration and discussion on article improvement.


 * While I appreciate Ed's efforts to appear impartial while addressing edit warring complaints here, I feel Ed's use of wording which paints both parties as equally culpable (i.e.; "It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired...") is unhelpful. Such language only encourages Etsybetsy's poor behavior.  This AN3 report alleges that I reverted after being warned not to, but Ed is fully aware that it was actually Etsybetsy who reverted.  Ed gave Etsy a chance, "there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block", which Etsy declined.  Ed patiently listened to Etsy's faulty claim to consensus (which Etsy has again echoed just above in this report), and again Ed gave Etsy a chance, "Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page."  Again Etsy declined.  Whether Ed then grew too irritated with the situation to continue, or simply lost track of it, Ed didn't comment further.  I left Etsy's problematic, non-consensus edit in the article and patiently waited a full 2 weeks.  With no further response from Etsy, or from Ed, I have resumed article improvement editing.  Ed, you suggest (again) that we should be following the steps of Dispute Resolution, but you must know that cannot be done in a vacuum.  Two to Tango, and all that.  As you know, I took the initiative to open the Talk page discussion, which Etsy has abandoned in favor of revert-warring instead. I also offered to initiate an RfC for Etsy, but that was rejected, with no alternative proposal offered by Etsy.  Arbitration and Third Opinion steps aren't applicable here.  I'd like to initiate a Moderated Discussion, but that, too, is no longer applicable because there must first be significant discussion.  The content Etsy is presently revert warring out of the article (Canadian schools; Mandan tribes; copy editing) is new content being deleted without any discussion.  Suggestions? Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas reported by User:Duedemagistris (Result: )
Hi, just wanted to alert other editors to potential problem with User:Aṭlas reverting edits on MoorsDuedemagistris (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * There is no potential problem with Atlas reverting edits. You made some rather poorly explained deletions, you were reverted. Then you added an explanation on the talk page. This is an ordinary content dispute following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that has accused Atlas of vandalism, clearly unreasonably. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr Lecter reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: First version Latest correct version (a title bout occurred in the meanwhile)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 As an IP.
 * 2) 2 Now as a registered user (he confirmed that on edit summary)
 * 3) 3 After my second (and final) revert, he engaged in an edit war with another user as seen on the next diffs.
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User warned by the other user he engaged in an edit war. My warning is there as well. He was warned previously via edit summary.

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

Comments:

User was warned several times, but refuses to provide reliable source to his edits. I've explained it already to him and he does not seem to understand. If he receives any kind of punishment, I'd recommend page protection as well. He just became a registered user, so he could go back again to unregistered edits and keep that situation going. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dr Lecter I have legitimate argument and have provided a primary source to back myself up, while only receiving secondary sources / speculation as counter evidence. I have been warned several times to provide a source which I have done. My reporters have ignored the source, and continued reporting me for the same reason, while not providing a source of their own - making their reports illegitimate. I do not deserve to be punished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Lecter (talk • contribs) 05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a clear "Interim champion: Jon Jones" below Daniel Cormier here: http://www.ufc.com/fighters. Sorry bud, you did not provide a single reliable source because there is none. I'm afraid you're completely wrong in this one. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We actually prefer secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, and that does not excuse you from the three-revert rule. It's not about punishment, you are being disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: Blocked at SPI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Paragraph one"
 * 2)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "Paragraph one"
 * 2)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "Paragraph one"
 * 2)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "/* Film */"
 * 1)  "/* Film */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Saoirse Ronan."
 * 2)   "/* October 2016 */"


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


 * Comments:

User was warned by at this previous report and continues to engage in the behavior. -- Dane 2007  talk 21:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

has begun editing the article now, with the same changes being made by Torah28. Their first two edits ever, in fact. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

is making false accusations. I was merely correcting Ronan's ethnicity which is 'Irish-American', not Irish and American, her residence which is NYC, and some punctuation. Kates87 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Opened a Sockpuppet investigation on this. Behavioral evidence suggests otherwise in my opinion as well based on specific edits and timing. .-- Dane 2007  talk  21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * at SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

reported by (Result: no violation)
[contributions] has been systematically restoring individual country categories across many bird articles, despite this being against a previously established consensus, and removing categories he/she doesn't like, specifically Category:Birds of Europe. He/she just keeps reverting and has broken WP:3RR at least Aleutian tern, history, probably others by now, and seems unwilling to discuss or stop this disruption discussion. I'm too close to this to take admin action myself, and I'm reluctant to see any editor blocked, but there must be some way of getting this editor to engage with other editors and not just attempt to impose his/her own views without consensus. Apologies if I've not formatted this correctly, I don't think I've ever posted here before Jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No breach of 3RR has yet occurred, as far as I can see. On Aleutian tern they reverted twice yesterday. That said, they are certainly not showing a good attitude to collaborative editing and if this pattern continues then sanctions may occur. I will leave a note on their talkpage and advise them to read WP:BRD. Can I also suggest that you (Jimfbleak) avoid using rollback to revert non-vandalism. (This revert required an edit summary.) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently been updating geographical categories on many bird articles, mainly for the following reasons:

- Bird species are usually classified according to their geographical area by simply indicating the name of the continent(s) on which they are found (e.g. "Birds of Africa", "birds of North America" etc.) ; which can however be rather approximate and misleading and I think it would be wiser to include more refined geographical sub-categories in order to reflect the geographical area of repartition.

e.g. The stilt and the buff-headed sandpipers only occur in Alaska and Canada's far north; which is why I suggested to refine the classification data by replacing "Birds of North America" (very approximate and misleading, given it may suggest that the species occurs throughout the whole continent) by "Birds of Alaska" and "Birds of Canada" which would be much more precise and less misleading.

- Most academic bird list inventories generally indicate a bird's range of presence by only quoting the birds' breeding range (where they spend most of the year), the non-breeding range either mentioned separately or ignored (cf. IOC World Bird List). Likewise, I think only the breeding range should be taken into account on Wikipedia and that birds' wintering ranges could be categorized separately (e.g. "Wintering birds of Australia").

To elicit both examples, the Aleutian tern was up until now categorized as "Birds of North America" and "Birds of Europe" - yet according to every major ornithological reference, the species only occurs in northwestern coastal areas of the continent - and nearly none of them indicate its breeding presence in Europe throughout the year. Hence, wouldn't the terms "Birds of the Aleutian Islands" and "birds of Alaska" be a much more suitable and valid categorization?

At present, Jimfbleak seems unwilling to follow any further pragmatic discussion, deems that geographical subcategories (e.g. 'birds of Tibet', 'birds of Manchuria', 'birds of Alaska' etc.) as "unneeded" and has accused me of edit warring and having an « agenda »...

Therefore I would like to address and politely request other users' opinion regarding this problematic. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This board is not the place to discuss content issues. You can use the article's talk page, or for broad discussion try the relevant WikiProject. Jimfbleak may be aware of previous discussions where consensus was established. Consensus can change of course, but the onus is on you to demonstate this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Eichenwalde reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You are edit-warring over an unsourced edit. Unsourced edits ''Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.""
 * 2)  "No it isn't. It has to be in the source to be called "sourced". However the source never mention any "Islamic extremism motive"(which by the way is a religious belief anyway). Never mentioned in source even once."
 * 3)  "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in sources, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."
 * 4)  "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in attacks, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The article is limited to 1rr however the user has reverted 2 or 3 times, They've been given an edit warring notice which has been ignored, Thanks – Davey 2010 Talk 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I just left a notice about the 1RR restriction. They haven't reverted since receiving the original warning. There's only been two reverts so far. The first was just removal of sources and the second was reverting him/herself. APK whisper in my ear  13:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, I thought there was a notice but had no idea where to find it and don't really know what the best course of action is either, They did self rv but then self reverted straight after anyway so didn't think it was worth mentioning, Anyway they would've known about the 1rr because it's a massive box as soon as you edit so you can't exactly miss it but regardless if an admin believes this is non-actionable for now then I have no objections to that, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but thanks for informing. But, multiple editors one after one have reverted me as well. Is that fair that you are able to tag-team against someone? I wasn't born yesterday and I'm not going to cower. Besides I've already started a discussion, no one responded. If you really care to "discuss", do discuss. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * - Go to Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks and read the archives (on the right hand side). You'll see this has been discussed. When multiple editors are reverting you, examine why they might be doing that instead of assuming it's a tag-team against you. Lastly, your tone seems very pointed. You're new here. Relax, be a little more friendly and people will probably respond to you a lot better. Cheers. APK whisper in my ear  13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No one's tag teaming - You've been reverted by 3 editors and carried on reverting anyway, It's great you've started a discussion but you should'e started it the moment you were reverted, The article isn't placed on 1RR for the sake of it - You ignored it and up until now was unwilling to discuss it and had it not been for this report you would'e carried on reverting. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what is called tag-teaming - one after another reverting. I know this is a tactic. As I said, I wasn't born yesterday hoss. It seems the "editors" haven't used common sense and what Islamic extremism actually means. In fact they haven't even checked whether it's really sourced. NO SOURCE SAYS "Islamic extremism was a motive". And even the article makes itself clear that there was more than one motive. Therefore classifying it as a motive is contrary to reality and completely unsourced. Instead of telling me I'm pointed and to relax, do it yourself first and don't act like you own this site. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I started the discussion before you even complained about me dave. Don't dare to make false allegations. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

- administrator's note: Please self-revert now that you understand that you're limited to a single revert. If you do not, you will be blocked for edit-warring. Self-reversion in such a situation is an acknowledgement that you're willing to work within community norms and a declaration of good faith, and will allow a more collegial discussion.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not happening. I don't want to edit-war. But I fear this is an obvious tactic on other's part to do what they wish to. Had the editors been not tag-teaming, I would have. But this is obviously a tag-team tactic. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BoBoMisiu reported by User:KrakatoaKatie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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: See Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry

Comments:

I came to this via an RFPP report. We have a slow-motion edit war here over the last week or so regarding a specific phrase. It's pretty cut and dried, but BoBoMisiu states on the article talk page that he's not edit warring, but contributing content. After the 3RR warning, he reverted twice. A long-term editor like BoBoMisiu should know better.

