Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive329

Edit-warring on Arrow (TV series) (Result: Already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is but one editor of four involved in a slo-mo edit-warring over a single word. The reason this user was specifically singled out for complaint is that they were explicitly asked to stop reverting over the matter and hash it out in article discussion. They continued to post an aggressive comment immediately after reverting yet again (removing cited material for the second time). They were asked to self-revert and continue discussion, and this complaint is the result of their failure to do so. While the typical 3RR report is a simple counting of edits to determine violation, its my understanding that anyone choosing to edit-war can be warned and/or blocked for edit-warring. I suspect that (because I myself was blocked less than a month ago for this same sort of thing), that requests for other editors to use the talk page instead of the edit summary to make their arguments were falling on deaf ears. I'm not instigating; I honestly want to improve the article, and being faced with people equating change with being wrong is making editing collaboratively excruciating. Knowing this, I had previously requested full protection for the article at RFPP to force editors to discuss collaboratively instead of dancing at the electric fence of 3RR. While waiting, this problem became emergent. Thus the complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that there is no violation of 3RR here of the reported user, even while the reporting editor himself reverted four times within 24 hours. . Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I was wondering when my wikistalker would show up. A more careful look at those edits will indicate that I've added content upon request, not simply reverted, as the contributor above. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course I would show up, when you report a well-respected member of the Television project that I've worked closely with before, who's talk page I also have on my watchlist. The content of the reverts doesn't matter - you violated WP:3RR yourself: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". You have no room to talk. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * While I am loathe to reply in any way to someone stalking me (seriously, stop - its creepy and uncomfortable), I will point out that successive edits does not qualify as edit-warring. At the risk of venturing into content disputes, you reverted an uncited statement added by someone else. I re-added it back in with a reference. You reverted it back out saying that there weren't enough sources. I reinstated it and added three more sources and statments, adding to the article in both content and length. I hardly see how those are considered reverts. And wtf are you stalking me for?
 * I brought the matter here in the hopes not that Favre gets blocked, but that a warning is issued to use the talk page - which what the rest of us want. If that request for RFPP can get instated, that would be even better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This report is completely baseless for me, given I edited once on the article to the content in question (after just coming to the page history after being offline for a day and a half), responded on the talk after I saw Jack had previously started a discussion regarding the content in question, and then reverted Jack once. That's not edit-warring, yet like Alex pointed out above, Jack reverted four times in 24 hours. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's address those "reverts" - or as they are more appropriately called, successive edits:
 * -reinstating multiple sources
 * - reinstating sourced descriptor
 * - adding word to article
 * - adding sources to complement new statements in the article.
 * And here's something odd that I just noticed. AlexTheWhovian reverted precisely three times this same content (1, 2, 3), and then - almost as if by magic - Favre (whoAlextTheWhovian has already admitted is a close friend) shows up ands starts reverting the very same content as well! What a coincidence! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, Jack said They were asked to self-revert and continue discussion, and this complaint is the result of their failure to do so. They gave me a whole 19 minutes from responding on the Arrow talk to filing this report. Wow!. Luckily I logged back on in time to see and make responses. But seriously, jumping right to reporting, especially when I was active in the talk page discussion (but not active enough for Jack's liking apparently), is not the way to go about resolving disputes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this doesn't seem to fit your own contributions history. The span between my request for you to self-revert and discuss and your reply was actually much shorter than that, you apparently edited several articles in the interim.
 * To be clear, the reason you were reported is that you were politely asked to stop reverting and instead contribute to the discussion taking place on the talk page, You disregarded that request and didn't bother discussing again, except to make the same point as before. Kind of the definition of edit-warring is to disregard the collaborative editng environment to do whatever you want. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what timeline of events you are looking at. I made my first unrelated edit, then responded on the talk page. You then reverted me on the article, I reverted you, then I responded again on the talk page, after you had made a response too, to which my response was in part to you and another editor. You then made your ultimatum of self revert or get reported when neither of us had made edits to the article again. So I continue to fail to see how I disregard[ed] the collaborative editng environment to do whatever [I] want[ed] and why you actually reported me instead of continuing the discussion process, when that avenue was not lost or hit a dead end to anyone involved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this complaint, based upon discussions with Favre at their talk page. Feel free to archive this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TheErectile reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

There are more edits but I think this illustrates the point.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user is continuing to Edit War on the O.D. Kobo article after a block and was previously engaging in the same behavior at Bebo Kobo. Their edits remove sourced information and add unsourced information that does not comply with WP:NPOV. This user has also engaged in sock puppetry regarding these edits. -- Dane 2007  talk 06:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.228.40 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Updated parking information automatically"
 * 2)  "Amended typos and updated parking to reflect the use of ANPR camerw ontrolled parking and associated fines."
 * 3)  "Updated to reflect the ANPR camera controlled car park."
 * 4)  "Updated parking information to include recently introduced ANPR cameras and associated fines. Also updated on parkopedia and other social media platforms."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Arena Park Shopping Centre. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I told the IP twice to discuss it and have since started a discussion myself however they've made no effort to discuss it and have carried on reverting, I have a feeling the IP is who was also adding the info, Admittingly I could've discussed it abit quicker however late is better than never but either way the IP has no interest in discussing it, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 20:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP has since returned but under a new IP - More easier to have the page protected than to file report after report, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Wasn't expecting to see your name pop up as the "protecting admin" but anyway thanks for protecting it - much appreciated, – Davey 2010 Talk 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Tsailand reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff (incorporated ref from first diff below which was otherwise reverted)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 20:30, 22 October 2016‎
 * 2) diff 21:41, 22 October 2016‎
 * 3) diff  23:32, 22 October 2016‎
 * 4) diff 23:45, 22 October 2016 (after reversion by 3rd editor)
 * 5) diff  23:51, 22 October 2016 (after reversion by 4th editor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning #1, was overwritten by user, warning #2 by third editor; warning #3 by 4th editor; both overwritten by user again; but first they copied warning #4 and stuck it in the midst of my talk page, here. oy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Toxicology (see strange history too)

Comments:

New editor came into WP full blast; no stopping to engage with policies and guidelines much less other editors. Sorry to be back here and sorry that a new user is brought here, but some folks drive right over a cliff as soon as their wheels hit the road here. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the editor has stopped warring and is now discussing. do you feel that action is still warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amatulic (talk • contribs) 06:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. don't know if they just tired and are going to start up again tomorrow.  :)   hopefully they have stopped.  would be great to decide tomorrow.  thanks again Jytdog (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's my fear too. The editor may have stopped making the edit for now, but does not seem to be constructively discussing the edits, and still has not provided the requested page numbers from the 217 page document sourced. Meters (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An IP gave User:Tryptofish an "only warning" this afternoon for removing talk page comments - the only action I can see that matches this accusation is this where Tryptofish removed a comment by Tsailand and replaced a barnstar that Tsailand had removed, presumably be accident. Doug Weller  talk 15:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:CFCF (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745646606 by CFCF (talk) You are REQUIRED to follow WP:STATUSQUO. Which part of this don't you understand?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745646373 by CFCF (talk) Stop creating edit wars and follow WP:STATUSQUO as you are required to do."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 745646070 by CFCF (talk) As per WP:STATUSQUO."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 745643933 by CFCF (talk) POV. The term "naturopathic doctor" is in common use whether you approve of it or not."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Ledes & merge tags */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
 * 3)   "/* Ledes & merge tags */"
 * 4)   "/* Ledes & merge tags */"

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

Lack of acceptable sources/any sources, no rationale. Quoting essay in order to obstruct actually basing the lede on the body of the text as well as the sources. Removing merge tags on Phytotherapy despite ongoing discussion. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 12:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * These comments are risible. The other editor's changes were reverted with explanations but instead of following WP:STATUSQUO and properly seeking discussion and consensus initiated edit wars instead by insisting that the changes be accepted. Totally disingenuous. Afterwriting (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As an example of the other editor's disingenuousness on this issue he has now "archived" my own comments on his own talk page. First he initiates edit wars when reverted but then has the audacity to report me for this instead and also hides my comments on his talk page. This is extraordinarily strange behaviour by the other editor. Afterwriting (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * after having seen article, agree w/ CFCF--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you agree with? This all started with CFCF's factually false claim that "there is no such thing as a naturopathic doctor" and his removal of the term from the article. It was perfectly acceptable and correct for this edit to be reverted and not acceptable or correct for the other editor to then restore it and to provoke an edit war. Afterwriting (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. In addition, I am alerting User:Afterwriting, User:CFCF and User:Delta13C to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

User: ‎Lithopsian + User: Arianewiki1 reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: See Too long to list.

Comments:

Please see article WR 31a regarding edit warring, and note the long history + Talk page. Editor User: ‎Lithopsian refuses to engage in Talk page and requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1 on own Talk page, continues to throw insults and perpetually reverts. Happy to suffer any consequences, but this clearly must end. Fed up. Help. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Also. Evidence of "requests no contact by User: Arianewiki1" by User: ‎Lithopsian is here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * , I could issue symmetric block against both of you for edit-warring, which both of you were clearly engaged in: but that would be a waste of time. Instead, I have protected the page; please come to a consensus on the talk. Also,  you are both warned that further edit-warring, on this page or other pages, with or without 3RR violations, may result in a block. You have escaped a block, but it is not because your activity was acceptable. Vanamonde (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: This edit warring was certainly unacceptable, but this editor has point blank refused to engaged with the Talkpage process at all, as seen in this WR_31a talkage. What else could I do? All you have done is reward the perpetrator with their contentious edits. I even tried to engage other editors to resolve this conflict to no avail. When I ask for help, it is just ignored. When I request a fair resolution, it is ignored and replaced with a threat of sanction. Frankly pretending a threatened block against the clear evidence of having no willingness to discuss the issues to resolve this is just abysmal. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not "rewarded" anybody with anything: protection is not an endorsement of either version, but a tool to prevent disruption. You have several options available to you: you could ask for a third opinion, ask for dispute resolution, or open an WP:RFC. If your version is indeed the policy-compliant version, as you say, and the other editor is not willing to engage in this process, then your version will naturally win out over time: or more likely, a compromise of some sort will be reached. Please remember, there is deadline. Vanamonde (talk) 14:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough in your comments, but I have attempted this all before. The utter denial of interaction with me appears here with  a third opinion by User:Coffee on article V399 Carinae I.e."Yes, I am refusing to engage with . If I get in trouble for that, then so be it." I've been falsely accused of "After repeated previous attempts to resolve differences about content impersonally and calmly, I can no longer assume good faith." My response have been specific, and with the example of the Talk page WR 31a. I explain the problem with the edits with this response to me here. under ""My last word." I was then accused here. Each are a personal attacks, which this edit refuses to engage. I.e. No responses to the edits or queries were made ev en made to me. As for dispute resolution or open an WP:RFC, I tried this with WP:ANI in the V399 Carinae Talk page, as suggested by User:Coffee. (Read the Section "Non-Consensus and Deliberately Avoiding Good Faith") I got zero response.
 * Frankly, I'm so tired of trying compromising with this editor via the means you've suggested. So far I have for ages tried to avoid slipping into WP:3RR, and have tried to resolve this amicably. Also, this is why I posted to the ANI 3RR, to resolve this problem. Worst, half the battle is there few editors are capable of understanding the arguments, making "policy-compliant version" near impossible. Hence the 'missing' neutral editors. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, warning noted. I'll try harder. Lithopsian (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * (Lengthy post removed) This is not the place, Ariannewiki. This is the edit-warring noticeboard: the edit-warring reported here has been dealt with. This thread is not the place to rehash your dispute. Take it elsewhere, to ANI if necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Good to see that you were able to solve the actual problem. Not. So I will be immediately revering the continuous edit on the 28th when the embargo is lifted. Your 'resolutions' to this are clearly inadequate, especially when I've followed that paths you suggest. The delete information actually explained what I've done to solve this, but you've ignored it. Clearly the other editor has no desire to come to some compromise. I was obviously totally stupid to point out the possible 3RR violations here, because it benefited no one, and just fueled the flames and made matters worst. Pity. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:107.77.215.190 reported by User:Mlpearc (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: didn't have time to start a discussion

Comments:


 * A word to the wise, the last diff this editor posted was a revert I performed, not that of the disruptive anon. X75.74.40.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked 24 hours for disruption of AN3 by removing the report. Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:112.209.129.187 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * : The re-addition of a logo removed on

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP is edit warring over a non-free image at DRWC-TV. The edit sums I left here, here, and here include links to the relevant policy pages. Further more detailed information was posted on the IP's user talk. IP was invited to participate in an FFD discussion regarding th file's use here, but the IP's response was to remove a "ffdc" notification template added to let other editor know about the discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Elvey (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/744789969
 * 2) Special:Diff/744793647


 * 1) Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (2016 US Election AE)
 * 2) Another edit warring / 1RR warning: advocacy
 * 3) Diff of another edit warring / 3RR warning: and there are many more on the user's talk page.
 * 4) Another edit warring warning:
 * 5) Another edit warring warning:
 * etc: "edit war" appears on the user's talk page TWENTY-THREE times.
 * 1) Addendum: I haven't looked through AE archives, but Per SR's comment below, I'm guessing there has been even more warning regarding 1RR there.

Talk page discussion: (Failed. No acknowledgment of or apology for the violation!)

