Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive330

User:Anonpediann reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsourced material there. Credits taken from official Twitter confirmations, sourced in talk page."
 * 2)  "Sacrifices as a single unsources."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 748167330 by Livelikemusic (talk) Don't retriee without checking. There are bad sourced material and you messed up some other changes."
 * 4)  "Genius is not a reliable source for credits, anyone can contribute there. I put on Tinashe because his brother Thulani is also credited. Credits taken from official Twitter accounts, can be used per TWITTER."
 * 5)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 6)  "/* Track listing */ Credits taken from Twitter confirmations by producers."
 * 1)  "Genius is not a reliable source for credits, anyone can contribute there. I put on Tinashe because his brother Thulani is also credited. Credits taken from official Twitter accounts, can be used per TWITTER."
 * 2)  "/* Track listing */"
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */ Credits taken from Twitter confirmations by producers."
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */ Credits taken from Twitter confirmations by producers."
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */ Credits taken from Twitter confirmations by producers."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Genius' use as a source */ new section"


 * Comments:

User has history of edit-warring on articles, and has resorted to personal insults on their talk page, and despite opening a talk page discussion, they still decide to go on edit-warring, for which they've been blocked twice for. User does not seem to be here to edit constructively or civilly with other members of this community.  livelikemusic    talk!  19:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite talk page, user is continuing to edit-war against and, who are both participating on the talk page's discussions.   livelikemusic    talk!  19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The user has also continued to leave rather inflammatory comments on my talk page, too. See: User talk:TheKaphox. TheKaphox   T  21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also notifying given their history with this user, and might be able to add something into this conversation.  Should also be noted that user has continued to edit-war on the page in-question, and is still resulting in personal insults onto other members of the community.   livelikemusic    talk!  21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i offended any of you any moment. I find it really defamatory to use mistakes i made in the past (i don't even remember lol) to block me. Some of the edit warring they keep taking down isn't always unfair about what they said. I corrected a lot of times fake information that was disengaged to what they try to accuse me for deleting, tearing down severals edits of mine without even reading what i just corrected. Anyway, despite what someone could say at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums they keep believing that Genius is a reliable source. Thank you. Anonpediann (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Chisme reported by User:Polaert (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:André (artist)

Comments:

I kindly tried to refrain user:chisme from imposing his personal opinions that everyone can clearly feel it when you read Talk:André (artist). I have been very patient, open and welcoming of his point of view in spite of his inappropriate behavior. He has acted as though he were editing his own personal blog, not an Encyclopedia. He called me a « bitch ». I just want to render the article André (artist) neutral as it should be with an impartial tone. --Polaert (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . The user has reverted only twice somewhat recently. After that, you have to go back months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Sabir Hun reported by User:MMFA (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:

I did not warn him myself but he had been warned by other users. He evidently has a history of being warned about doing this, having looked at his history of edits.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There is no talk page discussion with the user as I was unsure what to do in the circumstance. If this results in action against me then I accept that consequence, and am sure another user dedicated to historicity and accuracy can maintain the page.

Comments:

The User Sabir Hun had his edits reverted by User:Crovata and also by myself. He was asked for sources, but provided only two sources with statements that one of those sources do not corroborate (e.g. he states the Huns used Leather Armor but if you actually read Nikoronov 2002, which in itself is inaccurately cited, he makes no such statement). The "Huns" page is always susceptible to innacuracies since so many people are so undereducated or miseducated about the Huns, due to nationalist bias in Eastern Europe and Asia. There was recently another long discussion on a talk page with a different user which resulted in the page being closed to non-registered accounts due to sockpuppeting. I was also involved in that discussion. I decided to look up what to do in this situation with the reported user as I did not know exactly what Wikipedia's policy was in this regard, and had decided after his recent edit to wait until I had time to write an accurate summary of what is known about Hunnic warfare and arms rather than revert his edit again (which would have resulted in myself breaking the 3-edit rule, after I looked up the policy). I therefore decided to refer to the site moderators.

Thank you for your time.

MMFA (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Seumas Mactalla reported by User:Mutt Lunker (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Scots language. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Scots language. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Germanic/English */ read the 2nd para"

The user has continued to edit war today:  and blanks all talk page warnings  agt x  19:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

And another. agt x 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

An additional attempt to discuss has been rebuffed followed immediately by another revert. agt x 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Huon (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Get a consensus first - especially since you're holding similar pages to different standards"
 * 2)  "They're the defending champions whatever they do, and this is covered in more detail in a morr appropriate section"
 * 3)  "Captions complement articles - they're not a substitute for content"
 * 1)  "Captions complement articles - they're not a substitute for content"

Two edits preceded the above sequence, demonstrating that the edit-warring sequence started earlier:
 * 1)  "They'll be the defending champion whatever they do - and captions aren't a substitute for content)"
 * 2)  "Details aren't necessary for the article lead - they are covered in more depth in a more appropriate place elsewhere in the article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR. Tvx1 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is little more than an attempt to shut me up because he disagrees with my edits on another page and because I have not accepted his arguments on my talk page. Furthermore, the first edit that Tvx1 put forward as evidence of my edit warring involved wholesale changes to the article; while the other edits were included within it, the extent of the edits that I reverted fundamentally changed the article, and should be treated as an entirely separate edit as these changes were never discussed in any context. Furthermore, he has previously argued that the current version of 2017 Formula One season should remain until consensus to change has been achieved, and yet on 2017 World Rally Championship, he has disregarded the current version and made changes without any attempt at achieving consensus. It is this inconsistent application of policy and practice that has been central to my issues with 2017 Formula One season over the past few weeks, and so Tvx1's actions feel like an attempt to force a conflict on a separate article because I will not back down from my position on my talk page. He has previously admitted that he encourages edit-warring, stopping at two revisions and waiting for the other party to make a third so that he can then come to 3RR and use it as a weapon against people he disagrees with. Given the context of the ongoing debates on other pages, the inconsistent editing practices that he uses, and his obvious attempts at subterfuge by misrepresenting the content of the changes and his attempts to resolve the issue, it's quite clear that he is simply trying to shut me up because he cannot convince me elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, look at the time-stamps. His attempt at resolving the dispute was posted to my talk page at 13:42 on 5 November&mdash;but he posted this 3RR report at 13:43 on 5 November. How, exactly, are we supposed to be able to resolve anything in under a minute? Especially given how much he prepared for this 3RR report&mdash;he had to have written it first and posted it here as soon as he posted the message on my talk page because he couldn't file a 3RR report without one. While the subject of 2017 World Rally Championship had previously been broached on my talk page, it was not in the context of attempting to resolve a content dispute. Furthermore, Tvx1 knows perfectly well that I live on the other side of the world to him, and so on any other night, I would be fast asleep when he posted it. He's counting on my being asleep when the report is reviewed and action taken by an administrator. If you want evidence that he is misusing 3RR, there it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No this is intended to stop your disruptive, uncollaborative and unconstructive editing. Neither in the discussion on the talk page of 2017 Formula One season, nor in the one on your talk page is anyone agreeing with your opinion. Yet you keep reverting to your preferred version while discussion is in progress, braking the 3RR policy in the process, which is something you have done many times before. Maybe my post on your talk page was very fresh, but others had disagreed with your stance on the issue way before me as well. And this report was filed shortly after you made a revert to the article concerned. Your are still replying at this instant so the accusation that I'm counting on you to be sleeping is quite simply a joke. Wikipedians have patience but eventually run out of it. We (thus not just me) have given your arguments more than enough consideration on the talk pages.Tvx1 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Most importantly, when you are reported for breaching the 3RR policy you should comment on your own editing and not launch into an attack at the reporting editor.Tvx1 16:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My editing takes on a very different light when you consider the broader context of what is going on here. You presented this as an issue limited to a single article, which is clearly untrue. Look at that 690kb edit of yours that I undid&mdash;you made substantial changes to it without any consensus based on an argument you had originally made on another article. But crucially, you didn't make those same substantial changes to the original article. You claim to have attempted to resolve the dispute, but you were posting the report here before anyone had an opportunity to reply. Everything that you have done looks like you are trying to use 3RR to shut someone up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No-one agreed with you on either article with either of the related issues you raised. That is self-explanatory regarding who is acting against consensus and policy. Think what you like about my motives, the reality is that you broke this policy again and that's what you should be commenting about here. And now your using being reported for it by someone as a trump card to launch a rant of personal attacks against the reporting person, which is another serious breach of policy. Tvx1 20:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You had a consensus on one article, and tried to impose it on another, unrelated article without any discussion there, or any attempt to introduce that consensus on the original article (which you still haven't done). You can call it a personal attack if you like, but I am simply pointing out your inconsistent behaviour and I think that any administrator reviewing this report needs to be aware of it because I think that you deliberately provoked an edit war so that you could come to 3RR and use it to silence an editor that you are frustrated with. But if you want to focus on the policy, then let's focus on the policy: you didn't file the 3RR properly; you didn't make any attempt to resolve the dispute before coming here because you had already written the 3RR report. It doesn't help that you have a documented history of only taking people you disagree with to 3RR (you have ignored dozens if edit wars in the past) and have repeatedly tried to get me blocked in the past&mdash;at last count, there have been three previous attempts where no action was taken.


 * So yes, your motives are key to this because your behaviour shows that you prefer to use 3RR as a means of getting even with others rather than enforcing policy. If anybody deserves sanctions from the administrators, it's you for abusing the 3RR process. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (non-admin observation) You two seriously need to stop bickering and point scoring with each other and actually work together! I've seen that you two have been at loggerheads for quite a while now and it's time you stopped and attempt to work together. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Class455 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am more than willing to collaborate, but Tvx1's attitude is that you agree with him from the outset, accept his edits even if you disagree with them, or be paraded in front of the administrators if you continue to disagree. This 3RR report has nothing to do with 2017 World Rally Championship and everything to do with events at 2017 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No it's only you breaching this clear-cut policy once again., Prisonermonkeys has raised the same content issue on my talk page and I made a reply there. That all preceded Prisonermonkeys' continued reverting and the subsequent filing of this report. I have tried to be collaborative and I have no problem to continue to do so. At the same time I'm also a human being and a normal human trait is running out of patience. Especially if one is at the receiving end of continued unjustufied rants of personal attacks. If you take a look at the discussions mentioned is not between PM and only me. Multiple users have replied to PM's concerns and they are all running out of patience.Tvx1 22:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prisonermonkeys has raised the same content issue on my talk page and I made a collaborative reply there."
 * First of all, you posted that message at 13:47&mdash;four minutes after you filed the 3RR report. How am I supposed to be able to respond to that in time?


 * But more importantly, would it be too much to ask if you tagged me with " " so that I actually know that it's there? Or maybe posting on my talk page? Or leave a note on your own talk page saying "if you leave a message for me here, I will respond here unless you ask differently". This is the first that I am hearing of it, and had I known about it before now, I would have responded to it. I am, after all, involved in half a dozen different discussions on half a dozen different pages, all of them progressing at different rates, so I can't always keep on top of them when they're updated if you don't draw my attention to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, 13:47 is six minutes BEFORE this report was filed. Secondly, If you wan't to keep aware of all the discusions you start, you can use your watchlist. I would also be easier to do if you wouldn't raise the issue on multiple talk pages simultaneously. Regardless, none of this has to do with the issue at hand here, which is you breaking the 3RR policy again. Tvx1 23:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, none of this has to do with the issue at hand here, which is you breaking the 3RR policy again."''

Actually, it has everything to do with it. A recurring theme of our discussions over the last few weeks has been the need to adhere to the letter of Wikipedia policy. And while you hold me to one standard, you yourself are apparently quite free to pick and choose which parts of the policy you observe and when&mdash;and this is the attitude that I have been dissatisfied with for the past eighteen months; the one that you claim doesn't exist, even though we're seeing it in full force right now.

Even if you posted on your talk page six minutes before you posted this report, how am I supposed to be able to respond in six minutes? You have technically observed the policy, but you have made it as difficult as possible for me to respond. There's one rule for me, but another rule for you. How do you expect this or any other 3RR report that you file to be legitimate when you're so obviously abusing the system? As has been pointed out, Wikipedia is about collaboration&mdash;but here you are deliberately making collaboration as difficult as possible and using 3RR to settle a score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant policies have been applied consistently to all the concerned articles. That has been explained to you quite blatantly by multiple editors during the relevant discussions. That the filing of this report and replies in multiple discussions happened in a short timeframe and you having been unable to read them all did not give you a trump card to make that last blanket revert in complete ignorance of the discussion. Rest assured, my behavior will be reviewed as well, as is common courtesy in edit war (or any report on administrators' noticeboards) report. Now please stop your futile attempts to turn this around trying to avoid having to discuss your behavior. You have been reported for edit-warring and that's what you should be discussing.Tvx1 02:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "The relevant policies have been applied consistently to all the concerned articles."
 * No, they havent. You argued that the 2017 Formula One season article should be worded to avoid committing to any definite future event. You then made 693kb of changes to 2017 World Rally Championship, rewriting the entire article to avoid this. You never attempted any discussion there, and what's more, you haven't edited 2017 Formula One season to avoid committing to future events&mdash;you have done parts, but not the whole thing. The opening line of the article still reads "The 2017 Formula One season will be the sixty-eighth season of [...]" whereas the edits you made to 2017 World Rally Championship read "The 2017 World Rally Championship is scheduled to be the forty-fifth season of [...]". Please explain how that is the consistent application of policy.


 * Likewise here. The 3RR reporting system requires you to pursue all reasonable means of resolving disputes before filing a report. Giving an editor six minutes to respond at a time when you know that they will likely be asleep hardly counts as reasonable, does it?


 * Of late, the way that this seems to play out is that if I want to make changes to an article, I have to discuss them and get approval beforehand&mdash;but if you want to make changes, then you're free to do so, and you only have to discuss it after the fact if someone objects.


 * "That the filing of this report and replies in multiple discussions happened in a short timeframe and you having been unable to read them all did not give you a trump card to make that last blanket revert in complete ignorance of the discussion."
 * Of course I have been unable to read them! You deliberately posted them at a time when I would be unlikely to read them and so close together that I would be unable to respond to one&mdash;much less all&mdash;of them before the 3RR was reviewed. You were evidently hoping that an administrator would look at the 3RR report, look at my block history, and impose sanctions before I would even have a chance to respond.