I have a viewpoint about Freemasonry, so I decline to act myself. I'm bringing it here for another admin to review. Katietalk 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty clear cut violation, reverts were performed after a warning, and the user is experienced. There is no excuse here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:PogingJuan (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 743590212 by Trivolution (talk)see talk"
 * 2)  "revert pro-Duterte changes"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy and criticism */ restore "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject." Do not remove without consensus"
 * 4)  "/* First days */ remove speech "name" invented by Wikipedia editor"
 * 5)  "/* Mayor of Davao City */ copyvio"
 * 1)  "/* Mayor of Davao City */ copyvio"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Rodrigo Duterte. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

We have always believed in WP:NPOV style of editing, but this user, I think, does not imply on it. He keeps on removing others' contributions showing the positive doings of the politician, although supported by reliable sources, and keeps on only contributing the negative ones, so that the general public, specially foreigners, can think of the politician as so bad. I think, he/she is one-sided and worthy of being punished, in accordance with the Five pillars. ~  Manila's Poging  Juan  15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – You've listed only three reverts, one of which is removing a copyright violation. Such removals are exempted by WP:3RRNO. To resolve content disputes we recommend WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:Zlassiter (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743567402
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743568661
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743570558
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743571498
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743572660

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence

Comments:

User keeps deleting and reverting content in violation of Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material... requested user instead post request citation of sources or constructively contribute instead user just keeps reverting and making hostile comments such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zlassiter&oldid=743572278


 * I'm not removing the same content, I was removing several different instences of unreferenced, somewhat promotional content and several different instences of SYNTH or OR. I had started a discussion on the article talk page, which the other editor did not respond to until after he templated me for edit warring, prior to even 2RR on any one piece of content.  A third editor,  has also reverted the same SYNTH.  If a block is forthcoming it should be for the other editor, who despite having been here for nearly two years, is not signing their comments. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add four tildes after a comment... I don't believe thats a tannable offense but shows your hostility to me. If I get banned for forgetting four tildes, lets ban you for your typo on 'thanks' Zlassiter (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Serious WP:OWN issues too. I made some MOS corrections to the article which he is now reverting and Meters is restoring. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm seriously contemplating some WP:BOOMERANG if this doesn't settle down very quickly. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to bed.....I'll look in in the morning. Can't imagine anything that would be pressing in the meantime. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR doesn't distinguish between removing the same or different material, it's just more than three distinct sets of reverting. If you did revert there one more time for any reason I'd have to block you, and I know some admins would say I should now.
 * This and this would be counted as the same revert (sequential edits are counted as a single revert), not reverts 2 and 3. While this can be counted as a revert, it could be counted as a bold edit instead.  Now, that decision could be considered WP:Wikilawyering, but not nearly as bad a case of wikilawyering as citing this essay to try to justify citing sources that don't actually say the things they're being cited for.  In fact, that behavior and expecting other people to get better sources are regarded as disruptive.  WP:Verifiability (which is an policy representing both traditional and current site-wide consensus, not an essay representing the opinions of a few selected users from a decade ago) plainly states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
 * I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quit WP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income. Still, I'm not closing this myself because I could see how other admins might feel differently one way or another.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Instead of just blanking material discuss it, help reword it so its more neutral... its hard to work on an article when its constantly being blanked over and over by the same user. Zlassiter (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The material being blanked in one of his reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&diff=prev&oldid=743570558 is clearly cited in one of the sources http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/kalamazoo-asks-the-rich-for-donations-instead-of-hiking-taxes "The concern, Apps says, is that the foundation’s benefactors may have different priorities than many city residents." Zlassiter (talk) 07:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hannah Apps isn't "many people," stop with the weasel words. That's been explained to you enough that I shouldn't have to have put it that bluntly, and you should be able to figure out how to rephrase that sentence to be neutral by yourself.  Also, that isn't the only material being reverted.  You need to stop pluralizing every thing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also this should be looked at by admin.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meters#Recent conversation on a user's talk page regarding this. instead of trying to reach consensus subject seems to be reaching out to friends to get an AFD done on an article subject that clearly doesn't meet the requirements for deletion. Also some AGF violations. Zlassiter (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing untoward there. John from Idegon and I are both very active editors, and we have significant overlap on school articles, so we sometimes bounce ideas off of each other. That's why I initially thought his posting on my page had to do with the Crystal Springs high school article. He didn't ask me to look at Kalamazoo Foundation for Excellence and he didn't raise the possibility of an AFD on my page until after the article showed up on my recent changes patrol and I had edited the article and commented on the talk page. As for the suggestion of a WP:CRYSTAL AFD, the article is a bit early, but I think it would certainly be argued that the subject is notable even if the plans don't work out. If it went to AFD it would probably either survive, or be userfied until the outcome of the plan is clarified. Meters (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a very clean 3RR case. The talk page thread was opened at 7:00 by John from Idegon, not Zlassiter, and at 7:05 Zlassiter responded but did not address the valid concerns of improperly supported material, OR and SYNTH. John from Idegon's last edit to the article was at 7:06. At 7:20 the 3RR case was opened, but not until 7:22 was John from Idegon given a 3RR warning. So, a 3RR case was opened without any attempt to discuss the issues, before the editor was warned, and despite the fact that the editor in question was attempting to discuss the issues and was no longer editing the article. Meters (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * - This report is not in proper form and the above links are versions, not diffs. It is still unclear if there was any 3RR violation. Both Zlassiter and John from Idegon are advised to read the above statement by admin User:Ian.thomson: "I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quit WP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income. " John from Idegon was trying to enforce our article standards but may have got close to 3RR while doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:83.86.176.99 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Re-adding unsourced personal experience spam and forcing me to violate 3RR. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring and adding original research. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Excuse me, if you want to have roster tables resembling to the other team-based sports, you might as well start setting up a discussion please on WT:OLY, or do it for the rest of the nations competing in field hockey. Thank you!"
 * 2)  "For now, let's just be contented with the original template. If you're going to add a roster table similar to the other team-based sports, you should come up with a centralized discussion, and see if the other users would agree on your suggestion."
 * 1)  "Excuse me, if you want to have roster tables resembling to the other team-based sports, you might as well start setting up a discussion please on WT:OLY, or do it for the rest of the nations competing in field hockey. Thank you!"
 * 2)  "For now, let's just be contented with the original template. If you're going to add a roster table similar to the other team-based sports, you should come up with a centralized discussion, and see if the other users would agree on your suggestion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Template:2016 Summer Olympics Argentina women's field hockey team roster. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2016 Summer Olympics Argentina women's field hockey team roster. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has ownership issues with Olympic related articles. They have clearly violated the 3RR rule, even after a warning was placed and a discussion started (which they have contributed too). The discussion has barely started and they have reverted back to their preferred version without any comments from other users. The user has also removed large chunks of information from other related templates and   Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that the user blanked this report here Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sportsfan 1234, I think that you do not read what I already explained in the edit summary, and then suddenly you just simply reverted my edits with so many negative, irrational remarks, followed by unpleasant administrative reports. Are you trying to instantly block and threaten me on Wikipedia? You should have read and understood my cases and explanations before you react. I already placed them on the talk pages for the said articles, including WT:OLY. You didn't even give me enough RESPECT when I'm fixing something. You kept on reverting my edits so many times, and you never stop. How long have you ever done the revert power on Wikipedia? Is this your regular habit? Sorry if I ask you too many questions, because I need to know about you situation on why do you have to do this every single time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user also removed the 3RR complaint about himself. I think that hurts his credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrv3rsac3 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Oh dear, the three-revert rule. Go ahead and ban me, fascists. It would be the proudest ban I ever received. Being outnumbered and being wrong are two very different things. You all are completely reprehensible."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 743761643 by PeterTheFourth (talk) you all should be ashamed of yourself; Wikipedia should be objective and impartial"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 743760875 by Muboshgu (talk) you Soros-funded sock puppets working overtime?  I don't blame you after the bloodbath last night"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Donald Trump is on WP:1RR – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I reverted the last revert on Donald Trump as consensus exists at the talk page. -- Dane 2007  talk 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The sooner this can be handled, the better. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow.  Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 03:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Musiclover46 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * They are evidently using multiple IPs to editwar even after breaking 3RR. GABgab 19:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging . GABgab 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See also the page histories of The Greatest (Keke Palmer song) and Awaken Reloaded. GABgab 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User: Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff but this one is fine too.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 02:50, 9 October 2016  adding bunch of Non-MEDRS sourced content to article about garlic extract
 * 2) diff 15:14, 10 October 2016
 * 3) diff 06:46, 11 October 2016
 * 4) diff 07:34, 11 October 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Allicin; see also MEDRS notice

Comments:

Note refs they brought in Talk. Been here before with Bigbaby23; they are an alt-med IDHT editor. This should be their fifth block for edit warring (see four prior EW blocks). Please make this one long. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What will happen to Pete? -Roxy the dog™ bark 07:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * a better question is what will happen to their pal Pekay who should be along presently... Jytdog (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR. My edits in the last 3 days were responding to reverts with comments about adding secondary sources. Which I did. Editor Jytdog has a long history of wikilawyering and abusing the system in order to bully newer editors like me. If some admin could warn him of his behavior it would be productive for the future of other editors too.Bigbaby23 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the policy says "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."  Jytdog (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog stop being an ass, maybe take a vacation from editing for awhile. To the admins - the controversy in the article has reached a consensus. The issue is solved.Bigbaby23 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Anonmandan reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on The Billericay School. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring vandal. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeffed immediately after this was opened. 01:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:73.49.33.101 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Explain how I can request mediation please."
 * 2)  "You're being a gatekeeper and imposing your POV."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 743883533 by Anaxial (talk)"
 * 4)  "This section/paragraph is not relevant in order for a reader to learn and understand the topic of "Flood Geology". It is simply an editor's POV. There is geological support and not ALL scientists consider it pseudoscience."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * . Note that this user has been blocked previously for edit warring on the same article. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Crowfurt reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff Crowfurt 09:14, 28 September 2016
 * 2) diff account "IAU" makes same edit 00:46, 5 October 2016
 * 3) diff account "IAU" makes same edit 00:48, 5 October 2016
 * 4) diff account "IAU" makes same edit 04:51, 5 October 2016
 * 5) diff account "IAU" makes same edit 05:05, 5 October 2016
 * 6) diff  account "IAU" makes same edit 06:39, 5 October 2016; note, account blocked per Username 12:38, 5 October 2016
 * 7) diff IP 175.138.203.50 makes same edit 05:58, 6 October 2016
 * 8) diff IP 115.164.84.80 makes same edit 00:02, 7 October 2016
 * 9) diff IP 103.242.15.7 makes same edit 13:34, 8 October 2016; article is then  protected
 * 10) diff Crowfurt returns, makes same edit 00:26, 10 October 2016
 * 11) diff Crowfurt  makes same edit 03:39, 10 October 2016
 * 12) diff Crowfurt  makes same edit 05:14, 10 October 2016
 * 13) diff Crowfurt  makes same edit 00:29, 11 October 2016
 * 14) diff  Crowfurt  makes same edit 00:16, 12 October 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Blocked for 72 hours, and will open an SPI investigation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:A21F:F7DB:3973:D00:22D:33FA reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Shimmer and Shine. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Shimmer and Shine. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Vandal edit-warring to add hoax info. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for vandalism. The Shimmer and Shine article has been a constant vandal target since April so I'm putting on one year of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:129.49.101.14 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While I was changing the content because of logical reasons, the user keeps reverting the changes just saying something like "This is English Wikipedia, it should be this way", seemingly without even reading the article. Never addressed comments to my editing and the only time he showed up at the discussion page was after I asked him to do so in the comment to my reverse, but then he said all the same stuff and didn't follow the discussion. I'm sorry if I am reporting him too soon, just that was my first attempt to improve Wikipedia a little and it turned out to be pretty frustrating. 129.49.101.14 (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So, what's your excuse for edit warring? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was confused and didn't know what to do. First thing I've done was explaining my point in the "talk" section, but seeing nothing there and considering speed of reverses I thought that Jim is not going to show up there and then I tried just doing same thing he did and seeing what will come from it. It is not a good excuse, I agree. If I should be blocked - be that way. But I believe that experienced user should be more reasonable and mindful while 'assisting' others.
 * Also thanks for your feedback, that's nice to see that people keep an eye on what's going on, even if what they have to say is that I'm wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.101.14 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're both wrong for edit warring, though I'm glad you're trying to discuss the matter at the talk page. I don't think any admin action needs to be taken at this point, but I'd ask both you and User:Jim1138 (who has been here long enough he should have known better) to refrain from further edits to the article until the dispute is resolved. See Dispute resolution for guidance on what to do if you can't work this out with Jim but want to press the issue anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Closing this report as 'Both warned' per the admin comment by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:166.77.6.7 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Look at Wikipedia's Miss USA 2012 page, they have Olivia culpo listed as 5'6 with the same link I used as a source stating shes 5'5:"
 * 2)  "That source stating shes 5'7 doesn't exist anymore. It's a broken link, therefore it isn't a source."
 * 3)  "5'5 source under 'Miss Universe Height Requirements': https://thepageantplanet.com/how-tall-do-you-have-to-be-to-compete-in-pageants/"
 * 4)  "Changed her back to her real height, which is 5'5. She is not 5'7. Use pictures of her (without heels) and Nick Jonas as a source who is 5'7, she is at least 2 inches shorter than him. Even with heels, she is still shorter/same height as him."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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

Keeps adding unsourced height change. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 19:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * The first edit in the list there might not obviously seem like a revert but yep, it is. While the identity change since doing this stuff two days ago might be an effort at gaming 3RR, they haven't reverted since I posted the warning. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Although they were kind enough to update the source that source wasn't a reliable source, The IP may well be right but without the source to prove it it's all just Original research, Anyway they've been given ample opportunities to go to the talkpage and have ignored every chance, just my 2c anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP broke 3RR on 10 October, and the same person seems to have used two IPs. There is so far nothing on the talk page about her height; please discuss the issue there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:FB90:340:B063:A9DA:AF57:8CAF:779 reported by User:NasssaNser (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No need for that"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Young Thug. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

75.150.129.25 is also used. NasssaNser (talk/edits) 11:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * by . Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Thamer Greasy reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Warned )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Vikram filmography. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He has now resorted to cussing, as evidenced here. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * for personal attacks and edit warring, which along with the warning by Kailash29792 should hopefully get through to them. I am disinclined to block since this seems to have stopped several hours previously. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:CE98:1510:4CEF:D74C:D98C:4A0E reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744100431 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744100397 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744100355 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744100125 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744099910 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 744099828 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 744099714 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 744098973 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 744098853 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 744098495 by KATMAKROFAN (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* The IPv6 Dance */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Little kid who doesn't know that Uncyclopedia exists. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for vandalism (with talk page access disabled) by User:MusikAnimal. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:X4n6 reported by User:Champaign Supernova (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: Talk:John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation

Comments:

User is edit warring to remove a source from the article. Three other editors have inserted the material, but he keeps removing it, saying it is subscription-only (it is Wall Street Journal) so it is not an acceptable source. User is also edit-warring to add a SourceWatch source to the page, when the talk page consensus is against inclusion of this WP:USERGENERATED source. Also note that this user was warned for edit-warring on this same article last month. Champaign Supernova (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Response:


 * User:Champaign Supernova was first reverted here for making edits that were already the topic of disagreement and discussion talk here. Instead, the user edit warred here. User:Champaign Supernova was also asked to stop warring and engage in discussion on the talk page here and here. But rather than engage in that discussion and consensus building - or risk 3RR for continued warring, the user preemptively; and without a warning, posted this notice on my talk page. Before that, the user had been told at talk that the SourceWatch quote in the article does not violation WP:UGC, as was pointed out here. But since the user didn't like that explanation, or the fact that the user's edits in the middle of discussion had violated WP:CONSENSUS and were reverted because of it, now the user is forum shopping - instead of either discussing or consensus building. X4n6 (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, rather than directly responding, User:Champaign Supernova has now attempted to amend the user's original report, apparently, in an attempt to circumvent my responses. X4n6 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As for last month, that user, who said this and this, is still involved with that article. But I have filed an RSN to finally resolve this. X4n6 (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. This is now the second report of X4n6's edit warring on this article since 1 September. I closed the previous one with a warning. X4n6's edits on October 12 and 13 clearly show a pattern of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:108.65.81.159 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Change in the law on 06.28'13 caused Tetris to ask you for your age."
 * 2)  "06.28'13 policy guideline change."
 * 3)  "3"
 * 4)  "2"
 * 5)  "1"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 744182425 by GB fan (talk)You exceeded 3 reverts too."
 * 7)  "The TOS says "...not designed to attract...under 13" and "If you do not agree...do not use...", which implies if you are under 13, you can't play Tetris. #COPPA"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 744180390 by GB fan (talk) Why did you delete the TOS link?"
 * 9)  "See here."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 744081146 by Versageek (talk) Legal issues."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744081146 by Versageek (talk) Legal issues."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744081146 by Versageek (talk) Legal issues."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Just to note also edit warring on UTF-32. -- GB fan 17:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Widr (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:108.65.81.159 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744188020 by Ferret (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744182041 by GB fan (talk)You exceeded 3 reverts."
 * 3)  "Preferred forms."
 * 4)  ""consensus" "talk" "before"."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744069225 by GB fan (talk) Is this shorter hex OK?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744069225 by GB fan (talk) Is this shorter hex OK?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 0 or 0x0000 or 0x000000 or 0x00000000? */ comment"


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsi123 reported by (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Calls 3rr warning "Crap"

Comments:

The best I can understand he has an issue with 1 thing, but is reverting much more.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , explicitly stating that if they continue to edit war I will block them from editing without further warning. I am disinclined to block because I count only three reverts (two of them are back to back and technically count as one revert) and since it has been quiet for a few hours now. I have also watchlisted the page; feel free to ping me or another admin if they continue edit warring. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 18:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Gündoğdu reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:16, 13 October 2016 "(Removed. Changes that require sources. Some point the mistakes and lack of information.)"
 * 2) 09:11 9 October 2016 IP sock 2001:1c04:2902:2400:5479:88c6:88a6:a693 "(That map doesn't by far show all the land thet Ottomans controlled ever since then. For example northern yemen was also for a period of time under Ottoman rule. This map shows better what the total amount of land was they controlled)"
 * 3)  "It was restored."
 * 4)  "The abolition consensus is not in question. It is vandalism delete reliable information. Do not delete reliable information."
 * 5) 08:13 10 October 2016 "(List has been revised and checked. It has the necessary resources. Do not delete information from the reliable.( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyalet#Map)"
 * 6) 21:50 10 October 2016 "(Undid revision 743471359 by Athenean (talk)destructive editing returned.)"
 * 7) 09:11 9 October 2016 "Edited list"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

3RR warning - which the reported user calls "junk" and "incorrect". Discussion at the article talkpage
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Edit-warring for days adding infobox information without consensus. User has also canvassed on Turkish wikipedia to get help with his edit-warring: hello in English page of the Ottoman Empire Greek and Armenian origin, users want to remove the table, please help (Google translation of first sentence). Please see this message on the Turkish wikipedia (detail) and this thread at ANI: Gross harassment in Turkish (detail). He calls other editors' edits "vandalism" and "destructive". He reported a user he reverted at the same article at AIV. Dr.  K.  19:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

This list is not a list of newly added. User:Athenean The list has been removed for no reason and without reason. This is the first sweep. Raised without justification. There were already today part of in of page. Raised without debate. The discussion here is not to add to list. He has lifted the warning message by unnecessary to say. Irrelevant answers in the debate, although it has been given the necessary resources--Gündoğdu (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Update Started edit-warring again, this time a probable IP sock has appeared. Dr.   K.  19:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review the changes made.

User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 19:54, 12 October 2016‎ (initial edit warring was over alt names, and expanded from here)
 * 2) diff 15:52, 13 October 2016‎
 * 3) diff 18:20, 13 October 2016‎
 * 4) diff  18:22, 13 October 2016‎
 * 5) diff 18:33, 13 October 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Pease note on Talk their initial dismissive response; their second response where they mischaracterize their own edits and don't respond to issues of MEDMOS and OR, and add a personal attack, and the third response, where they finally acknowledge the MEDMOS issue and yet (oddly dismissively) acknowledge their lack of competence in MEDMOS (yet they are edit warring insisting their edits are correct...); heck they are just edit warring.

Please also note strange response to EW notice here.