Comments:

Looking at the user talk page, I see a pattern. The edit warring needs to be made to stop.


 * (i) I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR. I wouldn't have done it had I known. (ii) Anyway, the original revert was perfectly reasonable and the user who added the content originally and then restored the content is a loon who has been banned from editing on the Jill Stein page (note that many of the 'edit warring' warnings on my talk page come from this lunatic regarding my encounters with him/her on the Jill Stein page - this user was eventually topic-banned for repeated violations of wikipedia rules). Having been topic-banned from Jill Stein, the user is now going from Clinton article to Clinton article to add a bunch of nonsense, some of which I have reverted. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting this, Elvey, I've tried to draw the user's behavior to admin's attention before, but the evidence always seemed to be too detailed, so it didn't get read. I cannot defend myself from the ad hominem attacks because of a gag-rule, so I'll just ask that Snooganssnoogans drop the stick and stop casting aspersions.  I had planned to let consensus emerge from the talk page without reporting the incident after close consultation of WP:BULB and WP:WIKISPEAK, but it's certainly just as well that you brought it up here. SashiRolls (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would ask that Snooganssnoogans be sanctioned for the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls, above, in addition to the bright line violation I've identified. We'll see if there's any retraction using strike or undefined before that happens. WP:CIVIL isn't just a good idea.  It's policy.-- Elvey (t•c) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal: weekend block. I would ask that an admin carefully weigh the claim  "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." against the evidence - 1)of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) of attitude when notified of it.
 * I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; it would be different if there wasn't A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above.


 * -- Elvey (t•c) 21:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First, there's no doubting SashiRolls' off-kilter editing behavior (just read the proceedings that got the user topic-banned). I feel perfectly within my right to call the user a loon based on the user's record, which includes repeated harassment on my talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Second, I do know that politicians' pages are 1RR (I edit extensively on several politicians' pages). I didn't know the same applied to the Clinton charity. I was under the impression that it would be under the same rules as any other non-profit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Third, the accusations of frequent edit warring are false. Most of those accusations stem from my interactions with SashiRolls on the Jill Stein page, a page that he/she eventually got a topic-ban on. After SashiRolls got booted off the Jill Stein, the page returned to normal, with normal editor interactions. My interactions with other editors have been perfectly normal. Interestingly, the only one initiating edit wars and removing long-standing content on the Jill Stein page for ridiculous reasons has been you for the last few days. I've mostly left it alone though. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fourth, the only edit warring I did was when I was new to politicians' pages (and new to highly active pages where it was necessary to revert content regularly): I wasn't aware of 3RR, which applied in May/June 2016. After being cautioned, I of course obliged by the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Fifth, I don't shy away from calling things what they are. Vaccine fear-mongering is a shitty position. SashiRolls following me from page to page to make bizarre edits on issues he/she knows nothing about (Icelandic politics), I do consider "sabotage". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sixth, my account is definitely not dedicated to political edits. I started out editing to add academic content, and still do. It's just that news about the election gets published more rapidly than the studies that would make a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia. If you were to actually check my history, you'd see that I've written almost whole pages and large sections from scratch (some that come to mind: coup d'etat, "immigration: economic effects", "human capital flight: advantages", "human capital flight: disadvantages", "immigration and crime", "resource curse"), with nearly all edits consisting of academic research. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Seventh, Survey Monkey is a C- rated pollster on FiveThirtyEight. I'm frankly not the biggest fan but as it stands, it's one of few comprehensive polls we have about a recent event, which makes a totally worthwhile contribution to the page that I added it to. I added the tweet from a reliable journalist, because I was short on time and wanted to add it to the page before I forgot about it. Thankfully, because Wikipedia is full of great editors, some other editor added a full citation and provided a better source than the tweet for the same content. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eight, as the admins are reading this, I think they should be aware that there are forums on the Internet where conspiracy theorists and Jill Stein supporters talk about me, disparage my intentions and discuss getting me thrown of Wikipedia (SashiRolls posted on one such forum under the same username as one of his/her sockpuppet accounts - yes, SashiRolls also got temporarily blocked from Wikipedia for using sockpuppet accounts). I don't know Elvey's intentions, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that the user only started to edit on the Jill Stein page a few days ago, immediately tries to get me sanctioned for edits on unrelated pages, runs through my history, and recites the same claims that SashiRolls raised against me repeatedly (and frankly uses very similar language and editing styles). Elvey's edits on the Jill Stein page are also very similar to the types of edits that SashiRolls tended to do (disruptive edits, combative interactions with other editors, inability to back up claims, a tendency to speak in word salads). Those familiar with SashiRolls' editing behavior (those involved in his/her Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but also with specific experience of the editor's editing style) might want to chip in: +  +,  .  Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I suggest that admins look closely at whether the edit warring is, in effect, mutual. This dispute is probably ripe for WP:AE, as opposed to here. But Elvey has certainly been busy lately: see User talk:Tryptofish and Talk:Jill Stein. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC){ Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Tryptofish (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
 * Then Tryptofish will note that it is not canvassing, because nobody is being misled. The pings are plainly visible here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were canvassed; visibility doesn't make it not canvassing. Stop making personal attacks; anyone is welcome to use rpa when attacked. -- Elvey (t•c) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bugger off and stop making personal attacks": that's priceless! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable (and indeed is common courtesy) to ping users who have previously been involved in or expressed interest in a topic or a dispute. This is certainly not "improper canvassing" and the guideline makes that very clear (WP:APPNOTE). These kind of spurious accusations against Snoogans seem designed to "nail him for everything and anything" and that's really not the type of behavior that should be encouraged. Neutralitytalk 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you define the topic broadly enough, there' no such thing as canvassing. I recall seeing users sanctioned for pings better justified than the ones above.  The policy is not applied fairly.  I'll consider performing that courtesy as appropriate if I'm in that situation next time.  -- Elvey (t•c) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After some more looking around, I do see that the talk page for the Clinton Foundation has a very clear template right at the top, indicating the existence of ArbCom restrictions including 1RR, so I would think that anyone really ought to have been aware that 1RR applied to that page. Anyway, that really does fall under the purview of AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Moving this to WP:AE would be forum shopping. Snooganssnoogans should also be sanctioned for canvassing those four users though. You have diffs to support your EW accusation?  Snooganssnoogans launched a massive reputation attack without offering a single diff.  Not cool.  Still:  B)no apology, and C)more defending of the sanction-able behavior above plus D) no retraction of the many blatant personal attacks on SashiRolls,  -- Elvey (t•c) 23:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not edit my comments. Interesting that you did that. SashiRolls had a tendency to repeatedly edit other editor's comments, in particular, removing words that he/she took offense to. I had never seen that behavior before and I hadn't again, until you just did it now. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't make personal attacks and I won't edit your comments to remove them, as I did. The user that you canvassed to this page has restored them, thereby makeing persona attack as well.


 * Comment Uninvolved non-administrator input: it's obvious these editors have a history. While it does look like User:Snooganssnoogans made a bright line violation on 1RR, it could easily be accidental. User:SashiRolls could do better to WP:DGF but instead immediately reverted Snooganssnoogans' revert without any attempt to compromise or follow the D part of WP:BRD. In Snooganssnoogans' 1RR-violating edit summary, he asked to take the discussion to the talk page, which seems like reasonably civil behavior to me. I propose a warning to User:Snooganssnoogans to be more mindful of 1RR. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 01:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * User:AlexEng: Which editors have a history? The ones that were canvassed?  True!  Going how far back?  How long have you been editing, by the way?   You registered in 2007... and have just ~100 edits under your belt, and you ignore all the other violations I've noted, and the edit warring history.  Curious.  You think it's WP:CIVIL for an editor (say, Snooganssnoogans) to call fellow editors (say, you, a friend of yours, or someone for whom the description is fitting) a loon ... a lunatic who adds nonsense to articles ... describe their edits with the terms "nonsense", "shit", "sabotage", "ridiculous"?  -- Elvey (t•c) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC),
 * User:Elvey - I apologize if I was not clear. The editors to whom I referred are User:Snooganssnoogans and User:SashiRolls. However, I would also point to your conflict of interest with Snooganssnoogans over the Jill Stein dispute. This is clearly an emotional issue for all involved parties, but the discussion now appears to be closed. I hope you folks can WP:DTS and WP:DGF in the future. Take care. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 20:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Proposal: Block Snooganssnoogans for 72 hours.  The claim  "I did not realize that the Clinton Foundation page was under 1RR." strains credulity to the breaking point given the evidence - of FAR more than adequate notification regarding 1RR, and 2) There's the  attitude when notified of it.  (I wouldn't bring this here if it looked like an isolated incident; there was A)frequent edit warring, etc, B)no apology, and C)more defending of, and incidents of the sanctionable behavior.)
 * -- Elvey (t•c) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: 1) Snooganssnoogans has said I have "sabotaged" an article on Icelandic politics.  In fact, I rendered it more readable for a non-Icelandic speaking readership by adding a legend into the text added by the other editor.  Nobody has complained about the way I left the article in question, not even Snooganssnoogans.  (total interaction on the page in question:  diff).  Now s/he calls it sabotage without providing diffs... though in my view it is evidence of working "well" together to improve the readability of an article.  2) I agree with Elvey that the user should be strongly sanctioned for their continual personal attacks of multiple users. Likewise, observing WP:BRD ("Consider reverting only when necessary.") would mark a positive and radical change in this user's behavior. SashiRolls (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Having interacted with Snooganssnoogans and others in the past, I think anything more than a warning would be uncalled for and would be essentially punitive rather than protective (which is of course counter to our blocking policy). I agree with the considerations articulated by Snooganssnoogans, AlexEng, and Tryptofish:
 * Snooganssnoogans made one revert that ran afoul of the rule, does not have a recent history of edit warring, and is an editor who abides by consensus and does careful work in difficult topic areas.
 * The revert in question asked for discussion on the talk page, an edit summary was given, and the summary was polite and reasonable. It is also relevant that the article in question has been the subject of problematic editing in the past.
 * Snooganssnoogans has acknowledged that he ran afoul of the rule and has said that he would not have done it had he known of the 1RR application on that particular page. There is no reason to doubt this. (We assume good faith.)
 * A factor that should also be weighed in the analysis, as Tryptofish articulated, is that some of those who are pressing this complaint against Snoogans engaged in conduct that was similar and in some cases much worse (unclean hands).
 * In sum, this should be closed and everyone should move on and return to productive editing. Neutralitytalk 18:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would indeed warn Snoogans that he should have seen and paid attention to the 1RR notice at the top of the talk page, rather than to guess whether or not 1RR applied. But I otherwise agree, and with the time that has passed (amid a wall of tl;dr nonsense), this has become a stale request, because there are no further reverts by Snoogans. I would also warn the two editors with "unclean hands" that a failure to resume productive editing, as opposed to making a battleground, will inevitably lead to a serious boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Snooganssnoogans is warned for breaking the 1RR. User:SashiRolls is reminded that consensus is needed before undoing someone else's revert on this article. SashiRolls apparently broke the restriction on October 17 which says "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." This consensus requirement is the same box on the talk page which announces the 1RR restriction. So SashiRolls was obliged to get consensus before undoing the preceding revert by Snooganssnoogans, but did not do so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Feeling disappointed... and frightened because I see the silent consensus is that it's WP:CIVIL for an editor (say, Snooganssnoogans) to call fellow editors (say, you, a friend of yours, or someone for whom the description is fitting) a loon ... a lunatic who adds nonsense to articles ... describe their edits with the terms "nonsense", "shit", "sabotage", "ridiculous". That it's CIVIL to ignore reasonable questions. But so be it. I regret the time I spent on this. Question: EdJohnston, would you enforce "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)." evenhandedly to all users editing (on both sides) if in future you were again wielding the mop in an edit war in violation of 2016 US Election AE or do you only apply sanctions to one side? In other words, once 1RR is violated, edits that add or remove the same content should face the same sanction, whether adding or removing? What sanctions are typical? Feel free to reply privately.-- Elvey (t•c) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for trying Elvey. I hadn't planned on trying because I've learned that WP:CIVIL is only Wikipedia policy for the lucky many -- some Snoogs are more equal than others, after all.  Unless you want to find yourself in a boiling pit faster than you can say WP:WIKISPEAK, it's best to meditate on the peaceful and forgetful sheep.  SashiRolls (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording of the consensus requirement (as put in place on this article by User:Coffee) seems to put the burden of discussion on whoever wants to undo the revert. Speaking of civility, if other admins see violation of civility by anyone named in this report they should do whatever they think is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your polite response on your talk page concerning the non-enforcement of WP:CIVIL. I'm very surprised by this text "all editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)" which isn't mentioned anywhere in the WP:ARBAP2 decision (unless my search and reading skills are slipping).  Maybe the justification for locking down pages so that information cannot be added is somewhere else?  Anyone know where this comes from? SashiRolls (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That restriction was not created by Arbcom. It was applied by User:Coffee as a discretionary sanction. That is, WP:ARBAP2 allowed him to use his discretion to impose it. For details see Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log and search for 'Clinton Foundation'. If you don't like the restriction, read WP:AC/DS for the appeal options. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I was not aware that systemic bias tags could be removed without consensus.  I see you have decided to protect the page just after the tag was deleted.  I've moved on to editing elsewhere, but did want to acknowledge your response. SashiRolls (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User:121.214.169.171 reported by User:2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=746059393&oldid=746059178