 * "Rest assured, my behavior will be reviewed as well, as is common courtesy in edit war (or any report on administrators' noticeboards) report."
 * I would start worrying about that, if I were you, because I have just clearly demonstrated that you abused the 3RR system. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this? Tvx1 12:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Tvx1 21:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Really, anyone?Tvx1 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot understand such an action without any rationale. Do you have any reasoning for you decision? Did you even look at the diffs and look at the talk page discussions.Tvx1 16:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not Bbb23, but I looked at this report some time ago and didn't see an obvious closure, one way or the other. The report does not show four reverts by Prisonermonkeys. The rest is unclear. Anything that takes thousands of words to explain is probably not a case for a block. There is no discussion at all on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed their is no discussion on the article's talk page. Rather it occurred on the user's talk page. It was initiated on that page by another user who became worried by edit to a related motorsports article on an upcoming season. That edit followed this discussion, during which five users disagreed with Prisonermonkeys' view on how to represent the information to our readers. I don't know why the discussion on PM's talk page wasn't moved to the article's talk page, but I can only guess that people instinctively preferred to keep discussing on one place. This discussion on PM's talk page featured three editors disagreeing with them. It was also started with an explicit request not to get embroiled in edit-wars and have a constructive discussion instead. The reported users simply ignored that. Bottom-line, this dispute is not between Prisonermonkeys  and only me and they have been edit-warring against what is seen in the discussions' courses as the way to go as well as against policy. I have listed five reverts by Prisonermonkeys in the above report. Tvx1 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, it looks like you're just trying to get me blocked because I disagreed with you rather than serve the interests of the article. You clearly misrepresented the situation in the initial report, but now that the 3RR report has been declined, you've changed your story to suit. The discussions that you refer to did not specifically relate to the article you're reporting me for; indeed, those discussions deal with a completely different subject matter. You reported me for changing captions, but the discussions in question are about WP:CRYSTAL. Really, I should go to WP:ANI and have the administrators look at your behaviour during this debacle&mdash;the misrepresentations, the way you made it as difficult as possible for me to respond to the discussions that you used as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and the obvious way that you arecusing 3RR to settle a score&mdash;but if the admins didn't see fit to deal with it here, then I will leave well enough alone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your concerns regarding the captions were addressed by another user . I also have left regarding them on my own talk page. This report relates to both issues. Your last revert was a blanket revert of me removing crystal ball statements. Tvx1 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Sleeping is fun reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 3 November

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 7 November
 * 2) 7 November
 * 3) 7 November
 * 4) 7 November
 * 5) 8 November
 * 6) 8 November
 * 7) 8 November
 * 8) 8 November
 * 9) 8 November
 * 10) 8 November
 * 11) 8 November - Reverted twice again after this report was filed and after he filed a counter-complaint against me at WP:AN/I

All dates/times are U.S. EST. That's four reverts on one day followed by six reverts the following day; a total of 10 reverts in 48 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 7 November
 * 2) 8 November

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:Sleeping is fun
 * 2) User talk:Sleeping is fun
 * 3) Talk:Joe Slovo

Comments:

This editor is engaging in edit-warring at other articles, such as The Birth of a Nation (2016 film).

This editor will accuse me of abusively using multiple accounts -- I don't; my accounts comply with WP:VALIDALT. I have, however, engaged in edit-warring at Joe Slovo and will accept whatever sanction is deemed appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Check how Shabazz's behavior on Talk:Joe_Slovo. That should speak for itself. He has reverted me numerous times with zero explanation, and despite my best efforts to have a constructive conversation on the talk page, he continued to revert me and make childish insults against me. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Shabazz is trying to game the system by painting me as the bad guy based solely on my amount of reverts, but look at my edit summaries. Look at my attempt to argue my position on the talk page. Then look at how Shabazz responded. Brief, uncivil, condescending remarks and ghost reverts with no edit summaries or false accusations of vandalism. What a laughable abuse of the system. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 3RR is a simple, bright-line test. If you make a fourth revert within 24 hours, you've violated 3RR. You violated it. At least twice. Your silly edit summaries and their half-truths don't change that. And 3RR's a policy, not a guideline. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On both occasions, you violated it first. And you're only proving my point by dismissing my attempts at reaching consensus as "silly". —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Still haven't figured out how to count past three, eh? Maybe the good folks at WP:AN/I can help you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still haven't figured out how to behave like an adult and recognize your own hypocrisy, eh? —Sleeping is fun (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for edit warring by User:John. The reported editor, User:Sleeping is fun, was formerly known under other names such as User:Grenadetoenails, User:Exploding Toenails and User:Wash whites separately. This is his fourth block for edit warring since July 1.  There was also a discussion at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:73.176.38.186 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the actual article talk page (due to a complete inactivity on it and concerns that the IP user would therefore not notice the discussion) but I did advise him to leave a message on my talk page if he/she believed a mistake was made or if he/she had any questions.

Comments:


 * – Neither party has broken WP:3RR but at the same time neither has posted to the talk page. If there is more reverting without discussion it is possible that some admin action will be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Stemoc reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Nothing more to do here)
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: There are discretionary sanctions on the page that limit the reversion by users to one per 24 hours. The user reverted three different users over the course of a few minutes. Whether this was correct to do or not, sanctions are in place and should be followed. Calibrador (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat misleading, it turns out that both the page and the image are under sanctions, the former from arbcom and the latter from an rfc whose mention is conspicuously absent from the edit notice but is considered binding for the parties on the page. In reverting multiple times was acting to preserve the latter rfc based sanction for the article's image, and therefore was not in fact edit warring on the page as reported here. As a result of this I am informed that the image has been moved someplace else and protected (apparently a standard practice in these cases) and the account has been unblocked based on this preliminary evidence. If there is any fault to be had here, it should be on me for not having looked into this thoroughly before acting on 1RR to block what at the time appeared to be an edit-warring account. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think it would be best if I withdraw my report. Not sure if I am allowed, or able, to do that. Calibrador (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Nothing more to be done here. The submitter, User:Calibrador has asked to withdraw this report. Stemoc was blocked but then unblocked with an apology. For more details see this thread on Stemoc's talk. They speak about a special restriction on changing the image, so potent that it allows 1RR to be exceeded. TomStar81 also changed the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Comments: For the third time reporting him. BG89 keeps re-entering highly controversial text about a person who has nothing to do with this specific club. The text is not neutral and bad-faithed, written in an offensive way that target specifically the person, violating WP:NPOV. I tried explaning to him why this text can't be there, but unfortunately the user keeps avoiding everything I write on the talk page, twists away the topic of discussion and continuously tries to mask his edits as good-faithed and sourced, again avoiding the fact that the text is irrelevant to the topic.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

response by the person reported by TV Boy

He has officially reported me two times in the last few weeks and several times on the talk pages of regular users and administrators. Every single time he was explained by them that I did nothing wrong and his requests for actions against me were declined. All of my reverts were intended to preserve the page from his persistent vandalism which is evident from the edit history. In fact he is the one who broke the 3RR rule and as far as I'm concerned there is an exemption: "4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." A week ago he reported me for the very same thing and the his requests were declined. The administrators didn't find offensive content, lack of neutrality or bad faith because they aren't presented in this case. TV Boy is known for his highly disrespectful and arrogant attitude towards other users on both Bulgarian and English Wiki. In addition to that there is evidence he has been socking for a really long time and tried to use his puppets against me. For further details read this. I really hope that TV Boy systematic violations of Wiki's rules and ethical standards will no longer be tolerated. --Ivo (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As before, BG89's defense lies completely on turning accusations that I have made about him against me. This is really the third time I am reporting him, information can be founded on his talk page. BG89 still adds irrelevant text to the topic, that is there only to attack this specific person and he knows it, he just tries to manipulate and turn everything around. I accused BG89 for editing under dynamic mobile phone IP's on several of the pages he started edit-warring on, re-entering similar controversial content and dodging and inverting the discussion when it comes to the real reasons behind his actions. These IP's pop directly after BG89's edits. After that, BG89 again tried to invert my accusations against me so that it can look that my actions are disruptful, and he even goes that far trying to turn his own IP edits against me as sockpuppets. Every discussion I start with the user gets twisted away, every accusation about his actions that I make gets twisted and inverted against me on every page. I tried to have a normal conversation with the user, unfortunately to no success so far, just because of BG89's persistent bad-faithed and manipulative behavior. In his contributions you can find everything that he has written in the past month and the edit-wars he has started. I tried warning him several times on his talk page, only to see him invert my words against me once again. I hope some actions is taken against BG89's behavior--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
 * TV Boy's perception of discussion and consensus is that everybody should accept his opinion and has no right to disagree with him or otherwise will get reported for... having an opinion and fighting TV Boy's persistent vandalism. His current report against me is a perfect example. My opinion is shared by other users of the English and Bulgarian Wikipedias but no other user except for him has ever accused me of these things. The dynamic IPs have closely followed your edits FOR YEARS. Then they popped out of nowhere and started "supporting" me in a discussion with you. When I checked the edit history all those IPs I found out that they have been contributing to the pages you edit in the same day as your official account. And suddenly those anonymous IPs started reverting pages without any explanation. Miraculously, you were involved in the discussions :D The anonymous IPs followed you year by year, month by month, day by day. We aren't idiots, TV Boy. --Ivo (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * BG89, something about manipulating the discussion again? No? What a shame then. As you can see I have reverted vandalisms made by these users on the TV pages, inverting this won't help you, simply because everyone can check it then. I told you that these IP's are used by hundreds of users and and vandalism is persistent from them on various of topics. They are used by people that have a Vivacom mobile phone. They edited and responded the same way you did, immediately after you, which means either you are reverting it from your mobile phone, or someone is making you a bad favor, i.e. is "meatpuppeting". You may not be tracked behind them because, as I said, hundreds of people are on the Vivacom network, and some Bulgarian registered users may be logging from their mobile network again. Inverting my accusations against me won't help you - nobody who checks that will believe your lies. They've been "following me for years"? God, how can I not notice that I have a double twin and I have been reverting my own vandalisms to the TV articles the whole time. You understand how silly and laughable everything you try to pull is now that you are out of ideas, don't you? And who are "we" that you call? Maybe you, yourself, and BG89, because you truly are out of ideas on how to twist the discussion to prove that I am the bad guy. Also, I showed you my mobile phone IP on Australian Rupert's talk page and asked for yours, but you never responded to that...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These users??? AHAHAHAHA You seem to be good friends since the summer of 2015 if not earlier. To anybody who reads this: TV Boy has been vandalising several articles, including FC CSKA 1948 Sofia. I requested protection of the page due to his vandalism and his response was to report me for ... nothing ... for the third time in row. The outcome will be the same as the outcome of his previous reports. I'll no longer write here because this is turning into a farce, which is TV Boy's ultimate goal. Of course I'll be here to answer if any administrator has questions. To finish with, here is the evidence that TV Boy is behind the puppet accounts:

212.5.158.34

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 24 December 2014

Total number of edits: 20-30

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: BNT World on 3 September 2016. TV Boy has edited the article over 10 times.

212.5.158.44

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 25 September 2015

Total number of edits: ~10

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 7 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, Eternal derby of Bulgarian football

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: FC Dunav Ruse on 1 August 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016

212.5.158.42

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 18 July 2016

Total number of edits: ~10

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2

Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, FC CSKA 1948 Sofia, PFC CSKA - Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 21 August 2016 added info about the "current squad" of CSKA which IMO is the squad of another club. TV Boy has edited the page many times. On 31 October 212.5.158.42 suddenly changed his mind and decided to "support" me.

212.5.158.155

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 18 July 2016

Total number of edits: 4

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste:

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste:

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 0

Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 22 August added info about the "current squad".

212.39.72.28

Location: Pleven, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 5 April 2004

Total number of edits: 100+

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:

This IP was added to the list only because it's another anonymous Vivacom IP and supports my position but it's located in Pleven I don't think it's related to the other anonymous IPs which can be traced to Sofia.

212.5.158.30

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 23 February 2013

Total number of edits: 20+

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: TV Boy used to edit the articles about TV channels both from his account and anonymously from the Vivacom IPs.

Nova television (Bulgaria) "12:34, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-8)‎

21:11, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3)‎

20:28, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3)‎

16:08, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34)‎

19:57, 22 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.8 (talk)(-34)‎"

Nova+ "20:33, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-16)‎

16:07, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+5)‎

22 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.8 (-5)‎

11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎"

Kino Nova "12:40, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎

21:13, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3)‎

20:38, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3)

20:37, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎

17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎"

Diema "12:40, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎

21:13, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3)

20:38, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3)‎

20:37, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎

17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎

13:11 7 April Naskox (+124)‎

14:39, 30 March 2015‎ The TV Boy (+49)‎"

Diema Family "21:14, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-20)‎

20:48, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+20)‎

11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+27)‎

4 June 2015‎ 12.180.133.18 (+12)‎

2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-7,193)‎"

Nova Sport (Bulgaria) "12:42, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎

24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎

23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-4)‎

20:53, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+4)‎

16:01, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-6)‎

20:29, 21 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.45 (+6)‎

11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-61)‎"

BTV (Bulgaria) "22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+26)‎

21:17, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-5)‎

21:06, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30

16:14, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-70)"

BTV Comedy "22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-32)‎

23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-1)‎

23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+1)‎"

BTV Cinema "22:20, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-22)‎

21:22, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+6)‎

21:16, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎

21:14, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (talk)‎(-5)"

BTV Action "22:21, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34)

21:32, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+5)‎

21:27, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎

21:26, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-5)‎

16:16, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-79)‎"

BTV Lady "22:22, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-57)‎

21:34, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-21)‎

21:32, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+1)

21:31, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+20)

15:12, 2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy(-5,890)"

RING (Bulgaria) "21:35, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+2)‎

21:51, 6 July 2015‎ 85.118.69.169 (-32)

15:28, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-11)‎

8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+572)‎

15:24, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-461)‎

15:22, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-153)‎

14:49, 2 May 2015‎ The TV Boy (+38)‎"

212.5.158.51

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 29 December 2013

Total number of edits: ~10

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora: The edits are 3 years apart though.