Some CIR issues here as well as failure to understand and follow BRD. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I count only three reverts? I'm not quite sure what the first two edits are reverting. Regardless, talk page discussion is ongoing, so best to let that continue. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * meh, blatantly aggressive editing by the subject of this filing with lack of engagement on Talk. But the article won't be disrupted anymore, so that is at least good. Thanks for taking action. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The "strange response" was perplexity as to what edit war was supposed to be happening before I was aware anyone was even aware of my edits. Check the timestamp. As to "lack of engagement on Talk", how much more verbiage do you want me to produce on the Talk page? All in all, I am singularly unimpressed with Jytdog's attitude & approach. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Lemongirl942 reported by User:Yvarta (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: from LemonGirl942: diff and diff (my responses here: diff and diff)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (full discussion here).

Comments: I am here due to several reversions between myself and Lemongirl942, ongoing since Monday. In regard to my two reverts, both were done on the grounds that the editor did not, in either edit description or on the BLP talk page, address the guideline backing the initial deletion, and did not provide a valid counterargument per WP:AAEW, particularly WP:FIXED and WP:DISCUSSED.

I am not as experienced in this forum as with RfC, and would like to request neutral and experienced arbitration to determine the next step. Thank you for your attention on this matter. Yvarta (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, 24 hours after this happened? And "ongoing", seriously? Apparently the filer doesn't understand WP:BRD and is also ignoring prior consensus. Despite multiple RFCs, they started an RFC again and it didn't go their way. So now they decided to try and edit the article itself citing that apparently it is an egregious BLP violation (despite the RFC). I reverted back to the long term statusquo version and warned and yet they continued despite my efforts to discuss here. As noted previously by, I am increasingly seeing this as an attempt to game the system. The filer should be warned not to POV push on the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a frivolous report. Judging by discussion on the talk page link, the filer did not have consensus for the removal of the material in question. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * BOOMERANG applies, Discussion is still ongoing and so therefore there is no consensus for the removal, LG even tried to explain to YV and it seems to no avail, The only person who should be blocked for edit warring is YV. – Davey 2010 Talk 22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If an administrator feels I have acted out of place and should be sanctioned, I will be happy to accept a block and learn from my mistakes. I would like to note that several of the editors above have been actively involved in the RfC under contention, with very strong opinions. I am aware my action is controversial, but I will stand strong behind my edit unless I see evidence I acted out of line, and that the guideline I have cited does not apply. Yvarta (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:Mr. Granger (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The last 3RR violation was yesterday, but the user is continuing to edit-war against consensus, despite being warned both on their user talk page and the article talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I protected Liberal and Progressive Muslim movements, which has an ongoing edit war. The diffs you show above are exempt per WP:3RRNO, as is a confirmed sock. Still,, please engage in discussion first and edit second when editing in contentious areas or where good-faith editors have disagreed with your edits. WP:BRD is a good method of ensuring your edits have consensus. You are edit warring on several articles, and if you continue doing so, you will be blocked. Let's not get that far, alright? If you believe someone is socking, Wikipedia won't fall apart in the few days it takes for you to find a resolution at WP:SPI, and you can revert after a determination of sockpuppetry has been made if necessary. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:89.46.102.15 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mr Dingley has been busy changing the format of this article to the way he thinks it ought to be. He has repeatedly changed the format of the references against the wishes of Deathlibrarian and DMorpheus2, that is against consenses of other article editors. He has in the past regularly abused and edit warred DMorpheus2 in the article of Christie suspension, see here.

Mr Dingley has a big ego and gives no space for other editors. He should be stopped now.

He also makes this article a "British Article". This is not a British arrticle it is a German article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]  He has not replied, just edit war and revert me.

Comments:

G'day, sorry, I'm not seeing the 3RR violation here. At best there are two reversions from Andy and to be honest they seem to be sparked by your own reversions. I think you are potentially misunderstanding 3RR and also misinterpreting Andy's edit in relation to the British English tag. Indeed, it seems a valid option (as would US English) given that there is no such thing as "German English" variation. Nevertheless, given that the formatting change was reverted, initiating a discussion probably would have been the better option (on Andy's part) after this revert:. I note though, that you could have also started the discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree so strongly with the change and to be honest, I do not believe that you have made a valid attempt at resolving the dispute before posting here (unless you can provide a proper diff of you doing so). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, have you informed of this report? Per the instructions at the top of the page, you are required to do so if you report someone here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have zero interest in discussing anything with this troll:  Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see. Fair call. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:182.130.213.124 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Protected)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (Equipment of the Bangladesh Army):

Previous version reverted to (Bangladesh Army Aviation Group):

Diffs of the user's reverts (Equipment of the Bangladesh Army): Diffs of the user's reverts (Bangladesh Army Aviation Group):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on IP talk page:, ,

Comments:

Persistent addition of unsourced material to two articles despite escalating warnings and without a response other than clearing their talk page. --Worldbruce (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (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:

Comments:

User was banned for 3 days for the same thing last week and is now back doing the exact same edit warring on the exact same article. -  Galatz Talk  14:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chintankanabar reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:21, 10 October 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:55, 14 October 2016
 * 2) 07:50, 14 October 2016
 * 3) 08:23, 14 October 2016
 * 4) 10:27, 14 October 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Comments: This specific user also have conflict of interest for this subject as they have been in contact with the subject through Twitter and possibly email and I have evidence of that if an admin wants to look at that which can be shared privately. Moreover, this user is also an SPA on Christine Fair. He was edit-warring on the same page over a month ago and was given an edit-warring notice, he stopped edit-warring but came back after a month and started same thing over again. This is a clear attempt to game the system. I am pretty sure he will go low profile after this report and then come back and disrupt the page again. He needs to understand that the article cannot be tailored to subject's wishes. Wikipedia is an independent medium and we allow or disallow the content based on our own policies and not what the subject wants.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 13:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding: shortly after this report was filed, an obvious sockpuppet appeared. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Note also that another admin semi-protected the article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:WSDavitt reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: blocked for 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Response from Donald Trump - "Smear" campaign */ rewording"
 * 2)  "/* Response from Donald Trump - "Smear" campaign */ grammar"
 * 3)  "add category - "Smear campaigns""
 * 4)  "rewording"
 * 5)  "/* Response from Donald Trump - "Smear" campaign */ cleanup wording"
 * 6)  "/* See also */ add smear campaign section"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 744351051 by Strongjam (talk) I will add reference"
 * 8)  "/* Smear campaign */"
 * 9)  "/* Smear campaign */ add content about smear campaign against Gary Hart as context - content copies from Gary Hart wiki article"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 744349969 by Rrburke (talk) invalid deletion - the content merely provides wiki links to "smear campaign" wiki article -"
 * 11)  "/* Smear campaign */ add wiki link "Swift Vets and POWs for Truth" article"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 744347922 by Strongjam (talk) inappropriate reasons for removing content - no research; merely adding wiki links to other wiki articles"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 744346784 by Steeletrap (talk) edit did not provide reasons for removing content"
 * 14)  "/* Smear campaign */ add content and wiki link to Yellow journalism"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 744343676 by CaroleHenson (talk) add content about Smear campaigns - see Talk page of other editor for explanation"
 * 16)  "/* Smear campaign */ reformatting"
 * 17)  "/* Sexist comments and behavior */ add content - smear campaign"
 * 18)  "add category - "Smear campaigns""
 * 1)  "add category - "Smear campaigns""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2016 */"
 * 2)   "/* October 2016 */"
 * 3)   "/* October 2016 - Smear campaigns */"


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


 * Comments:

User has made far more than 3 reverts in the past 24 hours on both Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. Attempted to resolve, in part, at User_talk:WSDavitt.

These articles fall under the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions, but there are not active 1RR limitations on them or anything  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User reverted again: .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Doug Weller talk 20:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Emikey-34 (Result: No violation)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor also went to a page I created back in June and tagged it as an advertisement with no legitimate grounds. The page is [Horton Plaza Park]. Emikey-34 (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A series of consecutive edits is counted as a single revert, so there was no violation here. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

User:RandyMarsh reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: No action)
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: My talk

Comments:


 * I'm closing this with no action, Mlpearc. The edit warring warning was not given until after the final revert, and previous warnings were inaccurate. You continually accused Randy in both edit summaries and talk page messages of adding content that was unsourced, or only cited an unreliable source. These accusations are, in fact, false. You characterize YouTube as an unreliable source, but if you had followed the link, you would have found a video of Jesse Ventura being interviewed by Joe Rogan, backing up precisely the content Randy has been adding. In this case YouTube is merely a repository and convenience link for an interview that actually happened between those two individuals. If you want to argue against inclusion of this content on some other grounds, fine, but I'm going to count incorrect warnings as if the user was never warned at all. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontheroad111 reported by User:RunnyAmiga (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:
 * also

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: For what it's worth, I rarely attempt to discuss edit wars on articles' talk pages both because they're mostly behavior issues and because I'm insulted by the patronizing hidden text ("You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?") here. Here's the discussion that matters: User talk:Ontheroad111

Comments:

Here's the IP editor admitting they're socking. The tactic here is radio silence; wait until the 24-hour window has gone by then go back to edit warring.

I left the bad image up for two and a half hours while I waited for Ontheroad111 to discuss, then reverted. The sock identity reverted me one effing minute later with an edit summary reading "not a chance." Here's this person happily admitting they have no intention of adhering to policy. Given how patient this person is when it comes to reappearing out of the void to revert, the blocks ought to be a bit substantial. RunnyAmiga ※  talk 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding: I reverted this edit and I'm realizing that it's possible that this is an extraordinarily bored impostor. Whatever. RunnyAmiga  ※  talk 19:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:KrakatoaKatie. EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:83.34.62.23 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added date of birth"
 * 2)  "Added date of birth; source: Al's facebook page and Al's book "Dawn of the Metal Gods" page 10."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744302646 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744292905 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744273922 by Materialscientist (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeated insertion of unsourced Facebook 'info' despite advice to the contrary by myself and u|Materialscientist. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  12:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR. Though some of the information he is trying to add could be correct, it needs to be cited to a source in the article text. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Mickey109 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744540372 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744521189 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744540372 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744521189 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744521189 by Jim1138 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 23:39, 15 October 2016


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


 * Comments:

Editor has continued to try to remove voting data, change photos without consensus, and change how the subject's name is presented. Has been warned about edit warring, about the specific changes. Has not responded to posts on user's and article's talk pages. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sock puppet indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Zugspitze2962 reported by User:E-960 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Request to have this user blocked. This appears to be the latest episode of an ongoing issue related to the sockpuppet problem that re-occurs on the Wrocław and Poland articles, for months now. This particular user once blocked creates a new account and goes back to edit warring, ignoring repeated requests to start a discussion first. The reoccurring hallmark of this user is his focus on the Wrocław and Poland related articles, such as here: Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive

If you look at this user's contribution page you'll find the focus on the Wroclaw and Poland topics, as with the past blocked accounts. --E-960 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * since the disruption is ongoing. However, issues with sockpuppetry elsewhere. E-960: please open an SPI and add evidence to that page: if such evidence is not available, then accusations of socking are not appropriate. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Janthana reported by User:Mystic Technocrat (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Janthana has chosen to engage in some weird edit war, telling me that I'm "back at it again," when my only attempt here is to clean up an obvious BLP violation, or at least ask that the information be properly cited. I realize that I too am guilty on 3RR, though I believe my reverts fall under the BLP violation exemption. Janthana appears clearly engaged in WP:NOTHERE conduct with a needless edit war that isn't even over content, but rather some weird personal grudge. Note that Janthana's only edits to this page are from 2013 (unless sock purppetry is involved, a very distinct possibility), and pops up yesterday engaging in accusatory conduct. Thanks for your attention to this matter. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This report is . Although both of you have engaged in repeated reverts,  has edit-warred to add poorly sourced content, which is a BLP violation. They are therefore  that further reverts may be met with a block. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Shellwood reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Warned user(s))
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 user talk page:

Comments:

The attempt to discuss the issue ended with Shellwood removing the message from her or his talk page and copying it to mine with a particularly amusing edit summary ("next time provide evidence, dont go cry to admin, you know nothing about shwish law and history"). She or he reverted my first edit, which was explained, with no explanation at all. Subsequent reverts labelled my edits mere vandalism. She or he also referred to my attempt to discuss the issue as vandalism "by princess Surtsicna". I feel that I am either dealing with a child or a troll. Needless to say, citing Wikipedia guidelines did not help at all. Surtsicna (talk) 06:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

It is you against everyone else again, concerning the royalties and their titles they are all mentioned in several other articles. Edit wars you lost.   We cant change laws in country just to suit your edits. Read the Swedish act of succession and see how royalties are addressed what surnames they got.Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whilst Shellwood in this case is right in the matter concerned, his/her behaviour is really bad. Take these discussions in a civilised manner on a talk page(for example on Surtsicna's talk page, heading "Swedish Royalty"), without personal attacks and accusations of vandalism (we are talking about a difference of style here, not vandalism) and don't remove traces/discussions of what others are writing to you. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You both are out of line. You both have violated the 3RR on that particular article. And you both need to work this thing out. However from what I can see user Surtsicna seems to be the one that is mostly combative. Like this nom for example, just because you both can not agree to have a discussion at the articles talk page, but instead uses the revert button as a play toy. Work it out at the Princess talk page. Quite weird though that Surtsicna reports Shellwood for breaking the 3RR while Surtsicna himself has violated the same rule. Please. BabbaQ (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the article in question has been protected for four days because of the revert war between both the users in question here.BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also kindly note that the issue (whether of Sweden should be part of the bold lede of the article or not) is not only applicable to Princess Sofia's article, the same removal has been done by Surtsicna to the other articles on members of the Swedish Royal Family, that is why I initiated the discussion on Surtsicna's talk page. Please resolve the issue there, thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The page has been protected, so a block here would be punitive. Although the behavior of both parties is sub-par, both of you are edit-warring, with absolutely no excuse. Therefore, both of you are warned that further edit-warring on that page or other pages might be met with a block, with or without a 3RR violation. to make sure you see this. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
This user delete my message from his talk page even it is the first message between us and i dont delete his message from my talk page even he threaten me with block even i dont violate any rule and i dont have talk or contact with him befor. He doesnt assume good faith. Please resolve his offensive behaviour---مصعب (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. There is no edit warring, I merely left a note on his talk page. No one is obligated -- unless direct by an admin, I guess, although I have yet to hear of such a direction -- to keep anything on his or her talkpage. I simply have nothing more to say to مصعب. Quis separabit?  14:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * i dont know the best place to put this message. But users should not remove messages from their talk pages exept if it is violte policyes but my message is a very normal message. Is that a good behaviour to not accept messages and deleting it from your talk page? Then delet your talk page and dont recive any message from any one--مصعب (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OWNTALK where it states "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages" - also note that talk pages are not an "all or nothing" situation. has done nothing wrong so this thread will be closed as "no action". MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Request Can an admin please remove this plaint as being malformed. Thank you. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  15:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I had removed this assuming no admin intervention was needed and plus it was malformed however I was reverted but just wanted to add I've left a note on the editors talkpage, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no edit-warring here whatsoever. Although it may not be the politest thing to do, RMS is perfectly within their rights to remove any message you might post: and reporting that removal here is not going to achieve anything. I suggest you direct your energies to making useful contributions elsewhere. I have closed this discussion: please do not edit it further. I see no point in deleting it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jason M. C., Han reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  adding his own novice performance of Claire de Lune
 * 2)  ditto
 * 3)  removing standard non-promotional version that  replaced it with
 * 4)  ditto
 * 5)  ditto

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

These are not the truths, he was telling lies

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has a history of disruption and vandalism (article blanking, article-talk blanking, removal of others' posts), even despite repeated user-talk warnings:, , , , , , etc. Attempts to discuss the matter of the Claire de Lune files on the article talk page have gone ignored/unheeded or have gotten deleted by the user. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

He was really telling lies and let lies existing on wikipedia, which was unacceptable. I want to totally disscuss this case again: I have found there is no Claude Debussy' Moonlight on that article. My team in reality have trained me from educational perspectives for tens more years about this melody. Then, I have added one upon. the basic impressionism points have all been respected especially the techniques and skills, which was also tens more'years' summary. However, someone didn't care about commons' voices - yeah, it was softlavender. He didn't make any communications with me, then delected it, but puting one even worse version, which depending on my career responsibilities, I have very clear stated which senconds losing impressionism and Debussy's style. In order to protect his hornour and show some good manners to get peace, I put one much advanced version in talk place. However, he, again, said lots of urgly words and abusive language without respecting the facts and delecting even the version in Talk. Talk place is for commons and users' free talks. It was him who let walk place lose freedom. How could he argue my false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason M. C., Han (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering he is now repeatedly removing this entire report, and considering the wall-of-text gibberish he posts on article talk pages, this could be a returning blocked or LTA editor (although I have no idea who). Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User has deleted this entire report four times now, , , , despite usertalk warning from an admin: . -- Softlavender (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. Edit warring and self-promotion at Claude Debussy and repeated removal of a report about himself from WP:AN3. Jason's post above suggests some difficulty with English. He should avoid getting into disputes on the English Wikipedia if he finds that he can't explain his views in an understandable way. EdJohnston (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:195.154.69.102 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Minor
 * 1)  - "source falsification- on page 432 there is no information that Sabirs were Turks" - on page 432 is referred to where the Sabirs lived, while in other references, the whole revision, categories is more than clear they were not "nomadic" tribes, but "Turkic tribes".
 * 2)  - "source falsification - source 3, page 200-201 - there is no info that Sabirs came from Siberia" - in all three references is clearly stated they were Turkic tribes who came from Western Siberia.
 * 3)  - "source 10 - no connection between Khazars and Sabirs is mentioned; fringe theory pushing" - on page 440 is referred to the etymology of the ethnonym, while in other references to both the etymology and their semantic connection to the Khazars ethnonym.
 * 4)  - "source falsification source 16 does not contain mention of Sabirs at all on page 279" - said that only because could not read the page online, what the...? If anything else, there two other references.
 * Major
 * 1)  - "Rv edits pushing fringe connection Sabirs-Khazars; source falsifications and obvious not understanding history of nomads; Khazars originated from Heptalites, they came to Europe 150 years later" - the connection between Sabirs and Khazars is not fringe, there was no falsification, misunderstanding, there several theories on the Khazars origin.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - "rv to last clean version" - you call that "clean"?
 * 5)  - "Rv biased, POV and fringe edits" - the IP doesn't know what these terms even mean.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: The arguments are clearly false. It is intentionally disruptive, but I don't understand the IP's reasoning. It is just stupid. Can the IP be checked if it is related to sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov? My talk page has been recently attacked, could be a related troll.--Crovata (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At WP:RFPP asked for protection.--Crovata (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've provide a warning specifically explaining edit warring and WP:3RR. Report again or ping me if they continue. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744730868 by Callmemirela (talk)The New Left censorship has got to end"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744728105 by Callmemirela (talk)New source included."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744726592 by Zero0000 (talk)Then I'll just move it down.  I had originally put it as the second sentence.  Personally I don't care where it is positioned, so long as it's in"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744690820 by Malik Shabazz (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744505661 by Malik Shabazz (talk) Your name gives away your bias."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Comments:
 * Please see WP:AN/I. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User:JoetheMoe25 has already been blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for personal attacks and harassment, and that is the only thing preventing them from receiving an edit-warring block from me. Therefore, JoetheMoe25 is that any further edit-warring may be met with a block, whether or not a violation of 3RR is involved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:117.199.86.130 reported by User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Wikimandia (Result:protected for 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