Keeps deleting my report. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B124:E2EB:B6B4:1445 (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

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

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

Comments:


 * I've responded to the noticeboard and left warnings on both involved.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Mawlidman reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745792569 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) undoing edit again by cabal of authoritarian wiki editors who think they are somehow entitled to silence what doesn't suit them."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 745791731 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) Not at all "peripheral" if those people are prominent as shown on blp Noticeboard."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 745758056 by Johnuniq (talk) restored spiteful content removal. countless wiki articles mention prominent family of the main subject in their article"
 * 4)  "/* Early life and education */ re-worded for easier comprehension" -- repeats the substance of this earlier revert


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


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

Me and User:Nomoskedasticity filed at the same time; my comment below.
 * Comments:


 * Muffled Pocketed  09:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These editors have in quick succession ganged up on me even after i re-wrote my edit. They seem more driven by the desire to stamp their authority over underlings than to uphold any real wiki policies. I re-wrote the edit to mention Mr Jafar's notable family (as the sources clearly mention), but apparently not abandoning my project was reason enough to gang up on me and remove any new content i added. I was told that mentioning prominent relatives is peripheral to the subject! So why does G W Bush and countless other people have their prominent relatives mentioned in their articles? This is hypocrisy clothed with very weak arguments. NB.: my comment here was first removed by the commenter above then gingerly restored by another gang member with the arrogant edit summary "let's put his own comment in..." Mawlidman (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As well as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, could you please desist from your personal attacks? Calling editors 'spiteful sods', and arrogant, hypocrite and gang-members as you did above is not helpful. Muffled  Pocketed  10:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, and you should know better than to remove my comment as you did here. Mawlidman (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Negative. The entire thread was removed; when that happens (and it is not uncommon) comments within it are- logically- removed too. Nomoskedasticity was kind enough to reinsert it here, for which you then abused him. Nice attitude. Muffled  Pocketed  10:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Go down to the bottom of my link provided and you will see that the entire thread wasn't removed. Your edit was conveniently still there. And "Nomoskedasticity was kind enough to reinsert it"...Seriously!!! His condescending edit summary was quite clear that it was not done in kindness -- perhaps out of a desire to not expose the removal in the first place, seeing as i was re-adding it at the same time which created an edit conflict. So he just beat me to it. Perhaps there was hope for a quick blocking of my account if my side of the story was silenced; who knows. Mawlidman (talk) 10:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No; when I deleted my duplicate thread I unfortunately removed your comment as well, which is just the way of things, somewhat. And as I have pointed out before (but perhaps in the general, rather than now, in the particular), you need to assume good faith that other editors are not in fact silencing your 'side of the story' or hoping 'for a quick blocking.' These knee-jerk comments are, as has also been pointed out, less than helpful. Cheers, Muffled Pocketed  15:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment as a user rather than as an admin, as I too have interacted with this user before. Whether or not a block is deserved in this case, the battleground behavior is very much in evidence; and the fact that this user has managed to enter into conflict with three experienced users within the space of their first few hundred edits is saying something. Fresh eyes on a topic are generally a good thing, but Mawlidman also needs to learn to take a step back and actually listen to those they are interacting with. Vanamonde (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have thought this one would be quite straightforward, given the previous block for the same problem... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:91.61.68.107 reported by User:Attar-Aram syria (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

The IP just popped into Wikipedia and know his way perfectly. He knows how to edit war, revert, use talk pages and leave messages. He came to restore a controversial edit after the user who made that edit stopped his own edit war to keep it (you make the connection).

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5 this is after I told him in my precious edit summary that he has passed his 3 revert limit.

He also refuse to actually engage in an actual discussion (that require you to wait for a result), instead, he just write what he think should happen in the talk page and then do what ever he wants as if it is enough to just lay out your opinion on a talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

This IP is probably a sock puppet of the blocked user User:PoliticoSearch who also used the sockpuppet User:Wikiwürmleini. Just like the IP, this user came brand new and immediately into the said article and denied being a formerly blocked one...etc.

In this edit, Wikiwürmleini claimed to be a casual reader who dont have any interest in the topic. The IP made the same claim. Also, Wikiwürmleini accused me of believing in conspiracies and being delusional, which is a theme for the IP.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Attar-Aram syria did not only make more reverts himself than anyone (including me) to fight through his controversial selective deletion of human rights violations of a certain faction in Syria. It is him, not anyone else (including me), who refuses any discussion on the merits of his deletions, and only resorts to try intimidate other editors. He himself violates every rule for civil conduct towards other editors both on the talk page and in his edit summaries.

Please see talk page of the article (and go through edit summaries). 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule for controversial edits is keeping the former status quo then discuss the introduction of the controversial edit. You want it to be the other way around. Now, it is perfectly fine to revert blocked users and it is not a 3rr violation. And you, (with your experty in editing and focusing on one subject despite making your first edit this week) proves to be a blocked user with a single purpose for existence in Wikipedia.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I kindly ask you to stop calling me "blocked user". This is uncivil and slanderous. I can assure you that I have never in my life had a Wikipedia account blocked. And I find it patently absurd how much effort you put in trying to intimidate other users instead of trying to argue your controversial edits. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * and added templates related to WP:GS/SCW. Please beware this page, as well as all others in the topic area of the Syrian Civil War are WP:1RR -- slakr  \ talk / 04:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Attar-Aram syria reported by User:91.61.68.107 (Result: protected)
User:Attar-Aram syria makes persistent reverts in the Human Rights in Rojava article, to fight for his selective deletion of Syrian civil war war crimes of one particular faction (Free Syrian Army) in the area. He makes no serious attempt to argue his controversial deletions, but puts his efforts into trying to intimidate and threaten other editors.

His most recent reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=next&oldid=745832537

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745832005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745829401

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_rights_in_Rojava&diff=prev&oldid=745687195

Please look at edit summaries and talk page of the article. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My answer is in the above section. Im merely reverting a blocked user.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not "a blocked user". Repeating this slander all the time belongs to the intimidating conduct I complain about. 91.61.68.107 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * see above. -- slakr \ talk / 04:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Pristino (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

User:Number 57 has repeatedly removed factual information from an election results table despite being invited to resolve the issue in the Talk page first:


 * 1) Removes factual data, stating Clearly not right as actual number of registered voters is higher. Suggest this figure should only come from RNEC if needed, which is a puzzling argument to make for someone who apparently likes to edit election articles. Registered voters is different from Voting Age Population, and he should know this, but he apparently does not. Voting Age Population is the number of people over the legal voting age (usually 18) living in the country. This figure is given by statistic offices, not election offices, and it is widely used to gauge the true level of participation within a political unit, as the electoral roll usually includes people residing overseas, skewing the turnout rate.
 * 2) Second revert.
 * 3) Third revert, after being invited to resolve the matter in the Talk page.
 * 4) Fourth revert, after being warned he had exhausted his slot of reverts.

He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of eight days. However, he continues to revert the inclusion of factual, properly cited data (usually a few hours after they're added). His defense is based on weak and/or ignorant arguments, that sound more like a desperate attempt to keep the table unchanged. It does not appear that he is going to stop, as he has a long history of reverting users which add, modify or alter election articles in a way he does not like. Pristino (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comments above, in the other thread. -- slakr \ talk / 04:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Pristino reported by User:Number 57 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Pristino has repeatedly added the same dubious information to this article (a figure for voting age population which is lower than the number of registered voters) multiple times despite being asked to stop due to WP:SYNTH, WP:BRD and a direct warning that he would be reported for edit warring.


 * 1) Adds voting age population
 * 2) Readds after it was removed
 * 3) Readds despite request to respect BRD
 * 4) Readds despite warning that it would result in a report for edit warring.

He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of a few days. However, he has readded it every day he has logged into Wikipedia during this period and it does not appear that he is going to stop. He has responded on the talk page, but is continuing to revert in the meantime. If he isn't blocked, then can someone at least fully-protect the page. Thanks, Number   5  7  11:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Number 57 has repeatedly removed factual information from an election results table despite being invited to resolve the issue in the Talk page first:


 * Removes factual data, stating Clearly not right as actual number of registered voters is higher. Suggest this figure should only come from RNEC if needed, which is a puzzling argument to make for someone who apparently likes to edit election articles. Registered voters is different from Voting Age Population, and he should know this, but he apparently does not. Voting Age Population is the number of people over the legal voting age (usually 18) living in the country. This figure is given by statistic offices, not election offices, and it is widely used to gauge the true level of participation within a political unit, as the electoral roll usually includes people residing overseas, skewing the turnout rate.
 * Second revert.
 * Third revert, after being invited to resolve the matter in the Talk page.
 * Fourth revert, after being warned he had exhausted his slot of reverts.


 * He has not actually broken WP:3RR as the edits are over a period of eight days. However, he continues to revert the inclusion of factual, properly cited data (usually a few hours after they're added). His defense is based on weak and/or ignorant arguments, that sound more like a desperate attempt to keep the table unchanged. It does not appear that he is going to stop, as he has a long history of reverting users which add, modify or alter election articles in a way he does not like. Pristino (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Might it be an idea to bring in a third opinion? Back-and-forth reverting between yourselves is problematic, and over time it doesn't matter if 3RR is broken; it's still edit warring. -- slakr \ talk / 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've requested input from the Elections & Referendums WikiProject. Cheers, Number   5  7  07:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Light show reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */Trimmed factoid supported by links to other articles. The lead is a summary of this article."
 * 2)  "/* top */ trimmed material supported by link to another article, not this one. Talk if unclear about BLP"


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

Article subject to 1RR. Editor acknowledges he didn't bother reading the prominent warning on the edit page. All sorts of arguments can be mounted here (RfC under way, etc.), but they don't amount to a reason to violate 1RR; strict adherence to that restriction is required, unless we want to open the doors to violations for other reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Light show has clearly engaged in disruptive edit warring in blatant disregard of the ongoing lengthy discussions of the issue in question on the talk page over the last couple of weeks and ongoing discussions on the discretionary sanctions enforcement page, and all consensus-finding processes over the last couple of weeks. He has seemingly taken it upon himself to edit war the now stable few sentences on the sexual assault controversy – the result of painstaking work by numerous editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording – out of the article. On the talk page he revealingly refers to what we on Wikipedia call reliable sources with the pejorative term "MSM". --Tataral (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the claim that there is somehow a "BLP problem" with the wording in question has, prior to the edit warring by User:Light show, been described as "a case of WP:CRYBLP" and without any merit in the ongoing, related discussion concerning the exact same wording on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. As he has commented on the talk page in the discussion on this exact issue, he is obviously aware of the current discussions of it. --Tataral (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I thought about a block, but Light Show has had some straight talking on their page, plus at least one editor defending them, so that's probably not a good idea. As LS has not touched the article since yesterday, I'll let them off with a warning. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon reported by User:570ad (Result: declined)
''::Tiptoethrutheminefield: As you can see, I tried to escalate the issue with this article's current state in order to bring attention to the underlying problem, but unfortunately the problem still persists. Thanks for your help! -570ad (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)''

Page:

User being reported:

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: mentioned edit wars in the note

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

Comments:

I've tried to highlight the issue under the article's Talk page and asked the user to stop reverting the page to the version that removes the "Regions with significant populations" table, stating the reasons why the table was established there and requesting that it be left alone because of those reasons. However, instead of actually reading my appeal, the user simply deleted it from the Talk page, as well as reverted the article back to an inferior version, simply citing "sleeper account" as his justification of doing so, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not sure what the user's agenda is with regards to this article and Persians, but clearly, there is some motive that is behind the user insisting on reducing Persian population numbers from ~90 million in the region and beyond to 49 million confined to only Iran. 570ad (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 100% BOOMERANG. This user, an obvious sleeper account, with no more than 150 edits over the span of five years, and with his last edit having been made in late 2015/early 2016 (more than ten months ago), literally all of a sudden hopped in, mass-reinstated all non-WP:RS sources (e.g. JoshuaProject, Mayhew (2011), published by Lonely Planet) and unsourced content, to support his agenda. None of the reliable sources (such as Encyclopedia Iranica, Iranologists, etc.) ever coined the Persian people, also known as the Persian ethnic group, to include Hazaras, Tajiks, etc. Hence, I believe this is nothing more than blatant POV-pushing, for which he was rightfully reverted. None of the links in the infobox confirm his stance either, e.g. that ethnic Persians includes the present-day ethnic groups of the Hazaras, Tajiks, etc. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Notice also how, when I reverted his talk page commentary, which was a clear essay (per WP:FORUM) I was almost instantly reverted by an IP. Hence, clear sock/meat-puppetry on top of this frivolous ANI report. Notice also, furthermore, how said user had also written a similar essay here a while ago, fully in line with his ungrounded stance, because he just thinks it should be like that, and not what the reliable sources tell us. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Lastly, he didn't even leave a notification on my talk page. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * There you go yet again completely side-stepping the issue and bringing up points that have nothing to do with the basic argument. What I'm saying is not POV-pushing, I think on the contrary it's you who is pushing your own agenda. Look through the edits as well as the talk page, removal of the table has been brought up by others as well. Perhaps you're unaware and so that's why you're only seeing the question with a boxed-in 1-dimensional mindset that is typical of someone actually unfamiliar with a certain topic, but the Persian identity and culture is constantly evolving and our understanding is evolving as well. You play the same old broken record of "but the sources don't say this," without asking when those sources were created? You don't think knowledge becomes outdated and gets built upon? Typical medieval mindset, good job. You're clearly just a troll who removed 40 million people from the stats page without researching the issue simply because the old sources never mentioned such and such as part of the Persian race. Did you know about the political friction Afghanistan and Iran had in the last century that prompted Afghanistan to officially change the name of the language from "Farsi" to "Dari" simply to set itself apart--even though everyone to this day says they speak "Farsi" and rarely do they say "Dari." So it takes little imagination to see how politics can play a role in "sources". And in fact there are more non-Hazara Persian speakers in Afghanistan than Hazaras and yes, Tajikistan is a Persian country. To completely remove these people from the total estimate/statistics (as well as the millions in Uzbekistan and other parts of the Middle East, such as the Gulf Arab states, which has sizable Persian communities known as "Ajams"--but you wouldn't know that) is spreading misinformation under your false expert pretenses, which are completely disconnected from the topic in all reality. Lets remove these 40 million people who make up almost half of the entire Persian population of the world, whose ancestors (spread all throughout Wikipedia articles) as well as themselves, have made significant contributions to the overall identity of the Persian culture because one user thinks he alone is the gatekeeper on who is Persian and who isn't.