212.5.158.29

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 16 January 2015

Total number of edits: ~10

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 5

Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:

212.5.158.0

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 30 July 2015

Total number of edits: ~20

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited:

212.5.158.46

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 29 December 2013

Total number of edits: ~20

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv was edited by 212.5.158.46 3 times on 12 September 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016.

212.5.158.58

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 27 December 2013

Total number of edits: ~20

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png

Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora "11:56, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-36)‎

11:48, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+91)‎

03:16, 14 July 2016‎ Vítor (-4)

16:15, 13 July 2016‎ 130.204.178.196 (+71)‎

17:56, 12 July 2016‎ 130.204.178.196 (-71)‎

23:03, 11 July 2016‎ Dfotev (-192)‎

01:48, 11 July 2016‎ 91.97.125.155 (-35)‎

20:57, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58 (0)‎

20:57, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58

20:56, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58 (+53)‎"

212.5.158.2

Location: Sofia, Bulgaria

internet provider: Vivacom

First edit ever: 8 November 2015

Total number of edits: ~10

First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016

Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1

Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png

Other interests: Football and history Second Professional Football League (Bulgaria) "18:56, 2 August 2016‎ The TV Boy (+103)‎

19:27, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-5)‎

19:23, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+230)

12:17, 26 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.2 (-230)‎

18:39, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+1)‎

18:36, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+23)‎"

--Ivo (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, stop twisting and manipulating that discussion! What Australian Rupert said was "G'day, frankly I also have concerns about dynamic IPs following your edits, such as here: PFC CSKA - Sofia and PFC CSKA-Sofia. YOUR EDITS, BG89! Immediately after that you tried your best to prove that I was the one behind your IP addresses, simply because you got afraid of what Rupert said. From what posted it turns out that I am some sort of mad man, because I've been reverting the vandalisms that these IP's made, accusing that it was me I would've been reverting my own IP addresses. You are truly a great manipulator, BG89, making things to look as I am the bad one to prove me guilty at all costs of the things you have done. I am sick of such behavior BG89, you can bet that in bgwiki you would have been blocked indefinitely by now. I showed you my IP, which was an Mtel IP. Dodging this one won't help you. I really hope that administrators close this case soon, because I cannot take any more of BG89's impudently behavior.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 23:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:117.213.18.84 and User:109.78.9.237 reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: See below

Diffs of User:117.213.18.84 and User:109.78.9.237 back and forth reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (IP-hoppers so warned at last known used IPs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to be and ongoing war between two IP-hoppers: A well known (involved in 4 ANI's) 117.213.18.84 IP-hopper from Kerala, India and a 109.78.9.237 "Irish IP-hopper". A previous revert war between these two editors was stopped by an admin protecting the page by blocking IP editors/Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access, but they went back at it a few hours after the protection expired. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Comment:
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Physicist, already said and still...WP:ICANTHEARYOU. 117.213.18.84 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Negligence (possible)

 * User_talk:De728631
 * User_talk:Jauerback
 * User_talk:Clpo13

Reverting and disruptions
Kindly revert edits by 109.78.9.237, otherwise it would be unproductive to engage in discussions (Talk:Physicist) and rewarding in vandalism and disruptions.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748890512&oldid=748888399 (circle link)
 * http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/bsphysgov.cfm (falsified citation)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748895234&oldid=748892576 (Adding content from previously revisioned material, which is already added)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748898542&oldid=748895234 (changing lead as earlier to prove and ascertain to their own convictions that doesn't relate to sources-probable confusion between specialization and specialist)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748904617&oldid=748904282 (original research)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748902331&oldid=748898542 (empty link)

User:Florinbaiduc reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

A new editor, possibly another sock (but I don't think so), returns to an old, old battleground. Read the extensive talk: archives for all the past re-runs of this.


 * Removing "ducted fan" from the lead.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Replacing it with "motorjet"


 * 
 * 
 * and another, since this was posted


 * 

Coanda's 1910 aircraft is an obscure and misunderstood aircraft. It made no impact at the time and was ignored and forgotten. In 1956 Coanda, by now well-known for later work, made claims about this aircraft as it being the first aircraft with a jet engine, specifically a motorjet (he never claimed it was a gas turbine or turbojet). If these claims were true, this would be an important aircraft with a different article.

These claims have been thoroughly debunked, starting with Charles Gibbs-Smith, whose 1960 letter to Flight describes it thus, "The whole claim is naughty nonsense". Yet there is still a justified nationalistic pride in Coanda, and an unjustified one in this "jet aircraft" claim.

appears in this article. I assume from their name, and past edits, that they are of Romanian ancestry. They first seem to take issue with "ducted fan" as a term, claiming that the centrifugal compressor generally believed to have been used is different from this, rather than a subset of (as is already thoroughly sourced). Now they are swapping it for "motorjet", which is Coanda's debunked 1956 claim.

We have been there before with this article. I do not wish to go back there. Especially not when Florin's responses are mostly abuse of other editors and their educational level   Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation by User:John. See also Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda from 2011, though the Committee didn't authorize discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Florinbaiduc is blocked for 24 hours but if he starts back up with edit warring the length of block will increase according to blocking policy. This guy appears to be not here to help the encyclopedia but instead for the purpose of advancing a (debunked) position of national pride. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User has been blocked twice already for making the same edits without consensus. As soon as his block expires he comes back and just starts making them again. -  Galatz Talk  17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.192.228 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored unexplained deletion of content. Added additional references in the NY Times stating that protestors have been protesting "NO KKK, NO FASCISM". Everything I added is impeccably sourced, neutral, and relevant. There are riots in the streets"
 * 2)  "The text I added doesn't say "swift retaliation". All it says is "leading some to fear that Trump would retaliate  against protesters, post-transition". Removed the KKK material."
 * 3)  "added info, more refs. others may assist in the adding of refs on this notable info"
 * 4)  "More refs added. Please collaborate, rather than destroy. This is neutral, well sourced, reliable notable info relevant to the topic. It is a crime against encylopedias to not mention the protests here. Are you people living under a rock?"
 * 5)  "Please do not delete well-sourced content without a legitimate explanation. This is not vandalism, and is highly neutral. Tweak for extra neutrality."
 * 6)  "Correcting a spelling error is unconstructive? "formally" does not mean "formerly". Undid revision 749026193 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
 * 7)  "more neutrality. do not delete well sourced content without explanation"
 * 8)  "addressed the issues. more neutrality. let's work together as a team."
 * 9)  "fixed the issues you pointed out. let's collaborate, rather than destroy each other's work. key info is in here, friend."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Presidential transition of Donald Trump. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has been warned multiple times both by an admin and others to stop, but continues to add a paragraph without discussing it. Fei noh a  Talk 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You continue to remove content that is impeccably sourced without providing a reason to justify why. Several of the earlier "reasons" given did not reflect the text which was actually added, and I made changes in response to criticisms whenever they were actually given. "Please discuss on the talk page" when there are 0 discussions on that talk page does not help me understand what you think is problematic about the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.192.228 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is merely a case of "I don't like it." These editors have no grounds to remove the material other than the fact that it appears to challenge their world views. This is a notable aspect of the scope of the target article, impeccably sourced, and I daresay, is some of the most neutrally crafted prose I have ever seen.

Feast your eyes:

"Trump's transition to power despite his loss of the popular vote by a "substantial margin" to Hillary Clinton has "sparked" massive protests nationwide, which have drawn significant international attention.   The demonstrations against Trump's presidency have taken place in Portland, Boston, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, Dallas, Omaha, Kansas City, Nashville, Philadelphia, Denver, Atlanta, Storrs, Richmond, and many other metropolises nationwide, as well as several international cities, such as London, Manila, and Morroco.    Some of the protests have turned violent, and have been classified as a "riot" or have shut down interstate highways.    Many of the protestors claim that the will of the people has been ignored, and that "Trump is not my president."     . Some  protestors have cited the numerous allegations against Trump of sexual assault, and his lewd remarks about women as the reason for their protest, calling Trump a "sexual predator." Others protestors have alleged that Trump's post-transition promises to create deportation forces, ban Muslim travel, and mandate religious identification cards amount to "bigotry" or even "fascism." Protests are planned to continue at least through Trump's inauguration, when a massive protest is planned in Washington, D.C. Trump reacted to the nationwide protests by opining that the protesters are "professional protestors, incited by the media" and complained the mass protests against him are "Very unfair!", stoking fears that Trump would retaliate  against protesters, post-transition. "

What exactly is problematic here? These editors have no answer other than "I don't like it!"


 * It's now undone the revert of Materialscientist. LavaBaron (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected. The proposed material, even if well-sourced, doesn't belong in the article unless it is supported by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, what a crock of shit. I didn't realize Wikipedia was run by Totalitarian overlords. Literally, no reason was given to me why the material should be removed other than "We don't like it! It's very challenging to our world views! Make the painful thing go away!" Marvelous decision, kangaroo court judge. 63.143.192.228 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: There is no one at the talk page, so how is this "consensus" supposed to emerge? One would have though that an abundance of reliable sources on a notable topic were sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.192.228 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:73.114.33.135 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* LGBT rights policy */"
 * 2)  "/* LGBT rights policy */"
 * 3)  "/* LGBT rights policy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mike Pence. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive editing, POV, controversial; has violated the discretionary sanctions for the page (limited to one revert). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. 1RR violation and tendentious editing ("Policy on Deviant Sexual Preferences" referring to LGBT topics). EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Shqipbot reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Hi"
 * 2)  "Hi"
 * 3)  "Jo"
 * 4)  "Haha"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Deniz Aytekin. (using Twinkle)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked as a vandalism-only account for edits like this and for the username.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:CanadaRed (Result: Duplicate)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

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

Comments:

Instead of trying to constructively discuss and make appropriate revisions to the page, this user made a wholesale reversion. He or she is unwilling to compromise, unwilling to discuss the issue, and went straight to making attacks: claiming that my account is a single purpose account and that I'm attempting to post promotional material. All of this is patently incorrect. The material that the user deleted was contributed by many different users (not just me) over a long period of time. Another user on the talk page disagreed with the user's deletions. No other user agreed with the deletions. Instead of discussing the changes that were made, or making individual edits to fix whatever he believed the problem is, the user jumped straight to reverting the page. These deletions were not made in good faith as no attempt was made to discuss the sections or what he disagreed with. He went straight to reverting material and making accusations. He made 4 reverts. Instead of trying to resolve the problem, or putting the disagreement to dispute resolution in good faith, he went straight to reporting it here. For the record, I am willing to compromise, and work with the user in order to make page meet the wikipedia standards. I believe much of the information can and should stay. The page is by no means perfect, but with the appropriate modifications in can be greatly improved. The appropriate action would be to make compromises and try to resolve the issue in a mutually agreeable way as opposed to wholesale deletions, reverts, and attacks on other users. CanadaRed (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, note that I am not familiar with the process of reporting, so if I've made any mistake please feel free to make corrections. I have myself been reported by this user (see above).CanadaRed (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Close as duplicate of above. Any novel issue raised in this listing would be better handled in one place. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok how can I close it. But I would like to post my above comment at least. CanadaRed (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, just leave it. An admin will probably tag it as merged, or move the comment. My point is that no action is needed on this one. Your comment should still stay visible and be read. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. CanadaRed (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Closing as a duplicate report of the same dispute as above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:CanadaRed reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)
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: diff

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

Comments:

Related article on the school's building went through an AfD back in July, during which this article was cleaned up as well; it had been a prime example of WP:BOOSTER. Was reviewed by several people at that time. CanadaRed is an inexperienced editor and per their contribs they are a SPA for Vancouver where this school is located. They have incorrectly characterized why content was removed and have simply restored en masse and are edit warring to keep it that way, and on Talk are demanding that I re-justify the cleanup. The justifications are in the edit notes, and as I wrote there, I would be happy to discuss any individual edit. Sorry to bring this here, but this is a case of unreasoning advocacy by an inexperienced SPA user. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I may not be as experienced as you, but I have made my share of contributions to the Peter Allard Law page. Also, I'm willing to make compromises and try to resolve the issue. User Jytdog is unwilling to cooperate and constantly makes wholesale and unjustified deletions of content. The only other person to make comments on the talk page disagreed with him. I would like a third party or moderator to weigh in on the issue. I am willing to make compromises and fix things that need to be fixed, but disagree with wholesale deletions or reversions of sections. I would report user Jytdog if I knew how. Any help in resolving this matter would be greatly appreciated.CanadaRed (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit history is 100% advocacy. Your behavior at this article is that of an advocate, not a Wikipedian.  None of that is OK.  The appropriate outcome here is a block for you, so that you will stop abusing WP to promote things in Vancouver and start actually discussing things instead of forcing your advocacy into WP.   Your calling my edits "wholesale removal" misrepresents the history visible in the article - i went through things line by line, ref by ref.  Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My account is not a single purpose account. I've mostly made edits to Canadian topics because it is what I'm familiar with. Please refrain from making attacks on my account. What should be discussed is the value of the sections that you deleted, and whether they are appropriate or not. CanadaRed (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Block both. I'm reluctant to call for this in CanadaRed's case as they do seem to have been making an effort to improve the article. However this is a bunch of edit warring and we do have a bright line against such.
 * In Jytdog's case though, this is an experienced editor who knows absolutely better than this (and oh, does he like to hold that "experience" over any other editors). The WP:IDHT behaviour when CanadaRed started some discussion on the talk: page is classic Jytdog behaviour: an editor far more interested in pushing their own viewpoint right over anyone else and completely ignoring any attempt to work to actually improve something. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * and the peanut gallery arrives. Andy calling edit warring restoration of promotional content an "improvement" is par for the course in their history of chiming in with misrepresentations like this . I have warned them that the next time they do it will seek and likely get a 1-way interaction ban. If you look at the restored edits that are badly sourced/unsourced and promotional.  Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog clearly disagrees that 4RR applies to him too. He is wrong in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This: User talk:CanadaRed is also concerning, but unsurprising. An interest in one particular field is not the same thing as a bias. It is disappointingly unsurprisingly to see Jytdog, yet again using every tactic available to attack an editor with whom they have the slightest disagreement (ANI passim). Will you be using SPI next? That's one of your favourites. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly behavior like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=749205903, is grounds it self for a long ban. This has crossed into harassment, Jytdog's "warning" is nothing more than the harassment of a critic. This kind of behavior isn't welcome here. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:C463:1B4B:69A6:1354 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why, hello again Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123. Short time, no see. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * God this place is ugly sometimes. We start with edit warring in of promotional content by a  SPA advocate, then the stalker peanut gallery arrives, and now a peanut gallery of the peanut gallery.  Done here. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * again, what happened here is that the article got worked over 4 months ago and settled then. CanadianRed shows up now, and undoes all that work and demands to start over as though all that work never happened, and then edit wars to retain the undoing.  This is not OK behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, what others agreed to do months ago was merge the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law article with Peter A. Allard School of Law (based on the law school's name change). The deletion of sections seems to have been unilaterally done by Jytdog, and it seems that another user, Doncram, disagreed with the deletion.(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_A._Allard_School_of_Law&diff=725295916&oldid=725269742). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)  The above is mine. Forgot to sign. CanadaRed (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * What I'm seeing with CanadaRed is part of the reason why it's a catch-22 to try to deal with editors intent on edit warring in content. Either you try to work with them (especially as a new editor) and they keep trying to push the content in while hoping your reverting finally gets them to stop and go to the talk page. Escalate it here and you're apt to deal with more drama. That seems to be especially the case for editors like Jytdog who end up working with a lot of troublesome editors (and gaining a bunch of editors following them around causing more drama). It seems pretty silly to still be seeing the drama following Jytdog that's become more of a hounding issue, but this board isn't really suited for dealing with that.


