Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive331

User:92.29.125.201 reported by User:IdreamofJeanie (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

slight variations between the various versions, but all have the same goal of replacing Greek origin with Turkish.
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * [
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * informal warning:
 * formal 3RR template:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Filled in missing warnings, diffs, talk page etc. Meters (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This IP has been by  for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Quick question, are non admins allowed to close if a reported user has been blocked for a different purpose such as this, or are non admins not allowed to close any AN3 report in any circumstance?  Class455 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Widr. It is best if these reports are only closed by admins. One reason is that a block could have been issued elsewhere by an admin who didn't see the report here. The actual 3RR report has more complete information that might lead to further action, for example, protection or a block of the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

User:84.162.12.224 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "Added some content"
 * 3)  "Added content"
 * 4)  "Fixed Small error."
 * 5)  "Added some content"
 * 6)  "I improved The page by adding Content."
 * 7)  "Fixed Content."
 * 8)  "Fixed error"
 * 9)  "Added Content"
 * 10)  "Fixed typo"
 * 11)  "Fixed an error"
 * 12)  "Fixed Small error"
 * 13)  "Added Content"
 * 14)  "Added content"
 * 15)  "Fixed an error"
 * 16)  "Fixed typo"
 * 17)  "Fixed a error That I Made."
 * 18)  "Fixed an Small error"
 * 1)  "Fixed an error"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Fixed a error That I Made."
 * 4)  "Fixed an Small error"
 * 1)  "Fixed an Small error"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repetitive addition of unsourced content and original research. Article has been requested for semi-protection.  Wes Mouse Talk 15:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that attempts have since been made to resolve the issue, and yet the IP continues to add original research and duplicating material.  Wes Mouse Talk 15:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:14.139.183.220 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Last best known revision

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (Immediately removed)

Other earlier warning: diff, diff (Immediately removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff (User did not participated)

Attempt to resolve in his talk page: diff, diff, diff (Immediately removed without participating)

Comments:

This IP is not the original account, this is one of the several IPs of the IP hopper. Among them, 14.139.183.220 is the most frequently used. When the page is protected he comes back with his original auto-confirmed account. There are specific evidences to prove they are the same user, but for now, see this. There is a common link in all these film articles he edit - all are starring Mammootty. In this case in Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film), he is re-adding a long-disputed source from TOI, along with other changes he want with adjustments and manipulations made here and there misrepresenting the source to make look the box office section more favorable to his star. According to him, if there is a source, he can add anything, and if its URL is still live on web no user has the right to remove it.

The user is not participating in the initiated discussion in his talk page (in both TRUEV140 & IP) or in the already existing one in the article talk. In fact, the IP removed the discussion immediately from his talk. The user is kind of deliberate edit warring, as he is aware that he is adding false problematic claims, hence he has nothing to discuss (other than bluffing in edit summary), so his only option to establish the content is through edit war. Each time he reverts, I restore it to the last best revision. Thus unfortunately I am also involved in this edit war, and already crossed 3RR. Essex-1799 (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours by User:Oshwah. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Frownsy reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 750715239 by Kellymoat (talk) Please read the source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 750714670 by Kellymoat (talk) Eveything that's been added has been sourced and verified in the sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 750713901 by Kellymoat (talk) reverted vandalism of removing sourced content"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 750645329 by Livelikemusic (talk) We're not using the sidebar, we're using the review made by Matt Collar"
 * 5)  "Date to be in full IE 2015-2016 and not 2015-16 and added a reliable source for genres"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Can someone please explain to me where if you add a reliable source that is mentioned in its review and you input it onto the article itself how that is deemed to be unconstructive? Keep removing the sourced information is unconstructive itself and that is what Kellymoat is doing to Glory Days 2A02:C7F:DE2E:EB00:5D24:21FE:89DD:B518 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Kelly what is your problem both me and Richi have added a correct source, you're just vandalising the page and to be honest I've gone through your contributions and if you've got a bee in your bonnet with some else you get all petty and revert all their contributions, I personally don't think that's the correct way, you remove sourced information and revert it back to the unsourced mess that it was before hand. Frownsy (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we need to open up a sock puppet investigation as well?Kellymoat (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User name has been blocked as a confirmed sock puppet. Will we also be investigating IP users starting with 2A02:C7F:DE2E:EB00: ? Kellymoat (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – Indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 reported by User:Justeditingtoday (Result: Block, Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been edit warring all day at one point simply blanking the section entirely. Justeditingtoday (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Justeditingtoday is not participating in the talk page. Funny, he's also only responding to my reverts, and not the blatant reversions of himself and other editors without regard to content. I had several edits of my own which made the article factually correct reverted several times by these hawks.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Konni_Burton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8200:4830:48EA:B2C2:61D7:E54 (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the IP for 36 hours for edit warring and blatant POV editing. Sample: And on their talk page they replaced the 3RR warning with this rant: . Previously edited under the ID ‪2601:1c0:8200:4830:81e3:a5b7:fe24:f3f; sample:  I don't expect this block to slow them down for very long so I have also protected the page. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jazbar reported by User:Yerpo (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Later today, against a different editor:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The user tries again to hide unpleasant (but well sourced) facts about a political party, accusing me (again) of being a government tool. This is a continuation of the edit war he engaged in two years ago after failing to provide sources for his opinion, so probably a much longer block would be warranted. I also recommend semi-protecting the page, because he had tried to achieve the same using various IP addresses after being blocked the first time. — Yerpo Eh? 14:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This a continuation of the same edit war for which the user was blocked two weeks in 2014. I've warned the user they are risking an indefinite block if they don't agree to wait for consensus. The same person has been indef blocked since 2011 on the Slovenian Wikipedia for reasons of nationalist editing, per this link. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be precise, I tried hard to reach consensus with him, but it proved impossible (see Talk:Party of Slovenian People); instead of providing reliable sources for his statements, he quickly regressed to conspiracy theories and trying to discredit my sources. Now me and all the editors who have reverted his vandalism are "paid by the government to suppress opposition". Don't want to assume too much, but I'd wager he is at least an active member of this party, so I can see only one direction this situation can go. — Yerpo Eh? 06:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: he continues with edit warring, personal attacks and baseless removal of sourced data, with no indication that he intends to heed any advice, argument, or warning. — Yerpo Eh? 12:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – Per the above, which continued after my warning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Namiba reported by User:WilliamJE (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