 * And to address your other irrelevant points: The system only allows users to be logged in for 30 days straight; I am on Wikipedia a lot and there are certainly times where I'm just making a minor edit to improve the quality of the articles here, I don't feel the need to click on "Login" every time I make a minor grammatical correction, etc., just to "get credit" and have it "logged" under my account name. I am voluntarily doing this to help improve the overall quality of the Encyclopedia, I don't need any recognition for my tiny part in this community. Please stop trying to question my contribution here and bringing up these and other moot, irrelevant points and lets address the actual issue of removing the Regions with significant populations table . 570ad (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no valid edit warring warning of User:LouisAragon. A comment in an edit summary is not sufficient, even more so when it is directed at a different editor. LouisAragon had not edited the article in five days when that supposed edit warring notice was given. There's also no clear edit warring by LouisAragon. He or she has only made two reverts today of the article, exactly the same number as User:570ad. I suggest that LouisAragon should either open an SPI connecting 570ad and the IP to one or more previous accounts, or retract the socking accusation. Meters (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:fb90:1e0b:e660:0:47:7857:9e01 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8), after notification of this report

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: indirectly at Articles for deletion/Doc Love

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:95.133.148.13 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Chris Turner archive listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page."
 * 2)  "sorry I don't know what is hÉireann, but do you have the sources which says, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament??"
 * 3)  "Irish Open is not European Open. source please?"


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


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


 * Comments:

Requested protection, and a small discussion took place, which is good. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And? An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Here is three edits only. There are no any sources which say, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament. Linked in the article Chris Turner archive  listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page. I only removed the entry which not supported by any sources. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The IP has always been prepared to discuss his edits so we have to give them that, but he refuses to accept consensus when it goes against him. European Masters (snooker) has had to be protected because this particular IP refused to accept the outcome of an RFC. He hasn't broken 3RR but I think an enforced 12-hour break wouldn't be such a bad thing for him. He can take the evening off and chill out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good try. If so I think 6, 8 or 12-hour break for BettyLohan must be applied also for the same number of reverts in that article. He can take the morning off. Edit war is a two-way thing. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't reverted at all in relation to the issue you have been reported for and I only reverted once at European Masters (snooker) to enforce a RFC consensus you were determined to ignore. The fact that the article is now protected to prevent you editing it says it all really. Besides your conduct at European Open (snooker) and European Masters (snooker), you have reverted two different editors at Irish Open (snooker) too. You may not have broken the rule on any single article but your behavior pattern across a range of articles is problematic IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh I've had it with this cat--blocked for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Claudevsq reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is pretty much a re-take of the previous instance of User:Claudevsq making the same edits, which happened barely over a month ago. It surprises me that he tried his luck again so soon—usually he waits many more months, or sometimes years. In which case, I'll just paraphrase what I said last time:

In the space of a few days, User:Claudevsq has reverted my edits three times (twice in the past few hours)—slow edit warring, with only unclear edit summaries and no talk page discussion. The edit I have tried to introduce is regarding Jesús Cuellar, a boxer whose full name of Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar is not used on the title of his WP article, per WP:COMMONNAME and English-language media. User:Claudevsq is nonetheless adamant that his full name be used via piping, simply because the WBA displays his full name. This is completely unnecessary as the article title in question only uses a two-component name, as do most search results: "Jesús Cuellar" brings up around 64,000 more Google hits than "Jesús Marcelo Andrés Cuellar". What one sanctioning body (the WBA) does is irrelevant.

Furthermore, in the same edit he maintains that Jose Argumedo has an acute accent; i.e., José Argumedo. No explanation for this. A basic Google search suggests the accent is not present, and therefore should be not preemptively introduced.

As always, have left however many messages on User:Claudevsq's talk page, to no avail. He's clearly not a fan of that WP concept, and probably my in-yer-face nagging style isn't his thing either. Still, what he's doing isn't productive in the least. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Now it's two IPs silently edit warring over the same content. Someone step in already? I'm not about to continue edit warring myself, but the issue with User:Claudevsq is a conduct one more so than a content one. There's no point opening up a talk page at the article for a discussion on content, as he never responds to anything. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for continuation of the previously-reported slow edit war about the spelling of Jesús Cuellar's name: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive325. I've also semiprotected the article due to the inexplicable war between IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Tobby72 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

Xenophrenic has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, warned about it recently.

He and the other party were both warned about this article on September 1, per AN3 – *"Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again at Genocides in history or Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked."

Xenophrenic's massive changes have been opposed, reverted by multiple editors. – diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Katietalk 00:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:202.92.134.5 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 746245864 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 746233103 by Dr.K. (talk) Osen is a reliable news cite for korean entertainment news."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 746182578 by Drmies (talk) Regardless of country, their songs can be also hiphop and R&B"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 746182499 by Drmies (talk) Added new citation"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 746182499 by Drmies (talk) Added new citation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Black Pink. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Black Pink. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

WP:GENREWARRING, unreliable sources. Adding unsourced genres, fancruft, promotional material. Will not stop. This type of editing plagues K-pop articles. Dr.  K.  07:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Genre warring and promotional editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon reported by User:Froglich (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Reported for edit-warring and incivility:

Three reverts in four hours: ...immediately after third revert, blanked the topic in question (containing reliably sourced material) despite knowing that at least four other editors within the last week desired to retain it:
 * 19:11, 25 October 2016
 * 19:33, 25 October 2016
 * 23:22, 25 October 2016
 * 23:30, 25 October 2016‎

Personal attacks on article talk page:
 * 05:15, 26 October 2016‎

Warned (citing all the above):
 * 06:51, 26 October 2016‎

He defends his insult by pretending it wasn't one when it clearly was: He is quoted his insult to remind him (fourth paragraph): In subsequent exchange, he ignores the matter of the personal attack.
 * 16:57, 26 October 2016‎
 * 04:29, 27 October 2016‎

His article edits are reverted by me after a day elapsed:
 * 04:13, 27 October 2016

He doubles-down and escalates by reverting and claiming in the edit summary to have warned me (he has not done so following any official procedure) and bringing me to the attention of the noticeboard (see below); also harangues me to secure consensus before any further efforts despite not taking initiatives in starting TP threads, etc.
 * 05:38, 27 October 2016‎

He posts what is essentially a AN/EW complaint to the BLP noticeboard without correctly warning the accused user; employs opportunity to ramble about conspiracy theories in general.
 * 06:10, 27 October 2016

Given this unapologetic pattern of edit-warring and incivility, I'm boomeranging here.--Froglich (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Bad faith forum shopping, with ridiculously false procedural accusations, by an editor promoting a BLP-violating racist fringe theory that President Obama is an illegitimate child of some communist of a porn star mother. Please visit WP:BLP/N for the locus of this discussion. Any admins watching this, please counsel the reporting editor about the encyclopedia's standards. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The purported 3RR violation is stale; the material being edit-warred in by the reporting party is at best contentious, at worst tendentious conspiracy-theory garbage. Barack Obama is a living person, and the fact that he's the president of the United States does not exempt him from the protection of our policies requiring high-quality sourcing and fairness. That a fringe theorist has proposed a wild, nonsensical and wholly-unsupported claim does not require that we include that claim in the biographies of anyone related to that claim. It's incumbent on Froglich to discuss their proposed edits on the article talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Forum shopping"? ...add WP:CIR to the laundry list (I had though about doing so before, but held off). Regards NorthBySouthBaranof's "stale" comment, a currently ongoing edit war is by definition not stale. As far as the desire of both Wikidemon and NorthBySouthBaranof to debate the merits of Dreams From My Real Father go, it has been a sourced article for over five years concerning a documentary film whose central thesis is supported by the half-brother of the President of the United States (a fact of which NorthBySouthBaranof has within the past day section-blanked twice, so he's certainly not in a neutral corner.) These are diversions attempting to deflect the subject of the incident report.--Froglich (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with what Wikidemon has done here, he has reverted a serious BLP violation that even Donald "What birth certificate?" Trump would baulk at (which exempts him from 3RR), and filed a discussion on the BLP noticeboard that has had no replies. Meanwhile, Froglich has now been alerted to Discretionary Sanctions on modern US politics (which this falls under), so this is a warning that you will be blocked if you reinsert that information. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * .... and now by, having had fair warning. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Asterixf2 reported by User:Vami_IV, User:Ryn78 (Result: Storm in a teacup)
Following some drama over the status of the Malleus Maleficarum page, I have had the misfortune of having to fight an edit war with Asterixf2 on his talk page and more importantly the article for the Malleus Maleficarum, where this user has thrown out every edit made to the page by any user other than himself. Also see: The Neutral Point of Violation claim that Asterixf2 continues to revert and censor. --Vami IV (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus


 * Users are generally free to clear notices from their own talk page, filers should then assume they have read and understood them. This is a personal attack against Asterixf2 (albeit a mild one that I wouldn't sanction for). In short, you are causing a Category 5 hurricane in an industrial-sized tea urn. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism by Vami IV

 * I am sorry that you are disturbed Vami IV, but please avoid personal attacks such as the one here . --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please also avoid vandalism such as here: which was also repeated.  --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My advice : listen to this (best done with all the lights turned off and a few candles burning, it's truly terrifying, especially when accompanied by the crackle of the original vinyl) and wait until the intended improvements to the article have been made. It's not a GA, let alone an FA (it's one of those I would have expected to have got through FAC years ago, but seemingly not) so there is room for improvement. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Looming Edit War with User:Factdefender
WP:EW on the horizon with User:Factdefender (again) for the page David Packouz. User only edits this page, consistently ignores evidence and Wiki guidelines, was previously in violation of the 3RR on this page after warning, did not do a second-chance grace 4th revert after request, and has minimal engagement on any talk page. Sole contributions smack of violation of WP:YOURSELF, COI, and lack of understanding of WP:BLP/H. Want to resolve this before it gets out of hand. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:FuzzyGopher Ignores valid source and appears intent on writing this page in a negative light violating neutral tone. Requesting a third party to edit this page. User:FuzzyGopher should refrain from editing this page due to consistently editing with a biased tone. Factdefender (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Two editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 745568501 by Vjmlhds  yes grouping needed as Litton syndicates those blocks to those net affil."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 746292479 by Vjmlhds since you don't know what is going on then don't edit"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 746377205 by Vjmlhds see talk page Litton is not just a producer put the distributor/syndicator, you still have not look into the matter"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Ongoing edit war between this user and. Resolution initiative was started over on template's talk page, but neither party seems to agree with each other. <font color="000FF">Electric <font color="00FFFF">Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Vjmlhds and Spshu are both warned per a report just above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Any history of WWII British tanks will involve some of the major references on the subject, two of which, from one of the major authors, are:

These are widely cited, and frequently rather messily. To clean this up, tonight I started by creating citation templates for them: I then proceeded with (so far) around 100 edits across a few dozen articles, mostly to make the cites linked to the refs. As Fletcher is a prolific author and sometimes has four different works cited in the same article, this linkage is valuable. Too many of these articles have cites of "Fletcher, p 99" and it is going to be an awkward job to finally sort them out.
 * Book-Fletcher-Great Tank Scandal
 * Book-Fletcher-Universal Tank

There is no task on WP so trivial though that someone won't take offence at it. Tonight's was and WP:OWNership of his article at Infantry tank. This descended immediately into abuse, with my edits being described as "retrograde", followed with "ignoramus" and "a fool". See User talk:Keith-264 and Talk:Infantry tank I was accused of somehow having lost the page numbers in the citations - in fact they've never had page numbers, until I started adding them tonight. In fact Keith managed to break the citation to ref linkage, persisted in using incorrect publication years for these books, and also insisted on describing them as "1993a" and "1993b" (they're from 1989), when they're actually two books hardly known as a two volume set and almost universally referred to by their different titles.