 * That being said, Jytdog also should know better to not go to 4RR (better to rely on other editors not involved to see a notice like this and clean up in obvious cases like this). I'm pretty confounded as to what they were thinking with their fourth revert as I could somewhat tolerate someone going up to 3RR in the face of CanadaRed's behavior. CanadaRed however seems to be the main problem here basically ignoring that they needed to stop reverting and gain WP:CONSENSUS after they were reverted. Protecting the page at the last clean version and forcing CanadaRed to gain consensus for their edits seems to be the obvious course of action for breaking the logjam. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to agree to a form of dispute resolution, whether it's through having other editors weigh in and come to a consensus, or some other method. As mentioned earlier, I'm not the only user that disagreed with Jytdog's deletions of whole sections of the page. I have tried to take out language that might have come across as promotional in order to compromise with Jytdog. Again, I am willing to work with him to fix the page. There needs to be an element of compromise and good faith edits here. Furthermore, attacks such as: "you're inexperienced so you're automatically wrong" are hardly fair. I've made contributions here for a number of years, and although I may not be as much of a regular or daily editor as some other users, I've always tried to do my part to make wikipedia better in good faith. I'm just asking for third party, unbiased users to to weigh in with their opinions. CanadaRed (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, just reverted all the changes that I had made to the article. Including the changing of the wording that I made to make it less promotional and the adding of sources etc. Not sure if he is working in conjunction with Jytdog, or in support of him. If he is a disinterested third party, then why not weigh in on the articles talk page as opposed to jumping to a wholesale revert as Jytdog had done. This is quite unfair. CanadaRed (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, CanadaRed. Your best bet now is to discuss any changes you want to make. I know its frustrating to add a lot of content and then have it reverted but this is the best option open when a bold edit was made as this was. Just take your time as you add and allow for discussion. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC))
 * – 5 days. Please use the talk page to agree on where to go from here. The stuff Jytdog was removing does look promotional by our usual definition. But Jytdog need not assume the sole burden of removing promotional content, and when he breaks 3RR that is sooner or later going to be enforced. User:CanadaRed is risking a block for disruptive editing if he continues to restore material that has been removed after lengthy talk page discussion. Since this article has caused so much trouble in the past people need to step carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ayonpradhan reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

started on 7 November by adding a bit of trivia here (editing as an IP) and was reverted since it is unsourced and adds a choppy section to a Featured article. They have gone on to re-add this section seven times over the last few days, even after being asked to discuss it on Talk, reverting three different editors. Now a fourth editor has removed the section. This editor clearly has no intention of discussing the edit. Laser brain  (talk)  13:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Protection, Both warned)

 * Page in dispute:
 * User being reported:

Original title was: User Ditinili 3RR gaming, edit warring, provocation - János Bihari article

I am not the supporter of generating an incident, but this by far! User Ditinili almost three months is continously encountering, provocating uninvited by chasing in a schizoid way also personal contributions all the time and in articles, talk pages, edtis regarding Hungary/Hungarian related matters. After a long observation, it is clear he has not a primary aim for nice collaboration, he generated more edit wars and conflicts also with other users and he continously does it in a very foxy and permanent way, despite of his aim to hinder his goals, everything is apparent time-by-time by his activity. Mainly people would consider he has a problematic comprehension - anyway it has been demonstrated surely more times - but with a totally illogic behavior and pushing he also wilfully does not want to understand some things and by performing more provocations and reverts, pretending the situation else as it is.

In the correspondent article, he made three reverts, ,   - the third outside the 24 hours, pre-planned as a gaming, thus it may fulfill the violation of 3RR - regarding he did not initiated a discussion on the talk page before the second revert i.e., so the bad aims are totally clear, moreover in the edit logs he is proving the continous activity that is mentioned above, about professional deterioration and confusion.

I warned him, also wrote to the talk page now, roughly:

- My edit was a correction of a mistake, since the county of birth was mixed with a city (Pozsony County was the comitatus of the Kingom of Hungary <-> "now Bratislava" = a present-day city)

- He tried to mix this with another issue, where he requested help for interpretation of something that is anyway should be clear with a drop of good faith (naming conventions for placenames regarding a consensus - treatment of non-existent administrative units), this is not ready yet, anyway it does not matter here

- Despite the explanations and the indications and more disussions earlier, he is performing reverts and provocation although he knows very well what is the situation and using for reverts the same pretext that is invalid here. This has to end once, an action should be taken, if no convincement has an effect of peaceful collaboration.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC))


 * In my opinion, Kiengir should stop calling other users "provocateurs", "schizoid", "totally illogic", "anti-Hungarian", "foxy", to make assumptions about "their aims", etc, whenever they do not agree with him (diffs on demand).
 * There is a consensus about the naming convention for places in Slovakia to prevent and avoid these conflicts. In my opinion, it was repeatedly violated. Thus, I asked another (neutral, non-involved) editor who worked hard to reach this consensus for some kind of mediation (diff). I avoided any changes in other articles until the situation is clear. Unfortunately, this is not respected by the second involved editor. Kinegir, could you please wait for a mediation/conflict resolution, avoid similar changes and try to be civil?  (No, I don't think I am "gaming the system". I would like to wait for a mediation without making any comments about other editors. Also, I will not argue why I am not "confusing" anything, it is a content dispute.) Thank you very much.
 * "he did not initiated a discussion on the talk page" As Kiengir knows (because he participates on this discussion), it is already discussed on another talk page. I will not copy the discussion. Ditinili (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please, Ditinili, stop manipulate sources and misinterpret Wiki rules. For instance, this is clearly intentional troll edit on your part: "the county of Pressburg (now Bratislava, Hungarian Pozsony)". Do not confuse the current city and the former administrative unit (county) which does not exist anymore. For your misfortune, I am able to understand and read Slovak text. So, you can assured, I know that you are permanently manipulating and falsifying the factual data of Rudolf Krajčovič and others' works. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Norden1990. Three weeks ago (23 October 2016, here), I opened a discussion about the problem and requested your feedback. Unfortunately, you have not been able to answer until now.
 * I have carefully reviewed my contributions referring to Rudolf Krajčovič's works (Zázrivá, Veľký Krtíš). I don't think that something is manipulated. The first publication is available also online, p. 92-93 and can be checked by any neutral Slovak or Czech native speaker (CZ: křen, PL: chrzan, SK: chren, dialect hriň like UA: chrin /хрін/).
 * Ditinili (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Add: "to my alleged troll edit". Here is the proof that the text is 10 years old (archive) . it was not written or changed by me, but it was changed only now by Kiengir [diff], who was already engaged in the discussion about the naming. --Ditinili (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Administrators and participants, now you see Ditinili is performing again the perfect diversion and deterioration, as mentioned above.


 * - first he again tries to identify himself as a victim, he just simply cannot bear that after an assesment of long term and repeated activity things become clear.


 * - secondly he performs again the same diversion referring on something THAT HAS NO PRIMARY CONNECTION OF THE CURRENT ISSUE AND EDIT WAR HE INITIATED, BUT HIS ONLY CHANCE TO EVADE IS TO FALSIFY THE CAUSE! The consensus and the mediation he asked DO NO AFFECT the edit he reverts continously, in case it would be a further step how to deal with non-existing administrative units that does not have a modern existence and modern names, anyway it is clear that it is for the placenames in Slovakia, that is not the case of non-exsitent or ceased administrative units that existed only in Hungary.


 * - "In my opinion, it was repeatedly violated." -> It was not violated, anyway I draw your attention to this consensus when you had problem with Hungarian names


 * - "I avoided any changes in other articles until the situation is clear." -> Well, this became a state after an other edit warring an incident you generated.


 * - "Unfortunately, this is not respected by the second involved editor. Kinegir, could you please wait for a mediation/conflict resolution, avoid similar changes and try to be civil?  (No, I don't think I am "gaming the system"." -> LAUGHABLE, since you mix the two cases that are totally not equivalent, nothing against cvility if you permanent behavior is described, this case does not belong to your mediation issue, and you are gaming since after the second revert you waited to be out of the 24 hours in order to prevent gathering the three in 24 hours.


 * - "I will not argue why I am not "confusing" anything, it is a content dispute" -> Diversion attempt, it is not a context dispute, but a CLEAR CORRECTION OF THE MISTAKE as a present-day CITY you cannot confuse with a non-existent COUNTY!


 * - "As Kiengir knows (because he participates on this discussion), it is already discussed on another talk page." -> Next diversion attempt, since what you are referring is the discussion of the other case that does not belong here!


 * Unfortunately Ditinili again choose to regard as a fool - as usual - not just the editors, but the others who are arbitrating in this noticeboard...You really think they will not notice and check how a blatant way you try to coin them? You are drinking wine, meanwhile talking about water!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC))
 * No comment. I strongly recommend to calm down and wait for a mediation. Ditinili (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am calm :) You again try to fool everybody about "waiting mediation", although it has no connection to the topic - of course, what to comment since you are doomed -, but I understand, this is your only chance since you are also aware you went by far.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Kiengir, if somebody does not agree with you, it does not mean that he "provokes", "makes diversion attempts", etc. Our opinions are different, so wait for a mediation. Thank you very much. Ditinili (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Funny diversion attempt again, it is not about any agreement that a city is not a former county :) No mediation is attached this case (you think if you repeat n times, you achieve something?). Disgusting shame what a coinage you are persisting here!(KIENGIR (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC))
 * Please, calm down and take a break. Ditinili (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop repeating, I am calm, stop deteriorating the discussion on the subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC))


 * Result: The article is fully protected for one week on a version of 16 July which is prior to the current edit war. Both User:KIENGIR and User:Ditinili are warned for edit warring. User:KIENGIR is warned for personal attacks (see the evidence in his comments above). This is starting to look like a pure nationalist dispute (wanting to use the Slovak name of a place versus the Hungarian name) so I am alerting both editors to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I disagree with a conclusion that it is "wanting to use the Slovak name of a place versus the Hungarian name" (+ "Pressburg" is not the Slovak name). In contrast with the second editor, I have preserved both names and I have referenced to a policy according to which both names should be used and preserved (as it is clear from diffs). Ditinili (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear EdJohnston,


 * I did not intiate any edit war, I opened this thread because of the to user who initiated it and I did not made any personal attack, as explained above, commenting on a long-term apparent behavior is not a personal attack. It is not a content dispute and by restoring the page to it's earlier content again a to a clearly false version it is not the best solution. Ditinili, it is shameful you again tried to distract the administrator, since you cannot claim on preservation "both names" since you cannot confuse a city with a county with name that is improper and non-existent (now Bratislava). The policiy refer of has no connection to this case. You simply perform the same deterioration as usual.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC))
 * KIENGIR, you made the original change on November 11 (replacing the Slovak name with the Hungarian name, Pozsony County) and you later reverted twice to keep your version in place. This counts as edit warring. You are totally confident you are correct and you can't for a moment stop accusing the other party of bad behavior. This is not a good formula for success on Wikipedia. Either or both of you can be banned from this page under the discretionary sanctions if you show you can't edit neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, please as an Administrator do not compromitate yourself, check the diff properly! Pozsony County is an English refernce name. The Hungarian name would be "Pozsony vármegye". ("now Bratislava") == a PRESENT-DAY CITY = Bratislava. Edit warring depends on the frame, since I corrected a mistake, the other user who reverted without discussion and false ground are the initiator of edit warring. I am correct and it can be verified by anyone in the world who a little bit careful, it is anyway one of the most easy thing to verify. The 3 months continous provocative actions of the other user should be condemned, check his background and activity in the past 3 months, on daily basis he is initiating incident and provocations on Hungarian issues - read back carefully if it's needed - and he is disrupting the work, WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:I just don't like it could be also investigated regarding him. Of course it is not a good formula but this is his current behavior over a long time, you think I enjoy this daily provocation of his? I am aware of the rules, he is gaming with them for further provocations, just check on his latest activites! You should revise yourself and understanf the root of the problem, it is crystal-clear, I cannot believe you don't understand the a present-day city name that was never the name of a historic county over hundred years ago is false, and this case has no connection Hungarian vs. Slovak name issue, simply a blatant mistake was corrected!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

User:179.7.208.1 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Visualpleasure reported by User:Seahorseruler (Result: protected, warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1

Comments:

This was a clear violation of the 3RR. It was also a clear violation of the BLP policy, since most of the reverts added unsourced claims about the subject being anti-semitic or white nationalist. This user appears to have been here long enough to know this behavior is inappropriate. Seahorseruler (Talk Page) (Contribs) 05:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)