At the article Pat LaMarche he reverted edits here, here, here, here, and here when first one editor and then myself changed the categories for the article. Namiba is now claiming it is a BLP issue. It is common categorizing practice to catgorize a person (actor, politicians, sportspeople) as from Foo even if they did not practice their profession in Foo....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the header of this report and notified the user. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Namiba and User:WilliamJE are both warned they are risking a block if they revert the article again without a prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:007nkr reported by User:Cotton2 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  as sock
 * 4)  blanked page
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * []

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

User blocked as sock puppet. Cotton2 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – Indef for socking by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Snowgolf reported by User:Velella (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751035020 by Velella (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751034330 by NOTNOTABLE (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed grammar"
 * 4)  "/* Snow golf (ice golf) */Fixed update"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor unable to grasp that (self?) promotion is not acceptable here. A pause for reflection might be useful  Velella  Velella Talk 23:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is factual information that needed to be updated. You are wrong in deleting it. It is not promotional at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowgolf (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ian.thomson (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:68.190.153.14 reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported:


 * Comments:

This IP user thinks that he/she owns all of aforementioned The Challenge season articles, and is always making edits to suit his/her liking. This user is just making unexplained changes and removal of content and not discussing on the talk pages of the season articles of which his/her edits are taking place. When this user does make an edit summary, he/she goes off like this: "For the last time, stop changing these tables. I gave you my reason a lot so I'm done explaining why I'm changing it." This user has been previously warned for edit warring on other articles. DPH1110 (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)DPH1110
 * – 48 hours. At The Challenge: Rivals the IP is conducting a long-term edit war on one of the layout parameters. When questioned on their talk, and given a chance to defend this behavior they express a lack of interest in collaboration. EdJohnston (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Malerooster reported by User:JFG (Result: sanctioned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "undo clueless rv"
 * 2)  "not appropriate, its like saying "Hillary is being a cunt". not nice nor needed"
 * 3)  "not a forum"
 * 4)  "/* Clinton Foundation */ rm ,not a forum"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 750882105 by Malerooster (talk) Do not censor another editor's statement per WP:TPO, no matter how strongly you disagree with them"


 * Comments:

repeatedly removed parts of a Talk page comment by which he deemed offensive to Bernie Sanders. His edit was reverted once by me and five times by other editors. A quick discussion took place on my talk page, debating his assertion that he was justified to censor that comment per WP:BLP. Several reverting editors quoted WP:TPO to educate but he persisted, even calling the latest revert "clueless". Lastly, he removed from his own talk page and 's. — JFG talk 15:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The edit summary for the second diff is wildly inappropriate, especially because it's in an edit summary. This is true even if Malerooster is using Scjessey's talk page comment as an excuse to engage in some BLP vios of his own.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Malerooster's reversion edit summaries are sub-par, however, every single revert falls under WP:3RRNO point 7. Those were BLP violation removals. They are supported by our policies. Point being, recommend warning without official sanction. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor claimed they were BLPVIO removals, but that is only an opinion. Other editors have agreed with me that "being a dick" is not a BLPVIO. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 *  restricted to 1RR in WP:ARBAP2 area for 1 month. This is clearly not the first time the editor has been involved in an edit war within the topic area. While I'll err on the side of good faith as far as the 3RR goes (though it seem a stretch), the repeated reverts stop now. -- slakr  \ talk / 22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uhh, you might want to see this, which clearly shows consensus that the removal was legit as a BLP vio. Arkon (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate input on the matter as well as pointing me to that thread, I feel that calling someone a dick in the provided context is either a personal opinion or a personal attack, unless, of course, we're talking about truly alleging someone is literally an actual dick&mdash;a walking penis. An unsourced claim, in an article, that someone defies biology and walks around as Homo penisis would be more what the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy seeks to redress&mdash;not an opinionated (if not impassioned) comment on a talk page... at least, in my interpretation.  It would no more be appropriate to censor someone's opinion that soandso is a "jerk" or "meanie" or "stupid."  However, I understand your and the other editor's interpretation as encompassing any incidentally unkind remark, which is why I felt no block should be issued, despite my belief that BLP doesn't clearly and obviously apply here.  That's the risk you run when repeatedly reverting something, so when taking it upon oneself to flame-on an edit war in an WP:ACDS area single-handedly, one should be absolutely certain that you're undeniably in the right.  -- slakr  \ talk / 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well consensus at AN/I is that the user -was- right, so even with your sanction, the mentioned reverts would have been ok under the BLP policy. Not sure what you believe this accomplishes. Arkon (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:75.190.136.195 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
 * 2)  "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
 * 3)  "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
 * 4)  "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."
 * 5)  "/* History */ Unhistorical content removed."
 * 6)  "/* History */ Disinformation does not belong here."
 * 7)  "/* History */ Mistakes corrected."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Lee family. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Widr (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Lemongirl942 do not revert my changes again. This is unbiased writing."
 * 2)  "Lemongirl942 is vandalising the edits made by Freewillforever"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 751085951 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Detailed information describing the Choi sun-sil's wrongdoings added"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2016 South Korean political scandal. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Freewillforever is adding back material which is a gross BLP violation. They originally added a lot of information which consists of unproven accusations - and I reverted their edits. My revert was in turn reverted and it led to this edit war. I am trying to explain but they are still reverting. I have done 3 reverts and I don't want to do any more (despite the BLP issues). Note that Freewillforever is a new user and I would like to be patient. But the BLP issues are important here and I don't want to let them stay in the article. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Lemongirl942 erasing the contents based on false claims. And Freewillforever did not violate the BLP rules. Note that Lemongirl942 has been simply reverting the changes made by other users without contributing to contents. Lemongirl942 has been involved in several edit wars with others before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freewillforever (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , Please sign your posts. What you were doing on the article is considered edit warring. See WP:BRD - you made a bold change (which was controversial) and I reverted it. The next step is not to revert again but to discuss. You have already changed the contents of the article more than 3 times (including your bold edit) and this can get you blocked. I strongly suggest you revert your own edit (the last edit). This is important to make sure that you understand that WP:Edit warring is disruptive and also to demonstrate your understanding of policies and your good faith. The reason I reverted is because you changed a lot of the article which was previously NPOV and is now heavily POV with a lot of accusations in it. This is also a violation of our WP:BLP policy. I strongly suggest you to self revert. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: Please have a look at this exchange on the talk page. I see a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude with no indication that they understand why BLP is an issue here. I suggest a short block is in order. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now trying to blank this report. GABgab 14:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Anon3579 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added arrest on a weapons charge of a public figure and self-professed expert on national security"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751016879 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 751013365 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 4)  "Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017) Undid revision 751011291 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 5)  "information about Gorka's father irrelevant. Separate page should be created if necessary."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 751010090 by Ccherzog (talk) Conviction of weapons charge relevant. Case is still pending. Provide source. Public VA record shows guilty plea Aug. 8 and sentencing Feb. 3, 2017"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 750984802 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 750983157  Gorka pled guilty 8 August 2016 re: public records from the Arlington County Circuit Court website. On 3 February 2017, the Court will adjudicate him guilty and impose sentence."
 * 9)  "Undid revision 750982608 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 750980838 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 750977218 by Ccherzog (talk)"
 * 12)  "reinserted relevant information pertaining to criminal weapons conviction"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 750724078 by Sk-gorka (talk)"
 * 14)  "Removed  - intent not an element of the crime, see VA Criminal Code §18.2-287.01.  Also, commission of same crime by others irrelevant."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 750724078 by Sk-gorka (talk)"
 * 2)  "Removed  - intent not an element of the crime, see VA Criminal Code §18.2-287.01.  Also, commission of same crime by others irrelevant."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

New user is adding repeatedly contentious BLP issue involving brief news blurb of criminal arrest. Source is valid, but it's a relatively minor thing. Grayfell (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – One month. There is edit warring, possible COI and sockpuppetry and BLP issues. Any talk page discussion would be welcome. If agreement is reached, it might allow lifting the protection early. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

User:2A1ZA reported by User:FPP (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This user has a racist view on Chaldeans, and all he wants is to associate them to Assyrians, while the constitutions of countries, including the Iraqi Constitution (125 article) and also the Constitution of the Kurdistan region, as well as documents of the United Nations and the European Union recognize the Chaldean ethnic, He claims that my edits do not have a reliable sources, and his words are a lie, because all existing sources, including the authoritative historian John Joseph and James Claudius and Ryan gengris and Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as the sources of the Chaldean Church and the old Nestorian Church (assyrain church) itself confirms what exists in the article.