This is a change to citation formats and as such I'm prepared to discuss changes, as is a requirement upon us all. I would contend though that these are good changes, clearer for both readers and editors. I am not though prepared to be repeatedly abused for it, by someone with a very clear OWN problem, who then edit wars to push things back the way they insist, even over someone who's adding the very page numbers they've just demanded. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. At its heart, this is a format dispute that doesn't belong here yet. I think Andy needs to get consensus for his new templates before he sticks them into any new articles, and I suspect that such consensus would be difficult to obtain. It sounds in the failed Cite doi experiment of a couple years ago: it's another level of indirection that seems like a good idea but often gets in the way. Consistency in the refs can be handled more generally by bots. Andy's solution also does not default to the standard harv format but a less common one. There are also CS1/CS2 issues. I'm sympathetic to Keith-264's position even though I clashed with Keith on something else recently. In any event, I don't think the format debate is appropriate for this noticeboard. Glrx (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * harv doesn't work well, or readably, for two books published in the same year, by the same author, and so closely inter-cited within the same article. If someone has better solutions to that, then I'm all ears (and with a single template it's easier to change this stuff). Articles referenced like this or this though are not where we want to be. This is a real problem and it wants sorting.
 * This is the ANEW page though. Whatever discussions are to be had about handling refs, this post is about abuse and edit-warring. How are we even supposed to begin a discussion working under such conditions? And this is far from the first time for Keith-264 on these articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The solution for multiple works by the same author in the same year is to append a letter to the year. The CS1/CS2 template accept those suffixes in their date checking:
 * The Harvard references work fine, too: and
 * BTW, changing the reference format or the templates on a page is generally frowned upon: WP:CITEVAR.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, changing the reference format or the templates on a page is generally frowned upon: WP:CITEVAR.
 * Glrx (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Andy's right that I rv'd once too often and for that I apologise. I offered a discussion on the talk page which crossed with his complaint on my talk page and a thank-you from a third party. I felt justified in changing to sfns (the only ones I'm really good at) because the article had a references banner from 2009, which I took to mean that seven years had passed without an editor taking an interest. When I revised the references that were already there, the Fletcher books showed a 1993 publication and a 1993 edition which corresponded to the isbn numbers (which I also consolidated to isbn13s as I found that this was Wiki; I've been changing isbn10s as I go). My comments to Andy on my talk page were a retort to his and couched in a similar vein, which I hope is at an end. I'm always available for constructive criticism. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You've now warred the cites to be "Fletcher 1993" and "Fletcher 1993a" for what are respectively "Fletcher (1989, Part 1)" and "Fletcher (1989, Part 2)". That is, they now have the wrong year on them and they are also in the wrong order. Or is this some sort of regnal numbering? For two books which are well-known by name, but not by their volume numbers. In what way is this an "obviously objectively better presentation", such that it justifies abuse and edit-warring? This is not a question of them being merely different, it is about them previously, and again now, being misleading (if not simply wrong).
 * Yes, I can understand that you might not like a change in technical invisible formatting. Personally I don't quibble that if it makes no visible difference to the reader. You are making visible changes though, and they are not good ones. A cite to "Fletcher, Universal Tank" makes a sense to the reader that "Fletcher, 1993a" does not. Especially not when it's to the second book. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Andy, I understand that you are trying to improve what you see as a sub optimal citation and while I can see that Keith reverted several times, from what I can see your own actions breach the WP:BRD policy. For instance, when you made your bold change (which is fine per policy), Keith reverted you (which is also fine per policy). At that point, you then reverted him (which is not fine per policy). The correct response from you to Keith's original revert was for you to explain your change on the talk page, and establish consensus for it. Thus, frankly I would suggest that this be chalked up to experience and everyone moves on from it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Two editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 745568501 by Vjmlhds (talk): No - not needed...why single out Litton, when there are so many other production companies? (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 746292479 by Vjmlhds (talk): Drop the attitude - it's easier to list by network than producer. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted to revision 746377205 by Vjmlhds (talk): The network is what counts, not the distributor. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016
 * Comments:

Ongoing edit war between this user and. Resolution initiative was attempted over at template's talk page, but neither party is agreeing with each other. <font color="000FF">Electric <font color="00FFFF">Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 19:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Vjmlhds and User:Spshu are warned for edit warring. Per this comment on his talk page Vmjlhds has agreed to take a break from editing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That break is meaningless as he already put his version back in place. He was also warned about abusing Twinkle in not initially giving any sort of meaningful edit summary. Spshu (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice try...a simple look at the revision history will show I made my last edit to the template at 2:20 p.m. Eastern time. The warning then came at 3:50 p.m. Eastern time (which can be found on my talk page).  I haven't touched the template since the warning was put in place.  Vjmlhds (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two issue the twinkle abuse warning thus proved my point. You don't need to edit the template since it is in the form that you want it in instead of stopping for the discussion of BRD.
 * Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016 (discussion started)
 * Vjmlhds informed of discussion 12:57, 27 October 2016
 * Vjmlhds template 4th edit 18:20, 27 October 2016
 * "I'm done with the template" 00:44, 28 October 2016
 * So, the whole backing off editing the template is a falsehood, since you already did. You are done with the template since you have your way. Second, it doesn't matter when the edit warning notice was put into place it is whether or not you exceed 3RR, which you have. The discussion was up for nearly a day and a half. Thus you should have been discussing not reverting. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're grasping for straws - I never exceeded 3RR (3 reverts in 24 hours), and the fact you just now are talking about 3RR and Twinkle means that you are just trying to pull something out of the air to gripe about something. Looks like a case of sour grapes on your part because you can't revert the template back to your version without a block breathing down your neck. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not grasping for straws. I just showed that your statement of being "done with the template" should not be taken seriously to get you off the hook since the template is currently your preferred version thus meaningless. Spshu (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You used a sock account to attack on my talk page, and quite frankly, I don't think you'd be too upset if I had laid off the template if it were in YOUR version.  You're upset that the template isn't the way you want it, and you're throwing a wiki-tantrum.  Not a good look.  You know there's an investigation looking into you being a sock, so I'd suggest you cease and desist. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You were suppose to as the discussion was already started, so you backing off is bogus. So, now you are attempt to WP:HUSH me with the sock complaint. That doesn't look good for you. A false sock investigation doesn't look good for you or EB support it. Spshu (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not trying to "hush" anybody. It's obvious you wouldn't be throwing this fit if the template were YOUR way, and you just keep going and going and going as if any of it is gonna make the template magically change.  EB opened the sock investigation on you - not me, so if you have an issue with it, take it up with him.  No conspiracies here, just pointing out that you keep digging your own grave and beating that dead horse. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Henocksey reported by User:Haploidavey (Result: Blocked, 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence, banned under rules of the current ethiopian state of emergency. Will bring back when state of emergency ends in six months"
 * 2)  "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence. Banned under rules of current Ethiopian state of emergency. can bring back info after six months when state of emergency ends."
 * 3)  "reason explained previously"
 * 4)  "I removed this paragarph and others like it because this wikipedia page on Ethiopia should be free from any political propoganda peddled by groups inciting violence in my country."
 * 5)  "removed information"
 * 6)  "removed paragraphs"
 * 1)  "removed information"
 * 2)  "removed paragraphs"


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


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


 * Comments:

Too many attempts to list here. User has been repeatedly invited to discuss on talk-page, per BRD but has not attempted to engage other than in edit summaries (listed above) and reversion Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC) User seems to believe they're entitled to remove the content in question because it breaks Ethiopian law
 * Endorsed.I have reverted this user many times. Yoshi24517 <sup style="color:black;font-family:arnprior">Chat  <sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:black;font-family:arnprior">Online 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * for 48 hours for edit warring, disruptive editing, POV-pushing. CIreland (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Clarinetcousin reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: Blocked, 3 days)
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:

WP:1RR was violated by this user. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I have a funny WP:DUCK feeling but will let the admin look at the history to see if im wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are unfair as you can get, I don´t care. And you feel that by doing that they are not going to suspect from you, but guys you are the ones who are disrespecting the agreement. It is even the beggining of the talk page, 270 is the agreement! Castle and McMullin are big write in candidates as well, and you remove just the others. I don´t care if I get suspended because I am stopping you from being unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 18:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well in less than a 24 hour period you undid three different editors whom have all told you the same thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I undid the edits that people that are not following the consensus did, and they thought that by the 24 hour rule I wouldn't return it to how it was agreed. I am one user that always have been one but the other three how they were so coordinated? If added new content first. The 24 hours is to promote the agreements and limit the behavior you had. I already said that if I had to get suspended I will accept it but you are removing candidates just because you want to do it. Again why them? They qualify that is it. I don´t know what your motivation when you remove them. I can tell you mine, be fair and give the candidates that can mathematically win a chance. I don´t deny that I undid them but the admin will see why... User:Clarinetcousin —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you did have consensus for your edits, you still violated Wikipedia policy by edit warring. There are some exemptions to the edit war policy but having consensus isn't one of them. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not so much for the edit warring itself but for declaring that he doesn't care it violates policy - that indicates they're likely to continue. Huon (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:185.75.56.168 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: IP already blocked.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 746788864 by KGirlTrucker81 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 746788519 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 746787292 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 746786646 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 746785450 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 746784230 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 746783102 by Crovata (talk) bro, the same goes for you"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 746782593 by 85.118.68.210 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Negating different points of view is not the way western science/democracy work. You don't belong."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 746779339 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 746777921 by Crovata (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 746764493 by 85.118.68.210 (talk)"


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


 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:185.75.56.168


 * Comments:

IP sock refuses to engange in discussion KGirlTrucker81huh? what I'm been doing 15:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's the same disruptive edit previously done by other IP sock-puppets by User:PavelStaykov. With the mention of "Turkish..." on its talk page the IP revealed itself to be related to PavelStaykov sock activity. It needs indefinite block. There's also Requests for page protection. --Crovata (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * We can close this. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (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: [link]

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

Comments: User continuously removes sourced information of a football match, saying that "CSKA and CSKA-Sofia are two different clubs". In reality there are no two different clubs, only one and the same club that has been restructured, discussion about the subject is going on Talk:PFC CSKA Sofia and enough sources are provided about the matter, but the user continuously edit-wars, saying that "he will remove the information" even thought the evidence. Similar responses I got after warning the user on his talk page, you can see them on User talk:BG89.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 15:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Slow edit war between two users. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:AManInWikipedia (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the editor's reverts:

Comments:


 * Further, the reported user hadn't even been warned. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the accuser is a new account having trouble formatting his accusation, let me give a run-down of what is happening here. The page in question I've edited twice in the past 24 hours, both reverts, one undoing an attempt to blank some sourced information, the other undoing an attempt to replace the whole page with a redirect. Prior to that, I had not edited the page for 10 months.... which, yes, was a reversion to an IP attempt to delete the same sourced information; I am not the only one to revert such deletions. I had also started a discussion of that material on the Talk page prior to these deletion attempts; the deleting accounts did not only not engage in the discussion, one of them deleted the discussion. Inspection of edits suggest that the IPs and the new user account are iikely the same individual. (Also, in terms of technicalities, no warning of Edit Warring was given before bringing matters here.)
 * So, it sum up: No 3RR, no warning, no unreasonable edits, and I started discussion. I think I'm comfortably outside any edit warring concerns. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:301:7705:1CB0:882D:B98E:3A7D:F81C reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Contribution information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

NPOV-violating language (non-weasel and non-peacock), also. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. IP adding negative information based entirely on a primary source (state contribution records). See WP:BLPPRIMARY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

Comments:


 * Result: Warned for making three reverts. There is also a discussion of a possible legal threat by this user at ANI, but the conclusion seems to be that it's at most a WP:CIR issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Glueman9 reported by User:Openskye (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: This person is clearly only changing this page for kicks and not actually being helpful.