 * by someone else; sent WP:ACDS warnings to user. -- slakr  \ talk / 09:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Abutsagem reported by User:Arthistorian1977 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Abubakar Abdulkarim Tsagem. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User consistently recreates the article about himself. It was deleted at least 4 times and he just simply ignores all the warnings Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming he read my warning as he thanked me for it. Peridon (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which make it worse. The violation is not because of not knowing the rules. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has now been deleted three times per A7. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Abutsagem where the socking was confirmed. Most likely this should close with block of either one week or indef unless someone at SPI takes action first. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Repeated recreation and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:NPalgan2 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Voluntary restriction)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ 1) I did move it - see the edit history. please apologise 2) splc does not cite the exwife's claims as i said in the edit summary so "these allegations" is false. 3) see phrasing in trump section above"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */ huffpo not RS and removing "numerous media outlets"; the linked washpo article does not say Bannon RS in washpo's voice, reports on CAIR and SPLC accusing and says alt-right linked to WN. If numerous RSs"
 * 3)  "/* Personal life */ splc does not cite ex wife's claims in either of two sources give so this should not be in personal life, moving to trump section"
 * 4)  "full name removed until secondary RS covers, link removed violated WP:DOB and WP:PRIMARY"
 * 5)  "/* Trump campaign and Trump administration */ not RS"
 * 6)  "this is already in the article body. an accusation denied by the subject should not be in the lede of a blp (especially considering it's the exwife's word against his) unless you get consensus first"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 749411318 by Visualpleasure (talk) revert vandalism"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 749410584 by Tataral (talk) daily kos, daily mail, etc not RSs, not suitable for BLPs. contentious claims denied by subject also need to note denial. i wrote mention following BLP abov"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 749410584 by Tataral (talk) daily kos, daily mail, etc not RSs, not suitable for BLPs. contentious claims denied by subject also need to note denial. i wrote mention following BLP abov"


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


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

These are all good edits. Please explain more fully. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Previous report on 3RRN:
 * Subsequent reverts have followed (e.g. ). The editor seems determined to ignore this particular rule.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This complaint is so sloppy that one of the alleged offending edits was me reverting the vandalism of Visualpleasure who was warned by an admin just above this complaint. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But this is in an area covered by the American politics discretionary sanctions, and I did alert you about them. Doug Weller  talk 17:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. But this sentence "These accusations and Bannon's association with the alt-right movement have led to allegations of white nationalism from the Southern Policy Law Center." was a clear BLP violation as worded as it suggested the SPLC, a well known organisation, was vouching for the exwife's claims. Reverting this was clearly BLP 3RR exempt. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a contentious edit in any way, the editor who had been insisting on inserting primary sources had been warned on the talk page and was being reverted by at least two other editors. NPalgan2 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverts continue: . Can we please put a stop to this?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think the situation is now clear. User:EdJohnston suggested on Npalgan2's talk page that he (NPalgan) could avoid a block by undertaking to avoid the article on Bannon, or to make no edits without a prior consensus.  Npalgan responded by saying he/she would make no "contentious" edits without consensus .  We now learn that "contentious" is to mean whatever NPalgan says it means.  In a reality-based endeavour, if editors are disputing whether material belongs in an article (say, by adding or removing it), it's pretty obviously contentious.  What's also obvious, then, is that NPalgan's disruption is set to continue... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals, i.e. to achieve our five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." Multiple editors (additional ones on talk page) were pointing out that primaries and nonRSs were not acceptable to Avaya1, who was blatantly ignoring it when policy was brought to his attention. I substituted an nytimes quote from pollak for his primary quote as a peacemaking compromise. That is anti-disruptive. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You did yet another revert, on the basis that it was a "good edit". This shows no understanding of the 3RR rule -- and at this point it amounts to a wilful mis understanding.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Voluntary restriction. To avoid a block for edit warring at Stephen Bannon, User:NPalgan2 has agreed to take a two-week break from modifying all Bannon-related content. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:seaniz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the section called "The true conclusions of the Cochrane metastudy"

Comments:


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

seaniz (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User:106.68.149.57 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 749770666 by Winkelvi (talk) –the onus is on the editor re–adding the unsourced content to find a source and argue for its inclusion, not on the remover."
 * 2)  "Again, no one is disputing that German Jews immigrated to the U.S., and Wikipedia *already covers this*. But you need a source to say they considered German-Americans, because they generally aren't."
 * 3)  "Godwin's law in action I see, please assume good faith. This material was added in error, as articles on hyphenated Americans (e.g. French Americans, Dutch Americans) deal with ethnic groups, not nationality."
 * 4)  "/* Jews */ remove as duplicate material, this article deals specifically with ethnic Germans"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has been edit warring in the same manner at Russian Americans today, as well. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think my edit summaries speak for themselves. Administrators reviewing this should take into account that (a) this material was unsourced and (b) that the other "edit-warrer" (who Winkelvi declines to mention) is User:Toddst1, who accused me of being a Nazi and then simply refused to engage in further discussion. Toddst1 then proceeded to go through my edit history and randomly revert my edits to other articles . 106.68.149.57 (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the IP has the editorial high ground in this case as in the case of Russian-Americans. Dr.   K.  03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, as did another editor who reverted the IP's edit. It is long-standing content and WP:CON by that token. If you wish to tag it for a citation, you're welcome to do so. Migration from the Russian Empire in particular was confused with Russian ethnicity. I'll find some RS for this if it has suddenly become such a bone of contention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not going to open a duplicate discussion at an unsuitable forum such as this, after I have already opened an earlier multi-paragraph discussion at the article talk. As far as bone, I agree. The paragraph I removed was indeed for the dogs, as I have explained at the article talk. Dr.   K.  05:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Nyttend. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Agaal reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749804488&oldid=749799498&title=Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749808144&oldid=749806194&title=Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749810248&oldid=749810107&title=Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749826340&oldid=749825118&title=Qing_conquest_of_the_Ming

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=749825117&oldid=749810070&title=User_talk:Agaal

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User responds with one unchanging line in the edit summary for all of their reverts without addressing any of the other editors' concerns about their odd use of grammar and vocabulary. Ignores messages and warnings on their user pages too. _dk (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . WP:CIR issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Seaniz reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff, after reversion by Doc James here
 * 3) diff, after reversion by me
 * 4) diff, after reversion by me
 * 5) dif


 * Diff of DS/alert for PSCI (anti-vax) diff
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

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

Comments:

Here we go again...It appears that Seaniz is trying to insert material and sourcing that is not permitted by MEDRS. Regardless, there does appear to be edit warring by both parties. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Another experienced editor has now removed the material and Seaniz immediately restored it. Seaniz is demonstrating anti-vax, incompetent editing and is edit warring to keep it in.  What they are writing on the Talk page makes no sense.   Doc James, I, and now Nomoskedasticity are trying to keep their bad edits out. They have gone way past 3RR.  No one else has.  Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:CambridgeBayWeather I don't complain about EWN outcomes as I am grateful admins pay attention, but this is the wrong outcome. Seaniz is writing crazy things on the talk page and edit warring bad content - they have zero support for their edits from 5 established editors now.   The only edit warrior here is Seaniz.  Please reconsider, and unprotect the article and block them.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. While the page protection has temporarily solved the problem, the problem is one editor who hasn't listened to several people explain why the material he is trying to add to the article is being removed, and having a tantrum on the talk page. Natureium (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mclovin'tosh reported by User:Signedzzz (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: [diff]

Comments:

No discussion on talk: the user is POV-pushing in the lead, that the drug users killed were "drug traffickers" (unsourced), and that the dead street children were "delinquents" - unsourced - linked to juvenile delinquency. How do you argue with that? Except to point out it is unsourced, as I repeatedly did. The edits also added that the murder rate of Davao was fourth highest, when the sources clearly and specifically state that it was highest. Again, I don't know how you "discuss" that with someone who claims it is sourced. It is not complicated. The last edit actually adds a source, which again does not support the edit. zzz (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The first revert you made has no edit summary at all, at least I've left some summaries. I stand corrected in the lead. I'll find a better source some time to prove that not only users were killed, but also pushers (that's why I use traffickers) and the street children were not merely "street children" but were juvenile delinquents. Again, I stand corrected. Anyway my last edit has a source saying it is "fourth". Just read it to believe it. I don't want to push through any further. I apologize for any violations though. Mclovin'tosh (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC+8/PST)
 * Leaving aside your POV-pushing and deceptive edit summaries, the source you finally added says fourth highest "index crimes". You may have noticed that "index crimes" data is dealt with separately, a few lines below. You have (4 times) changed the sentence in the article from "Reuters reported in May 2016 that according to national police Davao has the highest murder rate" to "Reuters reported in May 2016 that according to national police Davao has the fourth highest murder rate", which is obviously wrong, as you must be aware. zzz (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No one cares if murdered street children may or may not have been "delinquent". I strongly recommend an indefinite topic ban in addition to whatever length of block is necessary. zzz (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

According to user's ES in first diff: "Davao was ranked 4th after Quezon City, Manila and Cebu according to the PhilStar source."

First sentence of PhilStar source: "Davao City posted the highest murder rate from 2010 to 2015, data from the Philippine National Police (PNP) showed." zzz (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Mclovin'tosh is warned for edit warring at Rodrigo Duterte. The next revert that does not have prior consensus on the talk page may lead to a block. Contentious edits about how to describe the street killings ought to be discussed on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:88.186.11.61 reported by User:Aracali (Result: Semi)
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: of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I added the reason for the revert in the comments of my edit: ''The capital was whatever place the King was at a given time. There were no other common institutions of the Crown.''
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. One IP seems to be warring, but others could be making good-faith drive-by edits, fixing what they perceive to be a mistake. The issue of Zaragoza is confusing and you could make a post on the talk page summarizing some of the prior discussions on the location of the capital. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:H9ytfz7qp94i reported by User:Matthew hk (Result: Indef)
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: [diff] (not applicable)

Comments:

Advertisement only account. Keep on removing in-line citation (and the name of the competitor) that prove BYD Auto had suppressed competitors GM and Nisson in the leads and Telsa in the content, and than add a lesser known competitor Luxgen in the content in order to advertise Luxgen (or not advertise GM Nisson Telsa). After the 3RR warning, still keep on removing content, just little bid improvement by not adding Luxgen in it. Matthew_hk  t  c  17:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked indef for abusing multiple accounts by User:Favonian. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Kas42 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 750155848 by Sundayclose (talk) Revert is peculiar to say the least. Changes were adequately explained in the summaries."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 750154612 by Sundayclose (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Relationships */ Add crucial information, format URL refs"
 * 4)  "Citing book information, adding already-cited book to Bibliography"
 * 5)  "Introduction mentions the Dollars trilogy. Mentioning "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" there is redundant."
 * 6)  "Eastwood has never been a politician and "political figure" is not an occupation"
 * 7)  "Remove past and present political parties from infobox. That template is not there for actors who are not politically active"
 * 8)  "/* Early life */ insert word"
 * 9)  "Add paragraph to introduction"
 * 10)  "Changes in introduction: "political figure" is not an applicable occupation; Dollars Trilogy is mentioned in the lead so also mentioning The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is redundant"
 * 11)  "remove redundant film title from lead (Dollars Trilogy already mentioned) and "political figure" which isn't an occupation"
 * 1)  "Changes in introduction: "political figure" is not an applicable occupation; Dollars Trilogy is mentioned in the lead so also mentioning The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is redundant"
 * 2)  "remove redundant film title from lead (Dollars Trilogy already mentioned) and "political figure" which isn't an occupation"


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


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

Additional reverts:  
 * Comments:

Second warning: Sundayclose (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User apparently does not understand concept of edit-warring. Dr.  K.  03:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Agree that this user doesn't seem to understand the concept of edit warring. Hopefully this gets it across. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Xinheart reported by User:Jason from nyc (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

I've reverted his/her work per WP:BRD. I hoped the comments in the edit summary would be obvious. I asked for a discussion in the edit summaries and on his talk page here and. When I realized that I was reverting too often and my pleas for a discussion were being ignored, I decided to come here. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I might add [s]he is putting the exact same copy in another BLP, of Tashbih Sayyed who is also not mentioned in the reference given. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: 24 hours for edit warring at Wafa Sultan and Pamela Geller. A paragraph he is trying to add to both articles is cited to a Politico article that does not mention either Sultan or Geller, so it doesn't confirm the information. He added the same thing at Tashbih Sayyed, and guess what – the source doesn't mention Sayyed either. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff — 14 November 2016 (17:43) →  this problematic insertion
 * 2) diff — 8 November 2016 →  this  plea for an explanation
 * 3) diff — 7 November 2016 →  this  asked for an explanation)
 * 4) diff — 22 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's revert of this edit ) →
 * 5) diff — 12 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's revert of this edit ) →
 * 6) diff — 10 October 2016  ( Xenophrenic's revert of this edit ) →
 * 7) diff — 9 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's revert of this edit ) →  this  pinged an Admin
 * 8) diff — 7 October 2016 →
 * 9) diff — 5 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's partial revert of these three edits ) →
 * 10) diff — 5 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's partial revert of this edit ) →
 * 11) diff — 4 October 2016 ( Xenophrenic's partial revert of  these three edits ) →
 * 12) diff — 3 October 2016 ( controversial, massive changes to the article ) →

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A previous lengthy discussions,, , , , -- Recent addition

Comments:

This is a long term issue. This user is repeatedly making POV edits, not getting the message that they need to get consensus. 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." His reversions have been reverted by multiple editors. – diff, diff, diff. As far as I can see no consensus has been reached.

Xenophrenic has been edit warring on this article since at least June 2016. He has already been blocked before for edit warring. -- Tobby72 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

---
 * Note to reviewing Admins from Xenophrenic:
 * The annotation in next to the above diffs was added by me for clarity.
 * When you look at the 12 "revert" diffs over 45 days provided above, please note that 8 of the 12 either aren't reverts or have already been reported here, reviewed and closed.
 * When you look at the 7 "Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page", please note that each discussion has resulted in either issues being resolved, or me patiently waiting for a response from the disagreeing editor. In fact, at the end of this discussion, I'm left waiting even now for an editor to join me in the next dispute resolution step.  It's rather frustrating.
 * When you read that an admin warned me not to revert without consensus, please know that warning wasn't just for me, and I've been periodically pinging the issuing admin during disputes at that article.
 * When you read that my "reversions have been reverted by multiple editors", please note that so have their reversions, but the difference is my edits are made after discussions and lack of further objection on the Talk page.