IP is reverting all changes from the battle, which BEGAN today. He bizarrely deems today's updates (after the assault action began) unimportant. Article has since been split off (see talk page) into other article, Battle of Mosul (2016), and he is continuously reverting to previous version that removes all links to the split off article etc. I already reverted him several times but he will not allow new information on this page. Single purpose IP with no talk page. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully protected the page, and the IP is already engaged in the talk page discussion, please continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jamesmiko reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warning, Protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This admin needs to recuse himself for applying mere opinion. He's threatening me arbitrarily and w/o reaching consensus. There was no admin process reached for this edit, nor any final consensus on colors. I have appealed to other admins for unfair use"
 * 2)  "For the legal use of Atlanta United FC's colors, see: http://atlpartners.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AtlantaUnited_BrandGuide_151203.pdf. This outlines the only formal use of team colors, regardless of interpretive and non-binding guidelines"
 * 3)  "reverted the inappropriate use of team colors and incorrect interpretation of WP rules"
 * 4)  "/* Players and staff */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744436951 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744436951 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Atlanta United FC. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* October 2016 */ RPP"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Atlanta United FC. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Attempted to explain why the colour scheme was wrong at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesmiko&diff=743771139&oldid=743141632 and the editor has attempted to seek intervention from other editors rather than discuss. This culminated in the edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw their conversation with Rob on Rob's talk page. They obviously have no interest in discussing the matter on why their version is incorrect and just want to keep edit warring. You're trying to keep colors in compliance, so you're fine. They're not, and if they're not going to understand, then a temporary block is definitely needed to hopefully get the point across. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jamesmiko is warned for edit warring. The article has been placed under three days of full protection by User:Ymblanter. Per the discussion at User talk:BU Rob13, User:Jamesmiko seems to be determined to ignore the mandate of MOS:CONTRAST when choosing colors for table headers. He did break 3RR while trying to enforce his own choice of colors. Regardless of the binding status of the CONTRAST guideline, we do enforce the WP:Edit warring rules here. If Jamesmiko continues to revert against consensus when protection expires he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Protection policy, "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" The version protected violates our accessibility policy, specifically WP:COLOUR. Please don't force our visually impaired readers to suffer three more days of this nonsense; change Atlanta United FC to a version that complies with WCAG AAA standard. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Vinstreak reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 54 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744892608 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744891936 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744891626 by Meters (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744891303 by Meters (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744890893 by Meters (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 744865924 by Widefox (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 744840549 by John from Idegon (talk) http://pittesc.weebly.com/board-members.html"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 744836671 by John from Idegon (talk)"
 * 9)  "added additional bios"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to include a non-notable person. GABgab 02:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And continuing the edit war with Meters (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Orchomen reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744686012 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744685235 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744684799 by Callmemirela (talk ) have you actually looked at what you're reverting?"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by Callmemirela (talk) to last revision by Orchomen. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 744684469 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 744684215 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 744683741 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 744644842 by Amaury (talk)this is just grammar.."
 * 9)  "Reverted 1 edit by Amaury (talk) to last revision by Orchomen. (TW)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 744638476 by Amaury (talk)not a sock"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

See also related ANI report, and various user talk page discussions: User talk:IJBall, User talk:Amaury, and User talk:Oshwah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Yup. This user is just a troll, and IJBall and myself very strongly suspect they're a sock puppet, but we—or, rather, IJBall—can't really pinpoint who they're a sock puppet of. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * GABgab 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Oneshotofwhiskey (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) (corrected after another user pointed out it was inputed correctly)

The user then proceeded to follow me to a different article and begins to immediately revert my edits there several times! Clearly he's engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The user is a classic case of WP:POINT. The warning above was the first of many, and I plead with him to either (A) cease the edit war and work things out with us, or (B) seek arbitration if he felt like he was being treated unfairly.


 * However, he promptly deleted any warning out of denial, most likely hoping to cover it the violation, trying to mislead admins by suggesting he was just 'removing vandalism' when there was none (he's clearly a seasoned editor who knows the difference between vandalism and contributions he doesn't agree with, etc):


 * He also makes a personal threat in the subject-heading of one of his disruptive reverts, warning me: "You will learn to seek consensus for radical changes." If you look at my edit, I added a mere two words. My changes were FAR from 'radical'(whatever he meant by that).


 * This user has a history of edit-warring if you review his history carefully, He will often revert to million dollar phrases like WP:BOLD or WP:EXCEPTIONAL without fully taking the time to see what those mean and erroneously applies them as justifications of his reverts in his edit wars in what appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of authority.


 * The edit warring from this user is chronic and, as a case in point, when the user finally moved on from the page once the damage was already done he resumed an old rivarly and edit war on this page, with this edit:
 * [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War&diff=prev&oldid=744418221


 * If you review the talk section of that page, in fact, you will find several instances of miserable editors accusing this disruptive user of edit warring and unilateral POV editing. Ironically, this user claims his edit war with me is over me daring to accuse a partisan political commentator of relying on conspiracy theories, claiming that to do so is outrageous, only for himself on this page to accuse his liberal-minded opponents as "Chomskyite conspiracy theorists". Normally it wouldn't have enough merit by itself to mention here BUT considering that the editor is pontificating, it further calls his motives into question: I suspect this and other behaviors falls into cunning disruptive behavior by political editors guilty of WP:GAMING using a combination of false accusations and edit warring under a thin-veil of self-righteousness.


 * In many cases, the editor is prone to belittle others and assume bad faith in the service of emotional, coercive disruptive editing aimed at curbing the work of others:
 * (just read the angry rant in the subject heading here)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&diff=prev&oldid=744099090
 * (RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!)


 * If need be, I can list more examples if that will help but you get the gist.


 * Sorry for the longwindedness of this report! I only mention ALL of this since it helps to establish motive and state of mind, demonstrated a clear pattern and behavioral mindset of the disruptive editor as one who likes to pick fights and bully other editors over content. That said, feel free to make fun of my verbose and rambling nature! (my wife does)LOL


 * For my part in all of this, I confess that in trying to run around and plug holes in this proverbial dam I may have also inadvertently violated the 3RR rule, though I haven't counted to be sure. In that event, though, I'm willing to face the consequences. But it wasn't for lack of trying to do my part to 'civilly' discourage this editor from his edit war and protect the benign contributions of others. IN any case, if I too get a time out, I accept that.


 * Thanks to the admins for their time!
 * (Nice job of not informing me of this thread. It is significant that you failed to do so, because I'm genuinely surprised you would show your face here.) Oneshotofwhiskey should remember the old adage: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. While other editors have reverted Oneshotofwhiskey's most blatantly POV semantic changes, it is true that only I have attempted to WP:ROLLBACK his edits in their entirety. Yet I believe his POV-pushing is so extreme it constitutes vandalism to a BLP—and that my reverts of his attack on Dinesh D'Souza are a justifiable response to said vandalism. Of course, Oneshotofwhiskey (and his IP friend that shows up within minutes of him being reverted to reinstate his changes) has tried to muddy the issues beyond the seemingly blatant vandalism to the lead, arguing that his unilateral deletion of thousands of bytes of material sourced to RS like Alan Dershowitz elevates our conflict to a genuine content dispute. I disagree: He has no consensus to justify large-scale deletion of long-standing material, he has refused to answer my inquiries on talk (still waiting!), and his assertion that Dershowitz's attributed statement constitutes original research is at best a misunderstanding he has refused to correct—at worst an intentionally deceitful edit summary providing only a smokescreen for his real motivation.
 * It is telling that Oneshotofwhiskey seeks to conflate the heated debate at Talk:Soviet–Afghan War with material he added not to a talk page, but to a BLP in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Say what you will about the content dispute at Soviet–Afghan War, but it's hard not to notice that it has not resulted in any massive edit war (despite the far greater significance and controversy surrounding the relevant issues); to the contrary, all of the participants have committed themselves not to make any changes until consensus has been achieved (and, yes, I am confident my latest edit is a significant step forward in that regard). Oneshotofwhiskey has been around for one month (or so he claims—this is belied by extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy), and during that time has been constantly embroiled in edit wars (mostly at film-related articles like Ghostbusters (2016 film) and now D'Souza's documentaries, accusing others of "POV vandalism," ect.); despite my behavior in 2012, this is my first major edit war in four years: It's obvious that he's the problem here. Finally, Oneshotofwhiskey only brings up the fact that I accused SPECIFICO of hack editing because I have refrained from reciprocating his far more vituperative personal attacks (e.g., "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda," "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations," accusing me of "egomaniac paranoia"). I have insisted over and over again that Oneshotofwhiskey is the one making radical changes, so the onus is on him to achieve consensus per WP:BRD. If, however, he (or his IP friend) is able to force his changes through because no-one besides myself is prepared to get down in the mud with him—and the admins declare a pox on all houses—then Oneshotofwhiskey will have effectively made a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Lengthy discussions such as the one at Talk:Soviet–Afghan War are, in fact, how the sausage of consensus is made. I have no particular love for D'Souza (Oneshotofwhiskey's aspersions to the contrary are mere projection based on his own fierce antipathy towards the subject of the article), but neither the more blatant vandalism nor the mass deletions are the sort of minor changes best supplemented with additional material or little tweaks—they are WP:BOLD, they make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims against a living person, and allowing them to stand with no consensus would violate every norm of how Wikipedia is supposed to function.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The fourth diff in the first group is by a different editor. The second group of 4 diffs seems to be a clear 3RR violation. Zerotalk 00:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad user:Zero0000. I think I mistyped a character when I was forced to input that manually when my copy and paste failed on me (older computer, couldn't get the shortcut to work properly, etc.) Here WAS/IS the fourth edit I meant to include, etc.(corrected above) #

Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that that "fourth revert" actually precedes the others, took place the day before, and was in response to somewhat different changes—some of which were discussed on the talk page and seem to have been resolved. Now, I certainly admit to violating 3RR at 2016: Obama's America, although without realizing it at the time: After Oneshotofwhiskey made 10 edits, I deleted one word he added ("conspiracy"), and this word then became the subject an edit war when (to my surprise) he insisted his language was appropriate. He re-added the word three times, and I deleted it three more times—under circumstances such as that, I would argue both editors should be punished or neither. I also believe that describing a living person as a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia's neutral voice is a BLP violation unless very strong sources are provided—something Oneshotofwhiskey refused to do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: Oneshotofwhiskey has recently been blocked for 31 hours due to socking. If his sockpuppet IP is counted, he restored the word "conspiracy" four times. So, it's up to the admins to decide whether and how much to punish the two of us for our 3RR violations: Perhaps 31 hours is punishment enough, or perhaps his block should be extended; whether or not I deserve any leniency due to the underlying circumstances is something I am obviously too biased to argue. But there is no doubt that, as a strict matter of fact, both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself reverted more than three times.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The socking accusation was overturned on appeal, based on "misunderstandings." I can provide documentation if necessary based on email correspondence if that is appropriate or required. I will leave it at that regarding this other editor making it an issue here and have good faith that he was operating on a misunderstanding. As for the rest, the edit-warring is unjustified. Glad to see him finally admit to that. Onwards and upwards.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's see the documentation. You submitted an unblock request through UTRS, which was then closed, and as I recall you were still blocked afterwards. There's nothing in your block log to support your claim: It looks like you were unblocked because your 31 hours was up. If it turns out you are lying about this, then your behavior borders on the pathological.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, your personal attacks speak volumes about your agenda and you know better than to do that. I was trying to be civil here. In fact, I made this twist of events public considering I have nothing to hide and to extend the olive branch. However, to address your 'concern': The admin who responded to my request in email said it was "easier to let the block expire" than to "go through the trouble to appeal that part of it." However, the part of the block that was overturned was the part where a valid check user was performed. It turns out that they simply took you at your word, which is not what they are supposed to do given I provided a sufficient rebuttal. Once that checkuser was actually performed, it became clear there was no link between my IP and the anon you confused with my edits. The appealing admin also conceded that there was "insufficient evidence to perform a valid behavioral investigation." It failed along the guidelines of WP:DUCK. They erred because they took what you said at face value. However, in their defense, since normally there is a high incidence of socking on these pages it is an easy mistake to make. That is why we have an appeals process. I was told, after all, it was at worst a slap of the wrist so to let it go in either case. That is all I wanted: I didn't care about the time-out. I just wanted them to acknowledge I hadn't done anything wrong. But in the interest of making peace, I was also advised to act in good faith and extend to you the benefit of the doubt. I was told that maybe you were operating under a misunderstanding. Fair enough. However, keep up the personal attacks and the smug attitude I can reconsider that generosity on my part. We can move forward OR you can continue your disruptiveness toward me. I've been trying my best to work things out with you on the talk pages, and I've conceded several of my positions already in the interest of compromise. The ball is now in your court. I have nothing left to say here on this matter. Good luck.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging is WP:NOTHERE -- a POV battleground editor who short-circuits into personal attacks and off-topic rants at the drop of a hat. A TBAN from American Politics is required to prevent further disruption. SPECIFICO talk  02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad this came up. "TheTimesAreAChanging" has also persistently personally attacked SPECIFICO who is a thoughtful editor who stays civil for the most part. As recently as this example, user "TheTimesAreAChanging" attacked SPECIFICO for his name, making fun of him for picking a name that "sounds like a robot", and other mean-spirited digs. I mention this as yet another example of the bad faith, edit-warring disruptive mindset he is bringing this, not just to me, but against others on the pages that some of us are humbly trying to constructively edit. Again, this disruptive editor can not have it both ways. He clearly is versed in the rules of wiki and will lecture us at end about perceived violations against him, but then commits the same behavior with below-the-belt personal attacks like the "robot" insult. Clearly he knows better but is projecting. To whomever reads this, thanx again for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was criticizing SPECIFICO's edit summary—"Restored well-sourced NPOV noteworthy. Use talk if you disagree. The criterion for article content is noteworthiness, not notability of each detail. The content is widely reported by RS as cited."—which was clearly intended to conceal, rather than reveal, his actual reason for reinstating your mass deletion. As I noted: "His edit summaries [are] so vaguely written and acronym-heavy it is impossible to guess what the underlying issues might be."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This page has been fully protected for one week due to content-related disputes. TheTimesAreAChanging and Oneshotofwhiskey: You are both in violation of 3RR over this article, and what makes it even more of an issue is the fact that it is currently under discretionary sanctions by the arbitration committee. But because neither one of you have edited the article after being warned of the discretionary sanctions imposed on the article, no blocks will be imposed at this time. You both are on a final warning basis. You two are to discuss the issues on the article's talk page and in a civil manner. Failure to do so, or engaging in further edits without consensus will result in discretionary sanctions. Please work this out peacefully between you two. I wish you both the best of luck :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see much good behavior from either of these editors and I don't see either of them contributing to the quality of the Dinesh D'Souza but rather just pushing opposing viewpoints without end. I recommend indefinite topic bans for both of them from any articles that concern Dinesh D'Souza. Zerotalk 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * totally agree. A couple of TBans should sort out this kind of tendentious editing: particularly when both parties refuse to cooperate and use our procedures as weapons to win editing disputes. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is fair that you are grading me based upon a curve against the other user. Other than this report, I have not used procedure like this elsewhere. I'm certainly not using it as a weapon. There was an edit war. What was I supposed to do? It's better to "report, and not retaliate." As for the rest, if the only solution to resolve this is to topic ban us both, then so be it if it is for the greater good of the article and Wikipedia. However, if you thoughtfully look at my edits, I've been trying my best to resolve this peacefully with the editor. If it is too late for that, then so be it. Thank you for your input.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

My edits have been entirely in the form of rollbacks to the previously-accepted version. I have never edited the article before and have added no original material of my own. Nor have I ranted at length regarding my personal feelings about D'Souza—unlike Oneshotofwhiskey, who states his goal is to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)." Believe it or not, I have no particular interest in or love for D'Souza: I just had the page on my Watchlist, along with nearly 2,000 others.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * EC: In fact, I added Dinesh D'Souza to my Watchlist fairly recently, after watching last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate. The debate piqued my curiosity about what Wikipedia had to say about him, and I noticed some POV material I meant to return to, but never did. (The material in question was added by SkepticAnonymous sockpuppet Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz; I still suspect that Oneshotofwhiskey is another SA sock, checkuser notwithstanding, because of many similarities between Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and Oneshotofwhiskey—such as their shared interest in Ghostbusters (2016 film) and D'Souza, and the fact that after the former was banned the latter continued making the same arguments in his place on the D'Souza talk page).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There he goes again. I never said anywhere "my goal is to expose D'Souza." Perhaps I lost my temper after he attacked me with false allegations, hence that statement from me regarding what I saw as a partisan defense of D'Souza's corruption, who is in fact a felon who went to jail for serious charges. However, despite my personal feelings about that and my own political biases, I have no agenda to expose any politician. I simply didn't agree with this editor's constant reverts of my contributions to the page, most of which were neutral, mild and well-sourced. In fact, I don't want to continue this debate further. I only jumped in since the editor is trying to put words in my mouth and make claims about me that are simply untrue. The admin made a great suggestion here and I'm trying to follow it. I wish he would do the same and start using good faith.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for his allegation that I am a sock of a formerly banned member, this was already resolved in an SPI where I was cleared of this (false) accusation and where "TheTimesAreAChanging" was admonished for how he handled it. Bringing it up here again is an unnecessary distraction and borders on a personal attack. This report is already long enough. Can we just let it be and let the admins sort it out without more mudslinging and emoting?Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oneshotofwhiskey: You need to understand that proper dispute resolution requires teamwork, collaboration, and consensus. You need to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page and patiently work with one another and work towards an agreement and solution together. The article in dispute is under discretionary sanctions, meaning that sanctions can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator to stop disruption to the project. I'm a relatively new administrator; I haven't imposed a discretionary sanction before, and I'd really really like to keep it that way :-). If nothing comes of an attempt at a peaceful discussion on the article's talk page, then you're obviously free to follow the dispute resolution guidelines and go through the proper channels to get assistance with resolving the issue. I highly encourage you to please please move on from this with a positive mindset and with expanding the Encyclopedia with the highest quality content possible as your top priority. If you do this, everything will naturally fall into place and things will be absolutely fine! :-)


 * TheTimesAreAChanging: If you have evidence of sock puppetry, you need to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations with that evidence. Making accusations of sockpuppetry in a discussion outside of an SPI report is generally disruptive... I mean, what good does it do, right? Pointing fingers and saying "I think he's a sock" is only going to make a dispute worse and make an angry and frustrated editor even more angry and frustrated. That just makes things harder, man! :-) Remember that we want to try and do everything possible to lead other editors to a civil and peaceful resolution to their disagreements, and we need to assume good faith if we don't have satisfactory evidence to prove otherwise. It sounds to me like you noticed a current event occurring that involved the article subject and added the article to your watchlist with due diligence in mind, and you probably now feel that you're plopped in the middle of a dispute that you didn't intend to be so involved in. I totally get that; I've been there, dude. Just understand that repeatedly reverting content-related issues (especially to an article under discretionary sanctions) will generally get you sucked into the dispute spotlight, which is a drag to be in. Lets move on from this with a fresh perspective and a positive learning experience, and lets work the problem out on the article's talk page :-)


 * Both of you have been notified of the discretionary sanctions imposed on this article, you've both been formally warned to discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page or use the proper channels (with evidence) to report policy violations, and you've both been told to seek proper dispute resolution before making further edits or reverts. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. I'm going to close this thread as "Page protected". Please follow my advice, and please work things out properly and peacefully :-).  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * For those who are looking for an explanation behind my closure of this thread and the decision I reached regarding administrative action, I explained in-depth on my user talk page in a response to someone's message here. Please feel free to reach out to me if anybody has additional questions or concerns :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   14:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with Oshwah's closure of this report. Complaints at AN3 need to be brief and usually they need to be handled quickly. Long posts full of recriminations make it difficult to see what the underlying problems might be. If issues remain, anyone dissatisfied with this closure might raise them at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2604:2000:614a:2b00:d0e8:3fbe:1f4:7dbc reported by User:Cotton2 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Was not on postseason roster"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 744945232 by Cotton2 (talk) No, the rule is if you didn't make the playoff roster, you don't get listed."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 744949915 by Cotton2 (talk) see the hidden notes on Barry Zito and Brian Wilson. It's been discussed so many times on WT:Baseball"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 744949915 by Cotton2 (talk) see the hidden notes on Barry Zito and Brian Wilson. It's been discussed so many times on WT:Baseball"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

Removing edits, no source stating player not World series champ. No consensus in referenced talk pages. Cotton2 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You can keep putting your head in the sand all you want, that's what the consensus is on WT:Baseball. You can't even get the times of my edits right. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:D0E8:3FBE:1F4:7DBC (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Enigmaman. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bocaj12 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745001087 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) You seem to have mistaken your opinion for a fact. Evolution vs ID is controversial and an unbiased article should not take sides"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745000781 by Doug Weller (talk) So what?"
 * 3) Left out this one. 15 18:43
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744992259 by Dave souza (talk) Perhaps so, but controversial elsewhere."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ‎ . (TW)"


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

I must say, I had no idea such a rule existed, and Mr Weller's message only showed up after my third revert. If I had known about the rule, I would have complied with it. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocaj12 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * User:Bocaj12 that was your 4th revert, I left one out. You continued to revert after I warned you. If you undo that revert you probably won't be blocked. Doug Weller  talk 19:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I did not see your message until the page refreshed after my revert, and did not revert anything after you thereby brought the rule to my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocaj12 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You have now reverted a 5th time Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * . Bocaj12 has been repeatedly urged here and on their own page to self-revert after being informed of the rule, but have not. Their last revert was finally reverted by someone else about five minutes ago, so I would say they had plenty of time. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC).Bishonen &#124; talk 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BoBoMisiu reported by User:Blueboar (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  At this point (Oct. 10) User:BoBoMisiu was blocked for 24 hours] by User:Vanamonde.  Upon expiration of the block he continued to edit war:
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:BoBoMisiu