 * – You didn't show four reverts above, and the ones you do list are spread over different days. Nobody has broken WP:3RR. Try discussing your issue on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for some options you can consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

User:58.120.40.69 reported by User:PurpleLights123 (Result: Semi)
Pages: and

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's edits: Informal Talks A Bright World
 * 1) Link Removed info about Brian, Alec and Alistair. When I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary.
 * 2) Link Removed info about Brian, Alec, Alistair and Nazarov, and added false info with no source (which the user has also done in this edit and this edit) Again, when I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary. I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored)
 * 3) Link 3rd time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again. Again, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary, and reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
 * 4) Link 3rd time removing info about Suhrobjon again.
 * 5) Link 4th time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again
 * 6) Link 4th time removing info about Suhrobjon again
 * 1) Link Removed info about Gaive. I reverted the edit and explained why in the edit summary.
 * 2) Link Removed info about Thep
 * 3) Link Removed info about Gaive again. I reverted the edit and explained in the edit summary that I re-added this info, because in Season 2 Episode 2, this info was confirmed.  I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored).
 * 4) Link For the 3rd time, removed info about the representative (Gaive). And again, when I reverted, I provided an explanation. I also reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
 * 5) Link For the 4th  time, removed info about the representative (Gaive)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As I stated before, after the 2nd and 3rd time this user has removed the same info (on both the Informal Talks and A Bright World pages), I provided an explanation in the edit summary when I reverted the edit and left a message on User_talk:58.120.40.69, first to explain my reasons for reverting, and 2nd time to make the user aware I was reporting him/her on the administrator's incident noticeboard. That report was not dealt with, and was simply archived by a bot. It can be found here. The user has not replied to either message I left on his/her talk page. Comments: I am open to discussing this with the user, as I am sick of constantly having info removed, or false info added, with no explanation. But since my attempt to discuss the issue as failed (the user has not replied to my messages), it seems that the only solution is to report this on the Edit Warring page. Starting October 18th, this user has repetitively removed the same info over and over again, it seems unlikely they will be willing to stop. Please help me with this issue by either warning or blocking this user. Thank you for your time! PurpleLights123 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Two articles semiprotected one month (A Bright World and Informal Talks). The IP user reverts but never talks. Be aware that you should make your case on the *article* talk pages so that other editors (not just the two of you) are aware of the issues. If this comes back to WP:AN3 again and you haven't yet used the talk pages the next admin may not be sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you! PurpleLights123 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aqwfyj reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (user reverted warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Aqwfyj's reverts are a textbook example of edit warring behavior. After the first reversal, I have made an effort to note these changes I have made, readily available to discuss what I had believed was not grounds for reversal. Only until the latter stages of reversals, Aqwfyi finally decided to respond via my personal talk page here. Aqwfwj's consistent reason for his/her reverts were because: (he/she) "felt they were unencyclopedic and extraneous," and continuously reiterates that statement which isn't consistent with WP:IRRELEVANT for grounds for removal, as the content I have provided via talk directly relates to the subject [Russell Wilson], from credible sources such as Washington Post etc. (I have since removed other lesser credible sources that were there before me such as Facebook in favor of sources that carry much more weight such as that one). Aqwfyj is neither contributing to a ongoing discussion again citing he feels this my changes were "unencyclopedic and extraneous" when sources I have provided states otherwise. I had even tried to lay out points where we agreed and disagreed, attempting to at least meet Aqwfyj halfway; a common ground if you will, with strike throughs to my own edits and reinsertions of his/hers. Unfortunately, it seems it is his/her way or the highway, with no narrow pathways to compromise whatsoever. The content in question, are parental and maternal multiple generational grandparenthoods that had been much to talked about in April, 2016 after subject has undergone an extensive research into his family tree; notable Americans and noble lineages that were all cited by credible sources, which has since been removed. I had also trimmed down what I originally inserted tremulously, again to find compromise with Aqwfyj, but to no avail and doesn't look like that will improve any time soon. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You edited, I reverted, then you reverted my revert, rather than abiding by WP:BRD. Honesty is important. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 18:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * – Not enough reverts. Aqwfyj is concerned you are overwhelming the article with trivia. Be aware that most biographical articles don't go deeply into ancestry unless it is connected to what the person is best known for. Material is kept in articles only if its inclusion s supported by consensus; having sources is not everything.  Consider using WP:Dispute resolution.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Petergstrom reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring.

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

Comments:

User is also edit warring at Moses and Ignatius of Loyola (where I have reverted him) to push aspects of a minor article's considerations as some sort of popular and accepted reasoning. I'd block, but I've tried to revert at Jesus (China needs to get its internet act together) and have elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Talk page thread started for Jesus and 3rr warning for Jesus  prior to the latest introduction of the material  Meters (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Petergstrom is now claiming that a tabloid is an academic tertiary source. If he resumes this behavior after the inevitable block, we need to push for a topic ban on WP:CIR grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor most recently posted here that he would stop edit warring over the mental health stuff. He hasn't reverted since that post. I'm going to assume good faith that the block would not be preventative at this time, but if the behavior continues, ping me. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , ,

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

Comments:


 * It's funny!!Jkouhyar (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Furqonab reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barndominium&oldid=746848669
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barndominium&oldid=746860074
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barndominium&oldid=746881614
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barndominium&oldid=746894546

The edit is pure spam, but more importantly, the account appears to exist simply to create...well. take a look: Hello, My name is Furqon. I manage some websites http://purwasuka.id/ - http://alwib.net/

Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * – Only three reverts so far, but I'm leaving a message for the user. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I suspect the reason it stopped at three was because I left their version up, pending review. Any thoughts on the (more important) point, that the edits are created solely for unrelated commercial purposes? Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is nothing from you on the article talk page since March. The content he is trying to add is not obviously promotional -- linking to some typical floor plans is conceivably useful to the reader. If you don't like this reference consider finding a better one. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess blatant is in the eye of the beholder, but when I see a wikitor whose user page limks to commercial websites Hello, My name is Furqon. I manage some websites http://purwasuka.id/ - http://alwib.net/, add content that is sourced back to one of those sites, supposedly written by someone with one name, "Aldira Srour", but whose author contact "alzabar142", further links to evaluations of improving search engine hits [], I get suspicious.
 * Headlines like All About Steel Buildings, a Great and Tough Kind of Building Ever do very little to convince me this is a source worth including. It's littered throughout with these suggestions of copy-and edit verging on plagiarism, and gives no proof -or even suggestion- of expertise.  It also links at the first link to a few particular builders.  Whether this is paid editing of an attempt to pump-and-dump a URL, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.  Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are critiquing, not our own article, but the one that Furqonab linked to. It's unlikely that AN3 can help you with this, since we are primarily for edit warring. Consider asking at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:A8B4:A700:CC96:7FFD:5F77:AD4C reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision  by Karst who is engaged in a silly edit war. Clarification on Lori Maddox as a groupie does not change the narrative."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 747146335 by Karst (talk) there is nothing libelous in clarifying that Lori Maddox by her own admission was a groupie"
 * 3)  "fixed grammar and spelling"
 * 4)  "/* Partners */  fixed punctuation"

Warned.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeated insertion of BLPVIO: note misleading edit-summaries also. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  18:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Very misleading. I only reverted once and left a warning on their Talk page. The comment left on the Jimmy Page Talk page is confrontational and no attempt at seeking consensus. Especially this: "Otherwise a WP article will be created about Lori Maddox which will include many references to her own words in interviews and other main stream articles which talk about the so called "kidnapping/Riot House" incident which would be much less complimentary to Mr. Page and his personal decision to have a relationship with a 14 year old girl." appears like a WP:THREAT to me. Karst (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP's final revert was actually of my revert, not Karst's (which obviously the IP did not understand). The fact is that the IP's edits were generally not an improvement to the article, and I concur with Karst's observation about the comments, left only after two warnings concerning edit warring and about the same time as Karst opened this case.  The IP clearly is on a mission, and it is not the general improvement of the encyclopedia. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are both absolutely correct in both your assertions, and thanks for pointing them out. Tbh it was a 50/50 with AIV. <sub style="color:green;>Muffled <sup style="color:red;">Pocketed  19:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to add on here, this recent edit shows further proof this user is WP:NOTHERE. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In my view, everybody is edit-warring, so I have full-protected for three days and left a note on the talk page. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Balisong5 reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Add content"
 * 2)  "Add content"
 * 3)  "Add content"
 * 4)  "Add content"
 * 5)  "Added content"
 * 6)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 7)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 8)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 9)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 1)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 2)  "/* Health claims */Added content"
 * 3)  "/* Health claims */Added content"


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

No action needed. Balisong5 is now discussing the issue. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Controversial health claims */ new section"
 * Comments:
 * Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aerozeplyn reported by User:Doc James (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:


 * – 48 hours for edit warring, though a block for disruptive editing might also have been considered. Appears to be a strong believer in the reality of 'mucoid plaque', a concept which is not favored by conventional science. Here he adds text to an article complaining about 'Wikipedia  propaganda'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi EdJohnston, did you even look at the Talk page? The only one that wrote on the talk page was Aerozeplyn. There was 1 comment by Doc James; however, there was no attempt to resolve dispute on the article, rather Aerozeplyn's comments were continually un-done without explanation. Furthermore, not all of the diffs were reverts. Some were the raw contributions that are being silenced from the page. I know you agree that this is an encyclopedia, not an information popularity contest. Please work to keep Wikipedia fair and allow people to make valuable contributions to the public encyclopedia, and please check these submissions thoroughly so you can serve and improve the quality of submissions! --Aerozeplyn (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:95.133.216.135 reported by User:Parsley Man (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: I urged him to take the matter to the talk page.

Comments:

There is a point of contention over whether the 2016 Nice attack should be considered an act of terrorism. There has been a talk page discussion that more or less agrees that it should not be classified as terrorism just yet, though it is still open for anyone to contribute as it has not yet been archived. The user was informed by me of this open discussion, but he merely removed the warning notice with a reiteration of the edit summary he has been using lately as reasoning. Afterwards, he made the fourth revert without making an attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page whatsoever. Parsley Man (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This was clearly terrorism, and numerous notable sources call it terrorism.    No matter if the attacker was a lone wolf or not, it remains terrorism. 87 deaths without terrorism?! Even if not terrorism it must be categorized under the parent categories,  etc. Not simply remove all categories as he made. Note, user ParleyMan also made more than three reverts.     95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all information you should be bringing to Talk:2016 Nice attack, where there is an existing consensus to not label it a terrorist attack. If you want to change that, edit warring is not the way to do it. clpo13(talk) 18:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No any consensus in that dicussion as you can see. Opposing side didn't show any sources which said it was not terror attack. No final decision was made in that discussion, so categories must be remained per status-quo rule. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There were no disagreements in the discussion, and no one came in to contest it at the time, so it was believed to be WP:CONSENSUS by default. You can still contribute to the discussion, though, and present your case. Not edit-war. Parsley Man (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Try to read the discussion with more attention. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have. Most of the discussion took place from September 18 to September 29, with all but one user at the time saying it should not be classified as terrorism yet. Then, it goes quiet for a while after that, and it could easily be assumed WP:CONSENSUS was reached due to this inactivity. Then contributed a month later, and then you pitched in a couple of days later. Still, if there were a good number of users in support of this and barely anything was done about it back then, anyone could easily say consensus was reached back then. Parsley Man (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You were still urged by me to take it the talk page in the process of your edit-warring and you disregarded that within a few seconds by making your fourth revert. And that first diff is only a couple of days old so I don't think that counts as violating WP:3RR. Don't try to deflect. Parsley Man (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note, user ParslyMan used vandalism templates against me although he don't know what is vandalism and what is not. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I needed to warn you about your edits somehow, but I didn't know what other templates to use, okay? Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * He could use his own words, not wrong templates. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And what does this have to do with this edit-warring?... Parsley Man (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask to admins. Please restore terrorism categories in 2016 Nice attack article per status-quo rule until final decision will be made in the talk page discussion. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What status-quo rule? Parsley Man (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, I'm not sure if the admins will follow requests by the person being reported, while the report still has yet to be processed... Parsley Man (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOCON: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Your proposal was to remove some categories, and no consensus regarding it as of now. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was no lack of consensus back then. There seemed to be a majority vote of no terrorism categories back in September, and there were no attempts to continue the conversation until a month later. In that month, one could assume consensus was reached and that it was decided the material should not stay until more information is given. Given this, WP:TALKDONTREVERT is in place. Parsley Man (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No any final decision in that discussion as of now, so "no consensus" applied. Do you read the sources? How much sources you need? President Hollande said it was "an attack whose terrorist nature cannot be denied". BBC 95.133.216.135 (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do read the sources, and I do not deny the attack was terrorism. But every investigation into a suspected terror attack is long and, as is the case of the Nice attack, ongoing. It would be WP:OR to say it would be terrorism when a top investigative agency has not officially verified that yet. Hollande's statement may have as well been made just to appeal to the public quickly. Parsley Man (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) The "status quo" version of the article is that as it existed before the edit war began, i.e., without the terrorism categories per the previous consensus.
 * 2) Admins do not (should not) takes definitive sides on content disputes as admins.
 * 3) The WP:ONUS is on the person wishing to include content to establish consensus for it, i.e, the IP editor.
 * 4) The discussion regarding sources should be taking place on the article talk, and not here.  Timothy Joseph Wood  19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment 95.133.216.135 seems to be the same editor as who has just come off a 48-hour block from last week. Same types of edits (see overlap), same combative nature etc. Betty Logan (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It makes some sense. This user came in right after the other user's block should've ended. Parsley Man (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though the IP seems to act a bit to desperate at the moment and should have discussed the subject first, the user is definitely right. "Killing the messenger" will not help you to avoid getting in contact with reality. --Gerry1214 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Killing the messenger or not, four reverts is still a violation of WP:3RR. He should've gone to the talk page and discuss it first. Parsley Man (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

– 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Aurewilistan reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "info"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Frozen (2013 film). (TW)"