 * When Tobby72 began commenting about warnings and reverts and blocks on the article talk page, I told him that if he has a legitimate concern, he should raise it here instead. But this does not appear to be a good faith report by Tobby72 to prevent disruption.  I've only made one edit to the article in over a week.  Instead, this is looking more like he's joining the ongoing tag-team effort to chill the editing environment at that article through repeated litigation.  Looking back to Tobby72's very first edit to this article (in the past 8+ months anyway), I should have gotten a clue. It was a tendentious revert, with zero explanation or discussion -- and he wouldn't visit the Talk page for days after that.  It fits right in with the childish name-calling (Xenophrendick? Really?) and the threats of physical violence from the other editors this article has attracted.


 * @Tobby72: I've left your NPOV tag on the article and I am still waiting for your input on the Talk page regarding your actual concerns with that section of content, and also about your recent image addition. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * @Tobby72: Hypothetically speaking, if this AN3 report (and any associated sanctions) were now done and expired, how would you see us proceeding at the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ongoing discussion here: Talk:Genocides in history_POV template — Americas
 * On 2 September EdJohnston wrote on Xenophrenic's talk page: "My warning is for you and User:Etsybetsy to make no further change on the disputed issue until there is consensus.". Xenophrenic waited a month and then did exactly the opposite.
 * @Xenophrenic: "but the difference is my edits are made after discussions and lack of further objection on the Talk page." — Not true. (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff)
 * @Xenophrenic:"Instead, this is looking more like he's joining the ongoing tag-team effort to chill the editing environment at that article through repeated litigation." — I hope you are aware of No personal attacks.
 * @Xenophrenic: "how would you see us proceeding at the article?" — I would like to hear the opinion of other users.
 * The annotation in blue text was added by me for clarity. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic waited a month and then did exactly the opposite... --Tobby72
 * WOW - Completely incorrect, Tobby72. You have your editors mixed up (I hope unintentionally).  Admin EdJohnston did indeed request that Etsybetsy and I develop consensus before reverting.  Etsybetsy waited less than three weeks and then did exactly the opposite (to use your wording): and began reverting, against consensus on September 20.  I brought this to Ed's attention, and Ed advised Etsybetsy:"...there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block. You and the other party were both warned about this article".  Etsybetsy argued that he had consensus to make the edits, to which Ed responded: "Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page."  Etsybetsy still declined to take Ed's advice.  I, on the other hand, continued to present my case on the article Talk page while being careful to not touch the article itself.  Only after there were no further objections forthcoming from Etsybetsy (who disappeared between Sept. 21- Oct. 7, with no need to reappear while their problematic edit remained intact), or from Etsy's proxy RockyMtnGuy for more than a week, did I resume article improvement editing (Rocky would decline to participate in further discussions, having "better things to do").  Perhaps you could strike your comment so reviewing admins aren't misled, Tobby72?


 * Not true. --Tobby72
 * Yes true. Note that I didn't say there were never any objections, because of course there were (as a couple of the links you just provided show), but I engage in discussion and address objections when I make my edits, unlike some other editors at that article.


 * I hope you are aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks... --Tobby72
 * Of course I am. I think it is common knowledge that Etsybetsy "tagged" (through private email) numerous editors to join him in litigating for sanctions against me. It is not a personal attack to mention it on an Administrator's Noticeboard like this, where the actions of everyone involved may be scrutinized.  It is also no secret that Etsybetsy suddenly joined you in this discussion between me and you at an unrelated article Etsy has never before visited, to argue on your behalf.  After that, your very first edit to this Genocides in history content we're talking about is to rollback numerous editor's contributions to the state Etsybetsy left it in.  What an odd and freaky coincidence, isn't it?  Etsy admits privately contacting editors to join him →→ Etsy appears out of the blue at an unrelated article and discussion he never before touched, and joins with Tobby72 and declares "Two editors now oppose" →→ then Tobby72 appears out of the blue for the first time at this article and does a rollback of content to Etsy's last preferred version.  So I'll stand by my observation.  Tobby72, I'm not going to open a sockpuppet (or meatpuppet) investigation on you, and I'm not going to ask for this report to boomerang on you.  I'm not here to seek punitive action against other editors; the only reason I'm even responding here at all is because I said I would on your Talk page -- instead of letting this report scroll away into the archives as I usually do.  I see you've now re-engaged at the article Talk page, so I'll join you there. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: There is no 3RR violation here. There is no article disruption or edit warring here. (I've made only 1 article edit in the past week; only 3 edits in the past 25 days.)  Is there actionable "slow-motion" edit warring to address, perhaps?  No.  I've been editing this content at this article for more than 2 years, not just "since at least June" as Tobby72 says.  That includes making many partial or full reverts of unsourced content, vandalism, and other policy-violating content as warranted.  That's not disruptive edit warring.  When objections are raised, I address them, and work to resolve any issues through discussion on the Talk page.  Tobby72 has already provided several diffs as proof of that.  Now another editor has just removed the NPOV tag placed by Tobby72, and Tobby72 has responded by returning to the Talk page with what looks like a content proposal.  I'm going to go join him there.  Someone please ping me if my attention is needed further for this report. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Xenophrenic: "then Tobby72 appears out of the blue for the first time at this article and does a rollback of content to Etsy's last preferred version." — No. It was last stable version before you started edit warring over your preferred (current) version. I've been editing this article for more than 5 years (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). Etsybetsy is apparently a native English speaker, unlike me. I have no link to her/him. Please don't make personal attacks and false assumptions.


 * @Xenophrenic: "Now another editor has just removed the NPOV tag placed by Tobby72." — Per WP:TAGGING: "In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV." Also, it seems that My very best wishes has changed his mind. As I've already mentioned several times, I would like to hear the opinion of other Wikipedians. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Tobby72, please make up your mind and choose which one of your contradictory stories you wish to tell to the admins here. When you first filed this report, you claimed that Etsybetsy edit warred with me at the article as far back as August, prompting Administrator EdJohnston to protect the article on September 1 when he also advised us not to make further edits without first gaining consensus.  You even quoted Admin Ed in your opening comment.  Now you have changed your story. Now you claim that when you appeared out of the blue at this article (you hadn't touched it in 8 months) and began your editing by doing a disruptive rollback/revert, it was to a "stable version"?  Wrong. It was to Etsybetsy's preferred version (which he had just edited September 20, against consensus and against Ed's warning).  You reverted to a version you misidentify as "last stable version before you started edit warring over your preferred (current) version".  You say you are not a native English speaker, but I find it difficult to believe that you don't know that the English words "last stable version" do not mean a version you personally prefer against the reasonable objection of other editors.  What you should have done was join the ongoing discussion on the article Talk page. And the edit link you describe as my "preferred (current) version" is neither preferred by me, nor anything like the current version (see side-by-side comparison here). Can we keep this factual, please?


 * Regarding your issue with the Tagging or Untagging of articles, I'm not involved with that. That's between you and "My very best wishes".  I never removed the tag.  I will say, however, that I feel the same way as "My very best wishes" does, in that I "do not like any of these versions", and think they are in need of serious work.  If you'd like to hear the opinion of other Wikipedians, I don't think an Administrator's Noticeboard is the best place to solicit; I'd recommend dropping a note at the related WikiProject pages. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * @Xenophrenic: "Tobby72, please make up your mind and choose which one of your contradictory stories you wish to tell to the admins here." — I have NOT changed my "story". Don't make false assertions. It was a relatively "stable version", the "Americas" and "United States" sections basically stayed the same for many months except some minor changes. See page's previous revisions — 1 October 2016, 28 June 2016, 10 April 2016, 19 November 2015 and 5 February 2012. The fact that multiple editors have been reverting Xenophrenic's controversial, massive changes to the article shows pretty clearly that his edits are not supported by consensus.
 * @Xenophrenic: "Now you claim that when you appeared out of the blue at this article (you hadn't touched it in 8 months.)" — I have "Genocides in history" page on my Watchlist. Also, my private email is NOT available to the public.
 * @Xenophrenic: "It was to Etsybetsy's preferred version." — Several others (RockyMtnGuy, Stumink) have also disagreed with Xenophrenic but tired of the WP:BATTLEFIELD. Xenophrenic is assuming ownership of the above mentioned article.
 * UPDATE: The NPOV dispute tags have been removed a second time. Iryna Harpy wrote: " Remove tag. You are the only one arguing POV. Other editors are getting EXHAUSTed by walls of text on the talk page. Stop the WP:CRUSH tactics." and "Enough. No, you can't have a pony.". There is still an ongoing discussion at Talk:Genocides in history_Proposed rewording — Americas about the inclusion or removal of certain information. Per WP:TAGGING: "If the person placing the tag has explained their concerns on the talk page, then anyone who disagrees should join the discussion and explain why the tag seems inappropriate. ... the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time." -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 750022225 by Lemongirl942 (talk) - Disruptive"
 * 2)  "One person's idea vs multiple editors. See also Talk:Singaore - "Wider discussion""
 * 3)  Third revert. This is after being warned for edit warring. Note: Editor added back unsourced material, giving a dubious reason, and never for a second did they even attempt to discuss. This edit was later reverted by another editor.


 * 1)  Additional diff by Wrigleygum who was previously blocked for edit warring. Editor is tag teaming with Warpslider.


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Article tag */ typo"
 * 2)   "/* Article tag */ comment"


 * Comments:

Warpslider is edit warring and POV pushing (against consensus) to remove the tag (and is being helped by another SPA Wrigleygum who I strongly suspect is a meatpuppet/sockpuppet), despite the fact that the lead is terribly puffed up and in the 2 RFCs launched, multiple editors have agreed that material is undue for the lead. This is becoming disruptive and I have started a thread at ANI as well. But I am reporting this separately for edit warring. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I am sick and tired of this. Please see this note by Nick-D on my talk page as well. This has been happening for a long time and something needs to be done now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, let me answer for Warpslider because it's midnight here in Singapore and I have been engaged in all the conversations with Lemongirl942 for the past few hours. She is likely targetting Warpslider because the latter helped mainly to revert the Tags she insisted on keeping on the Singapore article.
 * There are 2 recent RFCs and the Tag was up for the first one. I didn't mind at first partly because I was curious of the response. But the result was that there was zero "uninvolved editors" response to the invitation at [POV and WP:UNDUE in lead] - only 2 existing editors, Tiger753 and Shiok discussed on the first two days, subsequently no discussion for a whole month.
 * Then this established editor said to Lemongirl:
 * "Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)"
 * The Template use says: When to remove
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
 * 1.There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
 * 2.It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
 * 3.In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
 * So the tag was removed with condition (3) by Warpslider.
 * Lemongirl, you don't need to say the obvious. Everyone is sick. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time of removal of the tag, was the discussion dormant? I do not see that. I see quite a lot of discussion and an RFC taking place as well. So your entire justification is incorrect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an RFC, just what you put up for Step-1, There's only Tiger and Chiok there. Then no further discussion for almost a month. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't digress. My question is very clear. At the time of removal of the tag, was the discussion dormant? Are you claiming that there was no discussion about any NPOV problems in the lead when Warpslider removed the tag? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I want to be on point. Avery said - "Leaving the POV tag on the article permanently is not an option. See Template:POV#When_to_remove. William Avery (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)" - so I see now Warpslider removed it the next day. At which pointyou were just starting the survey RFC on 24-Oct. There's only the yourself and Nick then. Wrigleygum (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. At the time of removal of the tag, was the discussion dormant? Are you claiming that there was no discussion about any NPOV problems in the lead when Warpslider removed the tag or you removed the tag ? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be back tmr. I'd add the refs to body text that supports the lead before I retire. Wrigleygum (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop sidetracking. We are discussing your edit warring and removal of the POV tag. Please answer the question. At the time of removal of the tag, was the discussion dormant? Are you claiming that there was no discussion about any NPOV problems in the lead when Warpslider removed the tag or you removed the tag ? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. There is a long-running war about wording in the lead of Singapore that some consider to be promotional. That dispute continued in the form of a war about the presence of a POV tag. User:Warpslider is blocked for continuing to revert while this AN3 report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Agk13b reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 749993916 by Shrike (talk)"
 * 2)  "Shrike, you have not even made enough edits on Wikipedia to have the credibility to determine that. I have thoroughly cited my information. Stop with the abuse."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* New editors are not allowed to edit articles on I/P conflict */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The article are part of WP:ARBPIA and under WP:1RR and WP:ARBPIA3 Shrike (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for violation of the 500/30 rule. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluhaze777 reported by User:CUA 27 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) . After three reverts to the MLS article, he then spread the edit war to related articles:
 * 4)
 * 5) . And here's the kicker: hours after I warned Bluhaze777 on his talk page re edit warring, an IP that had been dormant for six months joined User:Bluhaze777's reverts:
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

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

Comments:

Additional context: From a review of Bluhaze777's talk page, both the current version and the content he had deleted, Bluhaze777 appears to be a serial edit warrior who edits up to the limit of 3RR and has drawn many warnings re edit warring. CUA 27 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – It's a dispute about table formatting. This user seems to have a pattern of similar edits at a number of articles, per Talk:Major League Soccer. User:Bluehaze may be blocked if he makes further reverts about table formatting, before getting consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnstonI disagree with CUA 27 and his view of me. I have been on this site since 2014 and I had intended to find an agreement to how to improve the table charte but he never wanted to agree to anything. So I find it cowardly for him to take this to unnecessary levels. I don't view myself as a vandaliser I have been improving pages during my time here which is on it's last phase. This is ridiculous how someone reports someone but yet he himself is doing the same thing refusing the majority's opinion on improving the table.
 * If you believe consensus has been reached in your favor at Talk:Major League Soccer, please leave a post there explaining how you conclude that. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston — Sorry to drag you back into this, but Bluhaze777 has escalated and left this nasty-gram on my talk page. This is a clear violation of WP:NPA. Please consider whether a block is an appropriate sanction for this editor. Thank you. CUA 27 (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for placing this block on Bluhaze777. Hopefully this will lead to an improvement in editing. CUA 27 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I'm not sure I've done this right—was I supposed to revert again and provide a diff?  Would that not push me over 3RR myself?)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * None of the reverts came with an edit comment, and the last came after a warning on Parsley Man's talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * This followed a bizarre comment from Parsley Man: "How did you find me?"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * I've pointed Parsley Man more than once to WP:CITEVAR, to which the user has no response. The edits, and the few comments the editor has, indicate a pot-stirring attitude—there does not appear to be any rationale for these arbitrary edits.  Parsley Man has already been blocked four times in 2016 for editwarring. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