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry

Comments:

While BoBoMisiu is engaging in discussion on the talk page, it is purely in defense of his preferred version of the text. He does not seem willing to listen to the comments of others, nor to show a willingness to reach compromise language. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)}}
 * S warm  ♠  23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:75.120.252.74 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "THIS IS A CLUTTER FREE WAY OF SEEING WHICH COACHES COACHED WHAT SEASONS!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745047563 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
 * 3)  "Every other international version of the show has this table showing what judges judged which seasons, there is no reason why we shouldn't have one as well."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 744905628 by Musicedit98 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User seems to not be here for constructive reasons, and instead, seems to be here to promote their own edits. User was warned on their user page, and still refuses to refrain from edit-warring on the topic. It was decided upon to not use the coaches' table, and instead, use a coaches' gallery. But this IP is refusing to accept this. Option was also discussed, previously, on page's talk page.  livelikemusic    talk!  00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * by CambridgeBayWeather. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Judist (Result: Page protected )
Page:, ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not by me, it seemed nobody was going to respond there, I posted my view there)

Comments:Edit-warring throughout articles. Plus - a personal attack. I asked the editor to explain the edits and the only explanation is calling me a sock (see the edit summary of the fourth revert).Judist (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Judist and clear socking going on, using a further IP Special:Contributions/130.204.82.204. All these accounts should be blocked. Removal of sourced information and replacement with a weaker one just beause fits their bias, tendentious editing plus edit warring, disrespect for WP:BRD. FkpCascais (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't the user been blocked? When I violate the 3rr, I am blocked. Are you alleging me for being a sockpuppet and removing any sourced information? When you fail to prove that, I suggest penalizing the accuser for a personal attack.Judist (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that has already protected the page. So go use the talk page., have you made a sockpuppet report?  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No, I haven't, I was limited with time these days and also I hoped an user more active on those articles who also noteced evidence of socking on their behalve would do it. There is one aspect which is important to mention. The editor accusing me here is providing phalse accusations. I didn't removed any sourced information, he is the one having a weak source and missusing it to fit their bias. Look at the edit summaries and the edits themselves here. He edited, he was reverted, and he edit-warred. He was reverted because his soource says "...most probably don't exceed..." and using it as if the author says it as a fact ommiting the "most probably". Another nice trick they use is to claim "Western authors claim..." when he only has that "most probably"-source, and also there are clearly other Western authors clearly claimiing the opposite. The issue has extensively been discussed in a specific subsection ar article's talk-page created specially for that issue, here: Talk:Serbs/Total number. So basically they ignore all strong sources found there, and think their source (not even specialised in the subject and actually claiming "msot probably" is the holly gral of the matter. Their purpose is not to find balance over the subject but just to cherry-pick sources and force their bias. FkpCascais (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

User:101.175.47.5 reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745326755 by Sportsfan 1234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745324649 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 745324421 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 745322332 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 745317509 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745317509 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* October 2016 */ comment"
 * 2)   "comment"


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


 * Comments:
 * for edit-warring and disruptive partisanship.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Froglich reported by User:FNAS (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts on Dreams from My Real Father:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Long history of vandalism at How to Read Donald Duck, which Froglich turned into a pamphlet for his own views on Chilean history:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (see also )

More generally, I believe this user has a problem with assessing the reliability of sources. See, e.g., Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film (3rd nomination), where Froglich knows better than the "anencephalics who presently dictate academia" and his history of pushing climate change denial (see user talk page, under "Commie Chameleons").FNAS (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * When you accuse me of vandalism, you're either stupid or you're lying. Which is it?--Froglich (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not by me)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. Having read Froglich's talk page, I conclude that his standard response to anything he doesn't agree with is verbal abuse (e.g. ), not any constructive attempt at a resolution. An admin has already concluded that that 'this user has had way, way too many "final warnings" already' for making personal attacks on other editors. FNAS (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What does your talk page look like, FNAS? --Froglich (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked; regardless of the actions by the user whom you consider an enemy (see WP:BATTLE, by the way), piling on attacks against him here is out of bounds. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow. I spent an hour looking through this and find the decision very surprising.  Thanks FNAS, I didn't know / had forgotten about this book and was just reading Donald Duk on a recommendation from Ishmael Reed.  It seemed like good election reading...   I don't see why FNAS was blocked here.  SashiRolls (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved editor who has crossed paths with neither of the two editors on or outside of Wikipedia and who does not understand the decision, I would like to add a courtesy ping to the administrator who reverted Froglisch's edits and who has apparently not been informed of this discussion.

User:Zourich reported by User:Laveol (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PFC_CSKA_Sofia. The user in question refuses to take part in any discussion.

Comments:

Although the user has not strictly violated 3RR, he has made a total of 6 reverts in two days. Further, he refuses to use the talkpage, and even claims there was no consensus over the article's version on the talkpage, defines others' edits as vandalism (as evident from the diffs above), etc. He even removed the 3RR warning from his talkpage. He is an experienced editor who has a habit of deleting warnings and has used multiple accounts in the past. This might be the case with his current account as it only became active after an absence of 4 years. He only re-appeared when another user with a similar behaviour needed someone to help him in edit-warring over the PFC CSKA Sofia article. -- L a v e o l  T 18:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the user for a period of 36 hours. If the actions continue after that, a longer block may be applicable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:StAnselm (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745556974 by StAnselm (talk) Disruptive editor over 3rr disputing sourced material"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745555216 by StAnselm (talk) It isn't my edit and you are over 3rr"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 745409632 by StAnselm (talk) Anyone can edit WP, even when there are comments above a paragraph"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 743251166 by StAnselm (talk) Well backed up with citations in the article and you don't WP:OWN the lede prose."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Islam in first paragraph, again */"


 * Comments:

Four reverts in a 26-hour period. User has been blocked for edit-warring twice this year, and, as his edit summaries show, is well aware of 3RR. StAnselm (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:StAnselm Also has 4 reverts on the material and has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring. This material is uncontentious and editor reverts good faith edits of others. I did not make the edit that was reverted originally. It was a 3rd party editor. I responded to the attempt to resolve before the noticeboard filing. An additional editor of the page has left the sourced material and modified the sentence to be more reflective of sources. There is no controversy. Lipsquid (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that you mentioned 3RR in your edit summaries, but you obviously miscounted - I have made three reverts. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

User:1Sire reported by User:Cheetoburrito (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I blocked both of them for 24 hours for edit warring. A bit of this, a bit of BOOMERANG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745385539 by Zefr (talk) WP:3RR WP:SOCK"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745385539 by Zefr (talk) wikipedia allows publications to be listed on biographies"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 745384377 by Zefr (talk) they can also be listed on his bibliography as shown in the bibliography examples"
 * 4)  "adding published works, followed example Charles Darwin Biography and Bibliography for template, accepted form, and accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin_bibliography, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Works"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 745352740 by Zefr (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Donald Gary Young. (TW)"
 * 2)   "WP:3RR"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "removed book info as duplicate of subject's website"
 * 2)   "/* Bibliography content in the article */  book is first entry on his personal website"


 * Comments:

User has made >10 disputed edits in one 24 hr period, despite warnings of WP:3RR and invitation to resolve on the Talk page. Zefr (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zefr, can you explain why you are filing this report while you appear to have easily broken WP:3RR on this article on October 20? The other party is certainly keeping up with you, but blocking both would be the simplest action. Do you think there is any exception to 3RR which applies to your edits? EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the opportunity to reply. I followed the recommended anti-war process by 1) taking the edits to the Talk page, 2) advising and warning User:Lithuanianlady on her Talk page, 3) providing edit comments intended to be instructive and constructive for not one but several different edits, and 4) seeking another editor's input, now on the Talk:Donald Gary Young page. Simply, I was trying to work through this with an editor, User:Lithuanianlady, determined to have her way, apparently with a nearly singular focus on this one topic. I encourage her to edit other articles constructively. --Zefr (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These good intentions don't exempt you from WP:3RR. If I am the closer, you can avoid a block if you will promise to make no more edits on this article without a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, of course, and a discussion at Talk:Donald Gary Young is underway. Same guidance should apply for User:Lithuanianlady. --Zefr (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:Zefr and User:Lithuanianlady are warned. You may be blocked if you make any further edits at Donald Gary Young that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. User:Zefr has acknowledged this above, and Lithuanianlady has been notified. The article on Donald Gary Young has become controversial. He is the founder of a multi-level marketing business that sells essential oils. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston Thank you for your comments, and I acknowledge the reply and will not make further changes withouth prior consensus on the talk page. --Lithuanianlady (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Following the 3RR close, User:Lithuanianlady was blocked indef by a checkuser per Sockpuppet investigations/Aulonocara. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowbite reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to: 02:37, 22 October 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:01, 22 October 2016 "Table is redundant to page and takes up space. Also, I did some re-editing to the opening paragraphs"
 * 2) 03:09, 22 October 2016 "Undid revision 745597793 by Sro23 (talk) I just explained my edit. There was nothing wrong"
 * 3) 03:11, 22 October 2016 "I've explained my edits on why I did them"
 * 4) 03:13, 22 October 2016 "Undid revision 745598230 by Sro23"
 * 5) 04:51, 22 October 2016 "I re-edited the page and removed a table that is irrelevant to this page"
 * 6) 18:10, 22 October 2016 "I've explained my edits; User:Donner60 agreed with my edits"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:53, 22 October 2016 by

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None found

Comments:

I happened across this after Snowbite's most recent revert. 's initial revert of Snowbite's edits indicate that Snowbite is a sock, so some action is required and Snowbite has clearly violated 3RR. He is also edit-warring at Disney XD Original Series, but has not yet made 4 reverts. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Atomic Meltdown. These socks are well known for edit warring in this topic area. Sro23 (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The sock complaint would be more convincing if you could show similar edits to a specific article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

This follows on earlier report here - the result of which was page protection. Upon lifting of page protection, Valerius went right back to adding some of same content.

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; current one is here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk continued at the talk page following last dispute, here: Talk:Low_level_laser_therapy.

Comments:

Valerius was defiant/combative with respect to what four other editors were saying there, see specific comments here and here and here for example. The intent to continue the edit war that led to PP without getting consensus is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Valerius Tygart is warned they may be blocked if they make any more edits at Low level laser therapy without a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)