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


 * 


 * Comments:
 * Agree: User has smashed past 3RR and is displaying attitude on Aurewilistan ... richi (hello) 20:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:PsychopathicAssassin reported by User:Cornerstonepicker (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As other editors told me before in WP:INCIDENT to report this user if this happens. He just don't want to understand my edit. He seems the owner of the article. I explained the reasons (that every editor in WP articles for music artists know), and his response: "again, you're wrong, I'm right" Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Quis separabit? 04:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Upon reviewing Username policy I withdraw my position. The name is distasteful but I don't think it is a violation. Quis separabit?  05:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user was warned per an ANI complaint at 08:01 on 30 October that they could be blocked for edit warring if they continued. Then they continued anyway. The admin who issued the warning was User:BU Rob13. The user was not just inserting promotional language but was ignoring a correction about the number of album sales that was explained to them on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: Dino nam is a relentless POV pusher who seeks to play up US war crimes, while playing down North Vietnamese and Vietcong war crimes, see:. He/she does not attempt to establish consensus on Talk pages before making material changes. As can be seen from his/her talk page and block log this is an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I should tell some of user:Mztourist's conduct before you consider anything on my part. It's arguably him the one who waged the edit war and made disruptive editing by soundly bad faith editing. From 29 Oct to 30 Oct he continuously reverted my editing without any particular explanation during the same period about his reasoning on the talk page, even when another editor had already given an argument similar to my point here. That's clearly a violation of the WP:COMMUNICATE policy, which is an assurance of good faith in editing. Dino nam (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume that Dino nam is referring to the comments of User:77.75.203.108 whose only contribution on WP is a lengthy argument regarding the outcome of the Battle of Khe Sanh, suggesting a possible sock, perhaps of User:14.177.199.124 who made the original change to Both sides claimed victory. Mztourist (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And in any case, this report is stale. I recommend that both of you stop warring and try to reach a consensus on the talk page, else you are likely to find the page fully protected so that none of you can edit it. Vanamonde (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Aviationspecialist101 reported by User:Andrewgprout (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Andrewgprout (talk) to last revision by Aviationspecialist101. (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Airlines and destinations */ Hold on everybody, how do we actually know this route is going mainline? Anyone have a written source? An article that delves into Delta's LGA-MKE route specifically and mentions the change? Anyone?"
 * 3)  "/* Airlines and destinations */ We can't have it both ways, so from now on, we need a source for every destination on every airline. JetBlue's Boston route is a prime example of Wikipedia excellence. Anyone got sources for all the other routes? Anyone?"
 * 4)  "/* Airlines and destinations */ Just like any other route, once it starts, the source is the airline's schedule"
 * 1)  "/* Airlines and destinations */ Just like any other route, once it starts, the source is the airline's schedule"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Newark Liberty International Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Can an administrator look at the activities of this editor. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My point to this user was clear in the edit summary. Edit Warring consists of 3 of the same edits that are reverted on the same page and as is clear in this report, while this user may not like the edits I've made, I have not violated the edit warring rule, rather I've submitted my report below with this editors textbook use of edit warring. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 06:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout reported by User:Aviationspecialist101 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sunnya343 (talk) to last revision by Andrewgprout. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Sunnya343 (talk) to last revision by Andrewgprout. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 747293496 by Sunnya343 (talk)Please do not delete refs."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

It's really just obvious. Those three reverts by Andrewgprout are clearly in violation of Wikipedia's edit warring rules. I have not personally warned the editor but another user has, I've explained the exact Wikipedia consensus, this user continues to violate the rule on multiple pages. Regards. Aviationspecialist101 (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

User:99.194.52.254 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A -- discussed in the following edit summaries: ,, ,

NOTE: "source" cited by IP (see here) does not', in my estimation, confirm his editing contentions (I explained: "There are no reliable statistics on the number of Muslim victims. The Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina were ethnic Slavs and spoke a variety of Serbian and Croatian dialects. Croatian nationalists as well as the radical Ustaša leaders perceived all Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina as Croats; the regime aimed to convert them to Catholicism. They were persecuted for religious and political rather than racial reasons.")

The IP was blocked on 28 October for 31 hours for "for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content", and other editors have also been reverting his/her edits. Other pages he/she has edited include: Jasenovac concentration camp (see ), Timeline of Croatian history, Ustaše Militia (see ), May 1941 Sanski Most revolt, Croatisation, and Croatian nationalism. Quis separabit? 00:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Warned for making unsourced changes with no discussion. User has been alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC, since they have made multiple edits on some Balkan articles. They never discuss their changes. See also my question to a previous blocking admin, User:Widr. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 747573098 by Lecen (talk) Poucos historiadores brasileiros são respeitados. E em se tratando de dados estatísticos em geografia do Brasil, a única fonte fidedigna é o IBGE."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 747569271 by Lecen (talk) Você é brasileiro. E não é necessário consenso para inserir a foto, que é da mesma época, mais relevante e em alta resolução."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 747566272 by Lecen (talk) Não importa se o artigo foi ou não modificado. A Rua dos Judeus era mais importante na cidade, e a diferença entre as duas fotos é de apenas 4 anos."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 747564776 by Lecen (talk) A antiga Rua dos Judeus era uma das principais vias do bairro de Recife. Já a foto de 1851 retrata uma área menos relevante da cidade."


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


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


 * Comments:

User is edit warring and refusing to communicate in English.  <font color="#4863A0">Calidum <font color="#A18648">¤   03:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they responded in English so there's a start, they continue to edit war. Both revisions are sourced, I'll try to pull it to the talk page. If that fails, admin intervention as required. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. The user continued to revert after they were notified of this report. If they will agree to wait for consensus, the block can be lifted. They got into a previous edit war back in August but no action was taken at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (Result: Protected)
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:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Comments: has been repored before for edit warring, enters highly not neutral and unsoursed edits. Even thought he started discussion on the talk page, he continued edit warring. Warnings had been issued on the user's talkpage by me and by other users, without any notice by him so far.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Response by the person accused by User:The TV Boy

Actually, it's TV Boy who is trying to compromise that page and several others too. He keeps removing parts of the article he doesn't like and claims they are unsourced and non-neutral which is simply not true... The reason behind that is that he supports another football club and is trying to diminish CSKA 1948. I've requested protection of the page but he continued editing without any discussions even after the page became protected. In the archive of his talk page can be found several complaints by other users from his actions which they consider as vandalism. As for the edit war I was part of and the warning I received by admin, I'm under no circumstance denying that and admit my mistake. However, ever since the warning I've used exclusively the talk page which can't be said about TV Boy. He already reported me and accused me of vandalism on numerous occasions but administrators explained him that my actions aren't vandalism because there is a content dispute. Actually, he keeps calling every comment or edit he doesn't like vandalism in order to diminish its importance. I'm ready to answer questions regarding TV Boy's accusations --Ivo (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BG89, may I ask you to comment the source of this text that you entered and tell me if you think this is neutral and sourced. To remind you again such unsourced accusations are highly unacceptable in Wikipedia and should be reverted immediately:

''The move was a scheme to avoid paying around 15 million Euro of debts (half of which taxes owed to the National Revenue Agency). CSKA (Sofia), which is an abbreviation for Central Sports Club of the Army, was originally founded by Bulgarian army officers and was the biggest and most successful Bulgarian club. It was led intentionally to bankruptcy in September, 2016, but '''generally suffered bad and even criminal management in the last few decades. Grisha Ganchev, owner of Litex and shady businessman, who was charged with tax evasion, being part of an organized criminal gang and making death threats to the former head of the National Revenue Agency in 2015, is the main figure behind the move. His campaign to replace CSKA (Sofia) with Litex (Lovech) was backed by the Prime Minister Boyko Borissov and was seen by most as a low, dirty way to overtake the great CSKA (Sofia) without paying anything.'

Any source, anything for that?--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The current version of the article is": but generally suffered bad management in the last few decades. Having won 31 league titles since 1948 when it was established, the club was forced to play in the 3rd Bulgarian division in the 2015/2016 season due to unfunded debts which didn't allow the club to get a license for professional football. The replacement with Litex aimed at having the club play in the top division as "CSKA-Sofia". Grisha Ganchev, owner of Litex and controversial businessman, who was charged with tax evasion[6], being part of an organized criminal gang[7] and making death threats to the former head of the National Revenue Agency in 2015[8], is the main figure behind the move. His campaign to replace CSKA with Litex was backed by the Prime Minister Boyko Borissov and the Sport Minister Krasen Kralev and was seen by most as an attempt to overtake the bankrupted CSKA, which at that time was under administration, without paying anything.

I intentionally used different sources which include investor.bg and dnevnik.bg, reliable and well-established sites just like sportal.bg and gong.bg which are two most popular sport sites in Bulgaria. If you need more sources I'll be happy to provide them but you need to be more specific. --Ivo (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I already explaned to you on Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia what is the problem with the sources you have written, and the text you are re-entering, but you still shift my words in a way you like and refuse to understand and continue with your actions... I am asking for a 1 month block of User:BG89 for edit warring and re-entering not neutral and highly controversial content in FC CSKA 1948 Sofia. This is the forth article the user enteres such controversial content and starts an edit war with, many times I have tried to explain to him why the content he enteres is unacxeptable, but he refuses to understand and keeps shifting the point of my words and the topic in every discussion. --The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Basically, what you said on the talk page is that it is a personal attack on Grisha Ganchev and the information about him is irrelevant. I explained why I disagree but I'm forced to repeat myself. A highly controversial businessmen charged with extremely serious offences is making an attempt to overtake a bankrupted but popular and successful football club without paying its debts even though he promised the fans to stabilise the club. Then he changes his mind and does his utmost to lead the club to bankruptcy, so he has an excuse to have a "fresh start". Then he changes the name of another club owned by him so it resembles the name of the financially troubled club and asks the fans to "recognise" as their own the new club which is actually a rival club.... Part of the fans are furious. They refuse to support the project of the controversial businessman and establish another new club. Which part exactly is irrelevant and should be removed? The sources I've used are from well-established media known for objectivity and most of them are market leaders. I've been involved in several edit wars by TV Boy. All of them started after he vandalised sourced content from articles I was working on. This is evident from the edit history and the comments of other users from both the Bulgarian and English Wikipedia who accused him of disruptive editing and vandalism. I call for a 5 days block for TV Boy which IMO will be long enough to make him reconsider his attitude. He acts as if he is obsessed with several articles and a longer block could potentially make him register a new account and restart the edit wars. Also, I ask for supervision of the page because the semi-protection I requested doesn't seem to help --Ivo (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BG89, I already told you that your personal opinion is not neutral and has no plase in Wikipedia articles. All that you are saying and all that you are entering is one peronal opinion on the topic, and masking it under sources and pushing it into the text to look as it is via the guidelines won't change that - it is still one perosnal opinion on a topic. The articles were already sourced with encyclopedic content and everything was well explaned, after which you poped in entering the controversial content, masking it under sourses. The links you enter aren't automatically turned in to sources if you put them into the article - if they have no relavense whatsoever and if they do not cite anything encyclopedic, they are just links "masked as sources" and can be removed. I've reverted your edits, tried to explain, but you became even more agressive in your controversial editing and started agressivly edit-waring. Trying to fake my actions everything I say wont't make you the good guy. You may call for whatever you want, that is your right, there is indirect evidense that you have been sockpuppeting under dynamic IP addresses in the same articles that you've been edit-warring in. Again I am asking YOU to reconsider your attitude. Trying to invert my words against me only speaks bad for you. From the beggining I've been asking you to stop, I've been posting links to the guidelines, all you ever did was edit war, push your opinion forward and put insuficient sourses in the articles, telling you why, but you just kept being agressive in your edits. The semi-protection on the article was putted after the dynanic Vivacom IP's kept restoring that info, immidiately after you poped in and asked the article to be protected in order to be saved with the controversial info in it.The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * TV Boy, I've always tried to remain diplomatic but this time I'll tell you what I really think. In my opinion, you are deliberately sabotaging several related pages because you added manipulative content which I noticed and the edit wars you provoke are kind of a way to forestall the discussions and the removal of the wrong facts. I've been trying to talk it out with you for nearly two moths but little to no progress was made. Since the day I told you I'm getting tired of your uncooperative and ignorant approach and I'm likely to ask for a third opinion you became desperate. You realise that you stand no chance because all official sources support my position and others will be far from thrilled when they see how you deleted sourced content. Your last resort is to frame me and get my account suspended for things I haven't even thought of. Not to speak of your countless threats, ultimatums and personal remarks. I've lost count how many times you asked an admin to block me stating your reasons and every time you got answered that there is just a content dispute. I told you on your talk page that I'll no longer tolerate your aggressive behaviour and I'll no longer let you treat me like your inferior. You are just an ordinary user like me and you have no right to insult me and spread lies about me. How many times have you removed sources from sports federations and government agencies calling them "vandalism"? Are you getting close to a 3-digit number or there is still a room for improvement? Or maybe you think that you can vandalise a page and accuse the person whose text you vandalised by you of vandalism? --Ivo (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, BG89, dont make me laught please. The theif says "catch the theif!". I explaned why your information is controversial, that tbere are no such club name as "CSKA-Sofia", you just kept being even more aggressive, and now on the admin page you are still manipulating and still twisting words in order to support your oppinion! This is just insane, as there is a clear evidense as to who started edit-warring in the first plase on the pages history. Putting links that are irrelevant and that not cite anything are not a reliable source, you are also manipulating that. There is enoght evidnse about your actions and if a vote is to be made about the case they will be provided. I never used any personal harresments against you - that is again another manipulative twist of yours. Yes, I am an ourdinary editor who can just report you, but dont think I' gonna stand and not take action while you entere such controversial and POV edits. If it is not e, somebody else will revert them, you can be sure of that!--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 11:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is so funny to you and why do you continue to embarrass yourself. There is no club CSKA-Sofia, really? According to UEFA, the supreme administrative body of European football, there is a club called CSKA-Sofia which is participating in the Bulgarian top league which is exactly what I'm saying and exactly what you are denying. I can't comprehend why are you trying to deny something obvious. Just like the sourced information you deleted many, many times. According to UEFA, which is much more reliable source than your personal opinion, the club has no official logo and no history and it can't have because it's a new club established this year. I leave to everyone who read this discussion to decide on his own who is right and who is wrong. You made personal remarks about me on several talk pages and apparently you feel your behaviour is perfectly fine and you did nothing wrong. Another user asked you to refrain from personal remarks and your answer was to spam him in Bulgarian. Your comments can be seen by everyone just like the edit history and the link about the club name. I see no reason to continue a discussion you are trying to turn into tragicomedy. Actually, this is your strategy because you have no other way to stall the discussion about the real content dispute. This is my last answer to your ridiculous allegation, however, if any admin has questions I'll be here to answer. --Ivo (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't repeat myself again because obviously you still do your own thing and this discussion is not going to get any more productive.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Vanamonde93. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:67.255.232.16 reported by User:331dot (Result: Self-revert)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continually reverting a word choice that is supported by reliable sources without explanation. 331dot (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User has now posted to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since I've participated I take no administrative action. I note that 67.* has incorporated my suggested wording. That was probably not a good idea given the report here, but I believe it was done in good faith and recommend no action at this time.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since the IP user has self-reverted their last change. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:93.40.174.194 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (Changed IP? Identical edit.)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (Added since report #1)
 * 8)  (Added since report #2)
 * 9)  (Added since report #2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Filing this report on behalf of. The third diff and the attempt to resolve the dispute was performed by a different IP, but their tone and their edits were identical to the IP being reported. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor continues even after being notified of this report. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 15:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment Tag-team edit-warring, without discussing, is 's typical MO (recent example). The only party in this dispute who has attempted to discuss is one of the IPs. Note also the blatantly dishonest claim that the two IPs have the same "tone", although one of them has not left any edit summary or comment. zzz (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a completely false report and blatant attack against myself; both teams have come to me for assistance, and I have reverted the edit-war'er. The only editor that has violated WP:3RR is the editor being reported. The editor who has added this comment has obviously decided to come forth after their own apparent grievance of being reverted. And how did they know to come here? Adding, I also noticed the user "forgot" to mentioned they failed to gain consensus for their against against Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television, but declares the reverting editors as the edit-war'ers. Interesting. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 16:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in consensus re TVINTL is invited to contribute to the discussion on my talk page, also currently listed at WP:3O. "And how did they know to come here?" Good luck with your wild accusations. I'm done here. zzz (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not the place for your requests for opinion - learn where to do it. Keep stalking me. It's the only way you would have known about this report. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ?