LOL wut? The first diff was the original disputed edit, the second diff was the sole revert, and for the third diff, I just removed unnecessary spaces without doing anything to citations. It doesn't seem like WP:1RR is in effect for Yes California so I should be good. Parsley Man (talk) 07:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That said, you are indeed edit warring (even if you have not reached 3rr) by not discussing the matter on the article's talk page and what little you've made in responses do read like pot-stirring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So...I'm edit-warring but have not reached 3RR? I thought you'd be edit-warring if you violate 1RR or 3RR? I'm confused... Parsley Man (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson: Am I allowed to revert to the way it was? Parsley Man still hasn't given a rationale and the edits don't seem to be intended to solve any problem (and in fact go against the instructions at Reflist that call for "|colwidth=20em" when shortened footnotes are used—as the article has since it was created). Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's already the way it was; I've laid off on the references. All I did now was remove some unnecessary spaces between certain lines. Parsley Man (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit warring isn't about the number of reverts, it's about the attitude and behavior. 3RR is just a good measure for both.  If you revert repeatedly without even trying to discuss matters, you are edit warring.
 * You are technically at three reverts over other matters (1, 2, 3), and the last edit by Parsley Man did not change the reflist colwidth at all. Undoing the removal of empty linebreaks would smell like WP:OWN. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Parsley Man (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson: The first link you give is to an entirely unrelated edit by a different user that added material from the conspiracy theory website Federal Jack. I didn't realize Parsley Man's last edit didn't remove the colwidth. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, this is still a revert within the past 24 hours, even if I agree with you that that material needed to be removed. In the future, please look more carefully at edits before reporting them.  Parsley Man's last edit seriously was just removing empty space that don't actually show up in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson—sorry, but are you serious? It stretches belief that removing such clearly inappropriate material could count towards an entirely unrelated editwar—such an interpretation of WP:EW would be ripe for gaming the system. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am serious -- the revert in question doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. While the material was inappropriate, it wasn't outright vandalism, nor was it a BLP violation.  If we added "it was a different incident" to 3RRNO, tendentious users would engage in piecemeal edit wars and claim that each revert was over a different issue (e.g. "I'm only at 1 revert, just over 12 different things; not 12 reverts").  Besides, it's a moot point unless you want to revert the removal of empty linebreaks that don't actually show up in the article, now isn't it?  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson—it's hardly a moot point. It says if three POV-pushers add OR or contentious unsourced material to a political article (which attracts this kind of thing) it has to be allowed to stand.  That doesn't seem the spirit of WP:EW, does it?  I never would have guessed such an interpretation, and Parsley Man nearly walked me right into it. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At what point did I imply that you're not allowed to ask for help in keeping an article neutral? This is a collaborative project, we've got a variety of noticeboards for such matters, including Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and Requests for page protection.  Also, as that article falls under discretionary sanctions, you can just go to ANI and get any uninvolved admin to go Judge Dredd on any POV-pushers you've properly notified.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If I have to jump through that much bureaucracy to deal with what should be black-and-white reverts, I'll simply remove the article from my Watchlist and leave it to the sharks. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

And what would you do if five POV-pushers came into the article before I had clarified this point regarding 3RR? Reverted all of them on the grounds of "I'm right?" Can you guess what those POV-pushers reasoning would be? Can you guess what the most common excuse is when lone POV-pushers revert five upstanding editors such as us? "I'm right" is never a good reason by itself, "I'm right" is just blindness. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * : We're not talking content disputes, but clear violations—when you're adding unsourced material or material sourced to conspiracy-theory blogs, you're in violation of any number of policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH). Ditto with Parsley Man violating WP:CITEVAR.  If I have to ask pretty please at ANI to deal with something so straightforward (and hope it doesn't get ignored, or worse—have it dismissed by a lazy admin as a "content dispute"), then why would I bother at all?  What a waste of my time.  The article can rot, and I'll go be productive on one of the other 7000 articles on my watchlist. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be more appropriate if you guys took this elsewhere. Doesn't sound like I've got anything to do with this discussion now... Parsley Man (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Dave Rave reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Stripping Category:Allan truss bridges from Category:Truss bridges (stable there for four years) and insisting that it must only be placed in Category:Truss bridges in Australia.

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

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges, but so far ignored. Their only other actions have been a comment "you started it" (neither accurate nor relevant) and an attack on my Talk: page, calling for me to be blocked. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC) and relevance ? you have been blocked very recently for editing un-necessarily and here you are at it again, and reverting a comment citing non-relevance. Dave Rave (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SUBCAT - note Paris

are you citing subcat, after i already cited it ? is there any other bridges, listed (4), to justify it not being purely australian ? I googled, found none. If one turns up, then you can move it back, later. Dave Rave (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The first is technically not reverting anything. Reverting and removal are not the same.  As it is, both of you are edit warring.  While there was an attempt at discussion on a project page, there is still no talk page for the category.  Also, while I try to ignore article content when reading these, a couple of questions I think y'all need to address on the category's talk page (not here, not on my talk page):
 * how is this exempt from WP:SUBCAT (and more specifically, WP:DIFFUSE)? Are there any Allen truss bridges outside of Australia?
 * if someone builds a bridge outside of Australia that is structurally identical to an Allen truss bridge and they identify it as such, is it an Allen truss bridge or not?
 * Also, this isn't a civility noticeboard, but if it was, I'd have to side with Andy here. Dave, "you started it" is not even an acceptable reason when a child utters it, and to describe this as simply "useless" would be naive.  Andy's block was not for "unnecessary editing," he was blocked for behaving the way you have in this matter.  Ian.thomson (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I moved the category. THat would be a good faith edit on the evidence shown. He reverted it, so yes, he started it.
 * This is not the article's talk page, I was pointing out things the two of you need to discuss with each other. Once again, "he started it" is not a reasonable argument even when a child makes it: you still continued it. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:92slim reported by User:Kouhi (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:, ,


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you haven't provided any sources that prove your claims, so stop reverting the original edit or I will report you"
 * 2)  "fixing according to sources"
 * 3)  "rv - discuss at TP"
 * 4)  "no citation needed at all"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Urartu name and "Armina" */"
 * 2)   "/* Urartu name and "Armina" */"


 * Comments:

The user first reverted my edit without providing a reason in edit summary. When I added back my changes with a decent edit summary, he reverted again without providing a reason. Reverting edits without providing a reason is disruptive. The user who reverts should provide a good explanation for his revert, otherwise the edit is disruptive. I noted this in my edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urartu&diff=750093314&oldid=750091650), and this time he opened a section on the talk page. While I've provided sources for my changes in the talk page, he suddenly stopped contributing to the discussion and started edit-warring and removing the Persian name without any explanation, as if we never discussed anything (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urartu&diff=750203392&oldid=750202631). He can't edit the page while the discussion is still ongoing and a consensus is not reached yet. And beside that, I've provided sources which confirms the relation between Old Persian and Urartu, but this user have provided nothing for his edits and he have cited a fringe source which is not based on primary sources. Kouhi (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have provided a source. You have only provided another encyclopedia on the talk page, so stop lying and edit warring with everyone. You have to prove your claims before edit warring. --92slim (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The user is trying to misrepresent my edits, I have provided a reliable source which mentions Armenia as the Persian equivalent of Urartu, but this user is constantly ignoring this reliable source and other sources I've cited. -- Kouhi (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong, you are misrepresenting your own sources. So please stop acting in a disruptive manner and go to talk page before editing. --92slim (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, this user made a personal attack here ("so stop lying"), please see this section on the talk page, I've cited several sources, but this user didn't mention them here. -- Kouhi (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk page link is old, it's this one - . You refuse to discuss in the talk page, so you're simply selectively ignoring my argument. I don't need to mention your sources, you need to read them carefully. Read your own sources, then discuss, then edit. You put citation needed templates to undermine the Armenian language connection to Urartian language, which is attested in all sources    in the article, and replace it with Old Persian, which is controversial to say the least, since that Persian state vassal you claim to be Urartu (Armina) didn't exist back then. If you're not lying by this point, then you're not reading, which undermines what you wrote. --92slim (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This user is again trying to misrepresent me. I didn't refuse to discuss at the talk page, it was him who suddenly stopped discussing. He wrote his last comment on the talk page after his revert. And also I didn't "replace" Armenian spelling with Old Persian, I just added a citation tag for it. And my source clearly mentioned "Urartu [Persian: Armenia]". I've explained in the talk page why Armenian spelling is irrelevant. Also, he repeated his personal attack again ("If you're not lying"). -- Kouhi (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that Kouhi misrepresenting what's going on here. 92slim did exactly what he should be doing: provide sources and open up a discussion on the talk page. Yet, Kouhi has dismissed 92slim's sources entirely, while neglecting to add his own sources to his own claims. It's rather hypocritical to insist on others to add sources to a foreign language transliteration (even when they already did so) while refusing to add your own source to your own version. I must say that there appears to be larger issues at play. Kouhi just recently said:
 * "Armenian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish nationalists try their bests to add these unrelated spellings to those articles because they want to connect themselves with those civilizations/kingdoms. Those users are using Wikipedia just for nationalist propaganda and everybody should fight with those users."


 * Kouhi has been editing to that effect, rarely being cooperative towards other users he comes across. This is typical battleground rhetoric and should be dealt with not at this thread, but another. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is you and the other user who are misrepresenting things here. I've cited a very reliable source in the article, yet you are reverting sourced material which is considered vandalism. And you didn't provide a source for Armenian spellings, what you provide was a fringe source for a modern transliteration of an English loanword into Armenian language, not a source for a true historical name. And that statement "rarely being cooperative towards other users he comes across" is a serious personal attack, if you can't prove this statement, I will report you. -- Kouhi (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A WP:BOOMERANG may be needed here. Even while there's an ongoing discussion at the TP, and even with an outstanding 3RR report, Kouhi continues to display WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-style behavior and is edit-warring non-stop. That's six reverts in a matter of 24 hours:. The edit-summaries aren't pretty too (i.e. referring to other users' edits as "vandalism"). I must say, that's pretty ballsy: edit-warring while there's an ongoing TP discussion and an open 3RR report that he himself has filed. That never ends up well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * These users (User:EtienneDolet, User:92slim, User:Yerevantsi) are POV-pushing. They are removing sourced materials from the article which is WP:VANDALISM. I've provided source for my claim and there's an ongoing discussion in the talk page, but instead of contributing to the discussion, these users are editing and reverting my sourced edit which is fully forbidden while the discussion is still ongoing and a consensus is not reached yet. Please check the time of edits in the article edit history and the talk page to see these users don't take part in the discussion and instead edit the article while the discussion is ongoing. -- Kouhi (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are simply reverting unsourced claims. It would certainly help if you did your share in the talk page instead of ignoring arguments and adding controversial information. It is especially worrying your continued use of sockpuppet IP's to revert edits: 85.105.169.53 94.122.76.157. --92slim (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: – Filer blocked 24 hours. User:Kouhi, the filer of this complaint, continued to revert while this report was open. His above charges of vandalism are way off base. Though he sincerely believes he is correct, that is not sufficient. You also need to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Gsonnenf reported by User:MaverickLittle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Current Version

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

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


 * 1) 3RR Warning link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to work out issue on talk page diff

Comments: Several editors of the United States presidential election, 2016 page have been reverted by User:Gsonnenf. Gsonnenf demands that the election results in the infobox be derived from the Associated Press. However, the Associated Press does not provide the election results for third party candidates. It has been tradition in all of the Presidential election articles to post not only the election results for the two major parties candidates, but most of the top 3rd party candidates. The Associated Press source that he claims is the only acceptable reliable source does not provide enough information to get the 3rd party results in the article. Now, other editors have been using a reliable source called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. As you can see there is Wikipedia article about the source and the Wikipedia article points out the various reliable sources that Leip's Atlas as a reliable source. (It has been cited by--just name a few--U.S. News and World Report, The Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, Roll Calll, CBS News, Politico, Washington Post, and Men's Health.) It is a reliable source and Gsonnenf states that he does not believe that it is a reliable source and cited himself as the person that has determined that it is not a reliable source. It has been pointed out to him on the talk page that he just does not get to decide what is or is not a reliable source. The list of reliable sources above makes that determination, not Gsonnenf. So Gsonnenf has been reverting other editors and removing the Leip's Atlas results and put in the Associated Press results, which he does over and over again--even the article is under discretionary sanctions (1RR). He does not care.--ML (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, Election Day may be over but the counting of the votes has not finished. There are still about 4 million or so votes to be counted. Various editors have been asking that Voter Turnout not be placed into the article until ALL of the votes have been counted because--all of the experts (including Dr. Michael McDonald at the United States Elections Project--have stated that no one can determine Voter Turnout until all of the votes are counted. Also, Gsonnenf has taken it upon himself to decide the true number of votes and to decide the number of eligible voters and calculate the Voter Turnout on his own.  This is original research.  Especially since the people that specialize in it--such as Dr. Michael McDonald--say that it cannot be determined until all of the votes are counted.  Gsonnenf keeps reverting other editors and jamming into the article's infobox his original research number.  This violates Wikipedia in all kinds of ways. Also, Gsonnenf claims that his edits have the consensus of the talk page and that could not be further from the truth. He was involved in a discussion and he did not like the direction the discussion was going and just decided the consensus went his way and now he says it over and over--even though that claim is not true. Also, Gsonnenf edited article to state that Voting Turnout is 53.7%. You can see his edit here: Gsonnenf's false claim that U.S. Elections Project reports 53.7% Voter Turnout. The fact is that Dr. Michael McDonald has claimed publicly that he believes the Voter Turnout is NOT finalize but it should be about 58%--not Gsonnenf's made up 53.7%. Please see Dr. McDonald's 58% Voter Turnout Estimate here: On November 14, 2016, Dr. Michael McDonald stated 58%--not the false number Gsonnenf uses This shows that Gsonnenf is engaging in original research--which is verifiable incorrect and Gsonnenf is flat out making up a number and then citing Dr. McDonald, saying that Dr. McDonald supports the false 53.7% number.--ML (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello,


 * In regards to MaverickLittle's behavior, I've been very patient trying to to work MaverickLittle so he complies with Wikipedia guidelines. I have concerns he may not be capable of engaging in reasonable discourse or consensus building discussion. He just often just vigorously asserts he is right and that other editors support him, when no one supports him. Initially, he wouldn't even discuss his edits on the talk page, after I asked him in to do so in edit summaries ( others were in active discussions). When I posted a polite message on his talk page, asking him to discuss this on the article talk page, he became abusive/dismissive proclaimed his opinion as 'facts' |1, and told me to get off his talk page. I had to persist for sometime in a calm manner until he finally used the article talk page.


 * On the article talk page several editors (Tomruen|4, crazySeiko, and BCharles|5) expressed concern that his Leip source might not be reliable, or at least not mainstream, and each time he proclaimed it was a 'fact' in what appeared as a semi-coherent ramble. When another editor asked him not take it personally (e.g. "Not take it to heart") he posted this very emotional bizarre response (2nd edit down): |2. Because of his behavior, I decided it would be best if we went to dispute resolution and had a 3rd pair of eyes look at the 'AP vs Leip' dispute. MaverickLittle refused to participate stating and proclaimed it was a joke ("no I think this is joke.") |3


 * In regards to the AP vs Leip debate. We were debating the use of Associated Press (or associated press compliant source) vs. Leip in the infobox vote count field. we've argued that Leip is WP:SPS. It is accepted he has been used by reliable third parties; It is questionable whether David Leip is an established expert; it is accepted by everyone, except MaverickLittle, that Leip is a minority opinion source. I was fine with using Leip in the article body for 3rd party sources until a more mainstream source was found. Every other news organisation is consistent with Associated Press within several hours of update. It is clearly the strongest majority opinion source, via WP:WEIGHT. It is composed of members from all of the US media. All the other editors want AP or an AP complaint source (e.g. FOX, NBC, PBS, CNN). It really seemed like MaverickLittle is just proclaiming his Leip source is the best WP:WEIGHT source without understanding what WP:WEIGHT means.


 * 4 other editors expressed the same concern or greater concern about Leip: Tomruen|4, crazySeiko,BCharles|5, and2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 |6. In an edit summary, MaverickLittle 'agreed' to use AP as the infobox source even though he didn't like it. These were all the participants in this discussion, so it appeared to me to be consensus. I actually left it several days as Leip to give us time to have a discussion, even though only MaverickLittle voiced support for it at the time. Another editor, User:2005, appeared shortly after the consensus edit and reverted it. He claiming he had consensus for Leip despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 2005 had not participated on the article or talk page before that day.


 * In regard to the 'voter turn out' dispute, there was a discussion at |7. MaverickLittle did not participate in this. There was a disagreement between CaradhrasAiguo and CrazySeiko about whether we should use voting age population (VAP) or voting eligible participation (VEP), and CrazySeiko had reverted it. I had explained how the numbers worked and Crazyseiko, who was previously questioning the VAP numbers, said he now understood the numbers and 'asked' me to be restore his revert to the infobox and add an explanation of both numbers to the main article. The 'voting age population' turnout out percentages have been used in previous election info boxes. We now came to an agreement to use that for the 2016 election box. We derive this percentage by simply dividing the number of voters with the voting age population, both given in |8. 4 of us, (Proud User, CaradhrasAiguo, CrazySeiko, and gsonnenf) seem in agreement that this is just WP:CALC. I don't know anyone on the talk page except MaverickLittle who apposes it. There were another discussions in a previous week that came to the similar conclusion.


 * Overall I feel that MaverickLittle has been rather disruptive, incoherent at times, very unfriendly, and contemptuous in general of the Wikipedia process. It appears he just 'makes things up' about editors supporting him or not supporting my position. The community would benefit from him being sanctioned from the 2106 Presidential Election page, and having a neutral administrator talk with him about how editors need to be civil and respectful in their disagreements.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that Gsonnenf did not respond to main point of this board, which is, of course, that he has been engaging in an edit war and he has violated 1RR of the article. I can only assume that he did not respond to the main point because he knows that he violated the 1RR requirement of the article and he can't defend his edits.  He did not deny that he went over the prescribed number of reverts.--ML (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I did address the main points. Half of those edits are just content updates. Two of them are the result of consensus being reached on the talk page, and the apposing editor asking me to change it back and add an explanation in the body text. The first revert MaverickLittle posted was restoring a 'facts disputed' box ML unilaterally decided to remove while it was under active dispute. No one else supported his position. I restored the 'dispute box' instead of going to the admins to try to get him sanctioned, because I was acting in good faith, hoping he would eventually start participating instead of fighting. All of this is sort of a waste of my time, which I think is his point in the first place, to overwhelm other editors with text walls.I hope you guys can can work this out soon or you're just going to have one editor, with alot of time on his hands, on the 2016 Presidential election page.Gsonnenf (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * United States presidential election 2016 is under a 1RR restriction, which is explained in its editnotice. It looks to me that User:Gsonnenf broke the 1RR:
 * Gsonnenf reverts: 21:05 on the 18th, 4:44 on the 19th. The first is marked as an undo, the second edit removes numbers sourced to Leip.
 * It would be normal to block Gsonnenf 24 hours for the violation, but if they will agree to stop editing this article for two weeks they might avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi EdJohnson, If you want to block me for these edits that is your prerogative, I don't think Wikipedia would benefit from me leaving the article for 2 weeks, as I've been doing good work establishing consensus with most of the editors. I think the first edit fits more into the WP:BRD because it was discussed and agreed apon in the link I provided. I think you do have some latitude to consider the situation. If you could comment on MaverickLittle's behavior and check my links that demonstrate the full situation, I would be very appreciative. If you think that discussion should be or moved to a different AN, or you have looked at it and don't think its worth considering, your opinion would still be welcome. I was planning on taking his behavior to ANI anyway if it continued (which it has), so it would be useful to address it here. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Also this 2005 character is kind of strange. He hadn't made a single edit on the page or article, that all of a sudden bursts into into this article yesterday with the exact same rhetoric and speech style as MaverickLittle. He also magically appears on this dispute page without any notifications. It feels like WP:CANVAS or WP:SOCKPUPPET.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Gsonnenf continues to include information that the editor knows is factually incorrect. It's obtuse to use the AP data that is listed on FOX/CNN/etc.... because AP has stopped updating most states.  AP/CNN/etc are showing the Arizona numbers as Trump1,021,154/Clinton936,250.  These numbers are more than a week old.  The current numbers according to the official state site are Trump1,252,401/Clinton1,161,167... which are the numbers Leip uses.  Gsonnenf has to be aware of this but continues to revert the updated, current data from a reliable source and entering objectively false, deceptive, inaccurate, inappropriate data in place of the best source with the clear consensus and the current information.  At some point, insisting on listing the score from the second quarter of a game underway becomes not just inappropriate, but very rude. 2005 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for WP:1RR violation as explained above. Gsonnenf did not accept my proposal that they take a break from the article in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 22:20, 18 November 2016
 * 2) diff 00:13, 19 November 2016
 * 3) diff  08:00, 19 November 2016
 * 4) diff  08:20, 19 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

First diff introduced POV content based on poor source. Then massively revised article structure. They are a WP:SPA for penis/MR per their contribs. Expressed disdain for the structure described in guideline MEDMOS, calling the guideline "nonsense" but then strangely asks how they depart from structure defined in MEDMOS. Obviously trying to force strong changes into article without discussion. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly I am not a single purpose account(not sure what MR is??). Secondly, I did not express disdain for "the structure described in guideline MEDMOS".  I merely asked this editor why he swooped in and undid my changes without even a specific explanation after I had worked hard on them.  All he did was point me to the medical guidelines page - which I have read many times and agree with. I do not think they are strong changes - they are merely rewording. I feel this editor is going against the ethos of wikipedia to allow people to edit freely without authority figures coming in and undoing.  It creates a very unwelcoming environment. Plus, the first two edits are not reverts, they are my changes which I worked for hours on. Tremello (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The prior version also exists because people spent hours working on it. You have mainly shuffled around content so that it no longer follows the general guidelines around layout of a medical article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Tremello is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at phimosis without having a prior talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Balance213 reported by User:Dyrnych (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (since deleted by Balance213)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Asked the editor on the editor's talk page to start a discussion after my first revert, which the editor has not done.

Comments:

Bright-line violation of WP:3RR. The editor isn't engaging on the article's talk page and is adamant that his content must remain. Dyrnych (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor has since reverted again.


 * ...and again. I'm just adding them to the diffs above at this point.  Note that these last two occurred after this report. Dyrnych (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Was just about to file a report. Note that the text the editor is trying to add is based on a Neo-Nazi website which publishes crap with titles like "Jewish Supremacist SPLC, ADL, Exposed as Anti-White Hatemongers as Texas DA Murders Solved" (sic). WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support an indef block as user is clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia and continues to add "citations" to neo-Nazi content. Neutralitytalk 00:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User:SuperJew reported by User:J man708 (Result: Both editors blocked for 24 hours)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Stable edit as of a few days back.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Article 1 - 05:51
 * 2) Article 1 - 05:36
 * 3) Article 1 - 04:44
 * 4) Article 1 - 02:52


 * 1) Article 2 - 05:52
 * 2) Article 2 - 05:36
 * 3) Article 2 - 04:44
 * 4) Article 2 - 02:52


 * 1) Article 3 - 05:52
 * 2) Article 3 - 05:35
 * 3) Article 3 - 04:44
 * 4) Article 3 - 02:52


 * 1) Article 4 - 05:52
 * 2) Article 4 - 05:36
 * 3) Article 4 - 04:44
 * 4) Article 4 - 02:51

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: SuperJew and I left comments with each edit discussing our thoughts on the issue. Talk Page 1 edit summary - Talk Page 2 edit summary - Talk Page 3 edit summary - Talk Page 4 edit summary

Comments: Simply put, I'm at wits' end when it comes to dealing with this user's over-use of the "Undo" link. SuperJew wishes to see the status quo with an article, however I wish for the article to be edited to match the other pre-existing articles. SuperJew reverted the edits asking for me to discuss this on the relevant talk page, but I feel as though an edit small enough (which brings the article in question in line with other articles) can just go ahead without needing to enter into a large and time consuming discussion. I've been involved in discussions of length with SuperJew before which I feel often leads to him filibustering the point that I cannot justify continuing on the discussion.

I feel as though the predicament I'm stuck in is that any conflicts that SuperJew and I have, be it myself or him making changes to the pre-existing articles, any issues must be reverted to his way of seeing things before any discussion can occur, as though his way of seeing things is the default status quo. I've had enough and I know that it's not just me who has. I'm sick of logging in to Wikipedia and see this. It has to stop. - J man708 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The main contributors to these pages are, and myself. Today was the first time  made a contribution to most of these pages.
 * As per WP:BRD:
 * Jman (user editing these pages for the first time) made a Bold edit,
 * I (one of the 3 main ongoing contributors to the pages) Reverted it with an explanation.
 * Next step should be Jman starting a Discussion about the edit. However, Jman decided to engage in an edit war instead, despite requests to start a discussion per WP:BRD.
 * If anyone here should be blocked for edit-warring it should be Jman, though as he is at most times a helpful contributor to the A-League project, I would not advocate for it. --SuperJew (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem like you're trying to turn this around on me. WP:BRD is an essay. WP:3RR is a policy.
 * I am so sick of getting nowhere being filibustered on the required talk pages and being reverted solely by you. Your above post didn't do anything to address the issues I brang up previously, only attempted to shift it onto me. The idea that if anyone here should be blocked for edit-warring it's me is ridiculous. I'm taking appropriate action and not requiring the article to sit how I like it, to avoid an edit-war, something you weren't Bold enough to do. - J man708 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're trying to frame this whole discussion as if there are a million editors on the A-League project and I'm the only one reverting you ever. Let's put the truth on the table: There are a handful of editors on the project, and you and I are easily the most active. --SuperJew (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Then why aren't you seemingly ever able to make a compromise with me? Why must everything revert to how you see it or like it? It's ridiculous why something like this not go my way (which by the way, it's not really my way as much as it's matching the Germany and England articles) for a change? - J man708 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I note that WP:BRD does state that BRD will fail if - amongst other criteria - A single editor is reverting changes because they believe they own the article. Simply put, the degree of defensiveness with respect to minor changes on articles edited by SuperJew is huge, and it seems to me that multiple edit reverts are the norm. I usually give up at WP:2RR. The article becomes a subset of SuperJewipedia wherein every format has to be consistent with the rules that apply to that, whatever the opinions of others (whether they regularly edit those articles or types of articles or not). It is not a winnable war. I am sick of it. I will not fight this war, and have gone on two small wikibreaks this year to chill out, pretty much to get away from his edit reverts. Give up Mr J man708, and concentrate your positive efforts on articles where they are appreciated. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

SuperJew broke 3RR on four articles, and Jman has been gaming the system. Both of you are blocked for 24 hours, and please either disengage or follow dispute resolution when this block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Could I have a second admin's opinion upon this? I feel as though used the ban-hammer with little intent of it actually making amends to the situation. The block didn't serve to assist with mediating anything, only seemingly adding fuel to the fire. I'm sure that SuperJew logged out of his blocked account and spent the day avoiding the block by IP editing, to go along with his snide edit here. Obviously nothing was learnt from this ban and the rules clearly don't apply to him. This is ridiculous and is exactly what my original request for assistance brang up. What other avenues can I go to have this issue mediated and further issues avoided? - J man708 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see that you're frequently admining this page. Could you please help shed some light on this issue? - J man708 (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to question the closure by User:Someguy1221. Blocks are to stop edit wars; they are not intended to 'assist with mediating anything'  or 'make amends to the situation.' If you think that SuperJew has been abusing multiple accounts, please open a report at WP:SPI and provide evidence. I don't see your name on the talk page of any of the four articles reported here. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if you consider this issue important. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. - J man708 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Haha for what? I was technically wrong on the 3RR and was duly punished for it. You were also punished for gaming the system (and also technically broke 3RR). Why don't you just let it rest instead of fanning sparks into flames? --SuperJew (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Because you clearly ban-evaded your "punishment". The rules just don't apply to you, do they? Everyone has to justify every edit to you. I've had enough of it. - J man708 (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)