While AN3 remains quiet, the 93 IP editor continues with two more reverts. The 201 IP also took to my talk page with this post, after which the signature of that post was changed to/by a registered editor with this edit. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months (3RR violation by IP). It appears there may also be a disagreement between registered editors, namely User:AlexTheWhovian and User:Signedzzz and perhaps others. Please explain your positions on the article talk page and wait for consensus before making further changes. If there have been relevant discussions elsewhere, link to them from the article talk page. What does Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television have to do with the Britney Spears videography? Why are you trying to settle this on individual user talk pages?  Hasn't anyone heard of WP:RFC? I have undone the collapsing of Signedzzz's comments above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings:, , , , , ,

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:, ,

Comments:

Also possible sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry or tag-teaming (hard to tell even when checking both accounts' global histories):,. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

In any case, given the level of repeated intervention required by numerous admins and other editors, and the level of WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:PA, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR, this case seems quite intransigent. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Jkouhyar has a severe I didn't hear that issue, not least from previous blocks and I've given him some straight talking. However, he hasn't touched the article today, so for that reason I'm going to declare this "stale". If he starts to disrupt the article again, let me know. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Uanfala reported by User:Yoyi ling (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

It all started when User Uanfala raised essentially the same issue on multiple move requests for proofing Saraiki a language vs its dialect status. [] [] /RFCs [], [] move review [] /talk pages [] [] /Notice boards [], / Sock puppet allegations [] [] or to multiple administrators [], Mediation request [] or any of these repetitively, which was unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It was a clear case of WP:FORUMSHOP  & WP:ADMINSHOP  in the hope of finding one where he may get the answer he wants. []. I even tried to compromise with him until an open RFC closes but he continued on WP:TENDENTIOUS editing , WP:CHERRYPICKING, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence. with repetitive attempts to insert or delete content or show behaviour that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions. He was WP:POINTy calling world renown linguistic sources of George cardona 2007, Rana Dasgupta 2014 and UCLA 2015 as bogus sources. Once he called Saraiki a Language then he said where did I said it is not a dialect  then a language variety. He even tried to define Dialect as a Language variety, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NOTDIC with defining synonyms/ close jargon. If page title is dialect then it could only be expanded in Encyclopaedic manner. Disputes are meant to be resolved per consensus. Egos are not helpful in building encyclopaedia articles. Then He started to spread the edit war on other Punjabi dialect pages. IP Deaed described Main issue  and I propose a solution. Please take action as you think best. We will respect that.Yoyi ling (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Edit warning by many users Yoyi ling (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

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

In edit summaries of saraiki dialect I tried to compromise until open RFC concludes. Yoyi ling (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:78.50.169.50 reported by User:Tataral (Result: Semi-protected)

 * 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:

User:Gerry1214 (now also editing as User:78.50.169.50, User:2003:57:6E39:B337:D29:DA1D:BAB6:5EC4) was recently blocked for disruption and edit warring against three or four editors on this article. The issue is partly whether the lead should include one balanced sentence on the subject's position in the political landscape, and partly User:Gerry1214's attempt to reinstate a badly worded version of a section below. On the talk page there is a lengthy discussion, where agreement was reached to include the sentence in the lead and various other changes, with only User:Gerry1214 disagreeing with everyone else.

After his block, User:Gerry1214 referred to Wikipedia's editors as "braindead people" and promised to leave the article in peace on his talk page, but now he has returned on a new spree, including through the use of several sockpuppets/IP addresses. He promised on the article talk page that he would return to continue with his disruptive blanket reverts, and as promised, shortly after several IP addresses only interested in this particular issue continued reverting with language which tells us it's obviously him. He has been asked repeatedly to seek consensus on the talk page, but it seems he does not understand and is not willing to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way. Tataral (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am NOT editing as these IPs. I have and will edit only with this account! User:Tataral is continuing to attack me, slander me, and he is edit-warring and deleting sourced information in the article. Prove your claims or refrain from spreading false rumors. Thank you.--Gerry1214 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And to add this, it is pure insolence - from a user who is disrupting articles and pushes his pov aggressively, continuously edit-warring against several users - to write about me that I would be "not willing to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia in a productive way", after I have written and improved hundreds of articles. I consider this as a serious personal attack. --Gerry1214 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: I wrote on the talk page of the admin User:Bbb23 and urged him to explain his decision, which to me seems to be biased. Also the false allegations of User:Tataral need to be disproved and serious steps against his aggressive behaviour have to be taken immediately.--Gerry1214 (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Sunsunsun78 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Islam */"
 * 2)  "/* Islam */"
 * 3)  "/* Islam */The camel ( sin maker ) cannot enter needle hole ( heaven enterance ) thus heaven cannot be entered or heaven not exist for islam sin makers."
 * 4)  "/* Islam */The camel ( sin maker ) cannot enter needle hole ( heaven enterance ) thus heaven cannot be entered or heaven not exist for islam sin makers."
 * 5)  "/* Islam */The camel ( sin maker ) cannot enter needle hole ( heaven enterance ) thus heaven cannot be entered or heaven not exist for islam sin makers."
 * 6)  "/* Islam */"
 * 7)  "/* Islam */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing. GABgab 02:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Caneagle reported by User:Xinheart (Result: Filer 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: [link]

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

Comments:

This new user focuses on deleting academic material and sources (notably refs 1 and 2: L. Fekete, doi: 10.1177/0306396811425984, Race Class January–March 2012 vol. 53 no. 3 30-47, Sage journals, and N. S. Ateek, C. Duaybis, M. Tobin, Melisende, 2005, p. 90.) in the lede. Xinheart (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: The filer, User:Xinheart, is warned for POV-pushing due to edits such as this one. He adds "...presented as...cover actions intented at supporting right-wing, neoconservative, pro-Israël bias." Besides introducing grammar problems, Xinheart seems to be trying to slant the article against Caroline Cox, using original research and by accepting as authoritative sources which have their own partisan angle, such as Media Matters for America the Media Monitors Network. This article risks getting the WP:ARBPIA banner due to Cox's participation in groups such as One Jerusalem, but adding the ARBPIA notice might tend to shut off too many contributions, so I won't do that yet. Will leave further advice at User talk:Xinheart. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about ? Where did I mention Media Matters for America ??? Xinheart (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. The publication you are taking to be authoritative is the website of the Media Monitors Network. My own web research indicates that they are generally on the left, while Caroline Cox's views on Zionism suggest her opinions will be more congenial to right-wing Israelis. So asking a left-wing website for their opinion on Carolyn Cox may not give you a neutral assessment. I have corrected my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your correction but I would appreciate that, while sanctionning or warning someone, you would display a little more rigor. Now about the Caroline Cox's article, you are right when you describe her to the right. But the lede contains sources of both sides, so it is balanced. I don't understnand why you are warning me only, though I use references [1] and [2] which are indeed critical but academic and which have been deleted by the other user. Xinheart (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ground Zero reported by User:IQ125 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |14:22, 5 November 2016‎
 * 2) |11:27, 5 November 2016‎
 * 3) |23:47, 4 November 2016‎
 * 4) |21:53, 4 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Poster is warning me over and over again on my talkpage.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I discussed in my edits, that the sentence structure is required due to the facts.

Comments:

IQ125 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:IQ125 has not addressed my comments on the talk page, has deleted from his/her talk page my requests to stop edit warring, and has also deleted the discussion from the article's talk page here. Ground Zero &#124; t 14:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

And I should add that all I am trying to do is replace "including (but not limited to)" by "such as" on the basis that it is shorter, simper, and means the same thing. This should be easy to resolve. Ground Zero &#124; t 15:15, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The best way of stating is "including, but not limited to". I wrote the article and know what is happening with the software in question.  End of story. IQ125 (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * and are both warned that if either user reverts again, they risk being blocked. This is a lame edit war and both of you should be embarrassed by it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is lame, and accept the warning, but I am still looking for a way to improve the article in the face of an editor who is unwilling to discuss changes to article he/she seems to think belongs to him/her. IQ125 has reverted the article again. Ground Zero &#124; t 15:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:173.238.79.44 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Languages */ /* Languages */ see talk page; you are the one who is pushing an Italian nationalist agenda, making articles and comments saying Sards are not an ethnic group; this is an ethnic group article, about one group - Sards, not all people on Sar"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 747825402 by 93.36.9.45 (talk) rv; article has always been about the ethnic group, not about all people living on Sardinia; the sources here are about ethnic Sards, not others"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 747782058 by 93.36.6.165 (talk) rv; this  is an ethnic group article specifically about indigenous, ethnic Sards, which is what it was created as; not Demographics of Sardinia"
 * 4)  "rv vandalism and removal of cited sources; 1) this article is about indigenous Sards, an ethnic group in Sardinia 2) the numbers of speakers are for Sassarese, Gallurese, and Sardinian 3) Sardinian is the aboriginal and ethnic language of indigenous Sards"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Long term editwarring, disruptive editing, abuse of talk page, personal attacks, etc. I've blocked before but it might help if someone else did it this time. Has been given at least one 3RR warning in the past. This is a stable IP address. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm one of number of editors abused by this IP editor without provocation. I don't know if ANI may be a better venue but a community imposed lengthy block may well be the way to resolve this if the IP is stable. WCM email 20:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The IP is attacking any editors who deign to disagree with their edits. This appears to be a case of BATTLEGROUND and NOTHERE rather than single instances of edit warring. Perhaps ANI would be a more expedient method of dealing with the IP until (or if) they rethink their behavioural problems. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected. That doesn't prevent action against the IP if an administrator believes it's warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing. you blocked this IP a few times before, because it was being used for block evasion. Based on a quick look, I'm not able to decide conclusively whether this is the same individual or not. What do you think?   This block is meant to prevent disruption only: if you believe a longer community sanction is required, please go ahead and open a discussion at ANI. Vanamonde (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If the same disruptive editing patterns occur at the end of the block I will take this to ANI. WCM email 08:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging 2 more who blocked the IP as a sock.  Doug Weller  talk 09:17, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've taken a more extensive look at the IP's behavioural patterns (edit summary style; quick off the mark to write a similar style of aggressive commentary on the talk page of users who have reverted; etc.) and feel confident that it is one and the same person. If it is a household, it doesn't seem likely that everyone in the household is interested in editing in the same ranges of subject areas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

User:71.54.168.107 reported by User:Digifan23 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 748020643 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 748019767 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 748019368 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 747231460 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 748019368 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 747231460 by Digifan23 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 747231460 by Digifan23 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of programs broadcast by Antenna TV. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User:Nohcho982 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop posting nonsense i don't know where you got that 7th century thing, just because you hate a certain group of people doesn't mean you have to make up lies on here,  i left authentic sources, you just need an account to read them,"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 748124264 by Caucasusscientist (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 747992289 by Doug Weller (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* History */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please don't change quotations */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

See also Requests for page protection where this editor is asking for page protection saying that the editor with whom he is editwarring " Won't stop posting non-sense because of his hatred against them". Doug Weller talk 17:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)