Therefore, users like him are harming the reputation of Wikipedia, first doing edits contrary to what is known and existing national constitutions to be false and undocumented,

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chaldean_Christians&type=revision&diff=746964887&oldid=746897751

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

This person does not want dialogue, but all he is do is retrieving my edits, so I ask for an immediate cessation of his edits in Chaldean Christians article --FPP (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Obviously the fourth link is not a revert, but was a regular article edit earlier today. I recommend that User:FPP answer to the section above this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, not a violation. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Darmok and jalad reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 2)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 3)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 4)  "/* History */"
 * 5)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 6)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 7)  "/* History */"
 * 8)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 9)  "/* Criticism */"
 * 1)  "/* Criticism */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Gay Days at Walt Disney World. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Edits appear to fall under WP:NOTVAND. That said, they were edit warring.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:FPP reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

The User is persistently reverting the well sourced mainstream version of the Chaldean Christians article, which I had reconstructed from the article history over the past days, into the narrative of a "Chaldean nationalist" fringe theory with no sources whatsoever for its claims. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 27 October, edit-warring with other editors: , ,

Diffs of the reported editor's reverts to the fringe theory version on 30 October, edit-warring with other editors: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts within the last hour today (edit: against me and User:NOTNOTABLE):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

His edit summaries and one brief comment on the talk page consist only of parroting the always same sentence, does not engage in discussion. I would deem a revert of the article into the sourced mainstream version necessary, and preventing the reported editor from continuing edit-warring. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Cirflow and User:Arjayay who had fought against these fringe theory disruptions of the article by User:FPP last month. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Would you revert the article? I cannot legally do so now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be inappropriate of me as the blocking administrator. I'd recommend calling eyes to the article from a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Successfully done, thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751197282 by Keri (talk) the article cites only right wing sources, many of them highly polemical, but as soon as I cite a critical source I get reverted?"
 * 2)  "it is a pejorative and is never used in any other manner. more neutral phrasing since I'm sure most young people would reject this characterization"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 751107883 by DynaGirl (talk) disagree that it is on topic, the focus of the article is affordable care act, and she is noted as a polemicist like coulter, not a "commentator""
 * 4)  "/* Characteristics */ no encyclopedic value. affordable care act is only tangentially relevant to "snowflake" term and malkin is clearly a polemicist."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Generation Snowflake */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
 * 3)   "/* Generation Snowflake */ re"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Generation Snowflake. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* POV */ re"
 * 2)   "/* POV */ tp"


 * Comments:

Behavior indicates that editor intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Response of "fuck off with your templates" demonstrates editor's attitude. Keri (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is of course not a violation of 3RR. User has dredged up an unrelated content dispute with a different editor as part of their evidence, which obviously is not relevant to the present case. I engaged in discussion at the talk page, the editor replied to it, then went ahead and templated me anyway in what looks like an attempt at intimidation. Language aside, I'm pretty sure any editor would be annoyed by this behaviour. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Re-read the part that says: "Undoing another editor's work — whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time — counts as a revert", then look at the clock, then re-evaluate your defence. Keri (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * MaxBrowne has just almost violated 3RR, but not quite. It's time for everyone to stop this and find a consensus on the talk page. I'm not going to do anything right now, but I'd rather not have to hand out any blocks or protect the page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As MaxBrowne clearly does not wish to engage in discussion - merely roll up, push POV, edit war to maintain it, then fuck off into the sunset again - that is not particularly helpful. Keri (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * MaxBrowne responded to you on the article talk-page, with a substantive comment. A heavy dose of AGF all around would be helpful.  --JBL (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly substantive! He has not addressed the points made. And merely continues with disruptive, point-y editing, now feeling suitably enabled. Keri (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Someguy1221 and other admins who deal with edit warring, please continue to watch the page Generation Snowflake, because it appears MaxBrowne has now made his 5th revert in 24hrs. The 4 listed above by Keri and now this one:, while I tend to agree with him that this term is a pejorative (and have added it to the lead myself in the past) this is currently one of the things being edit warred over, so restoring it again seems to qualify as a revert.--DynaGirl (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly gaming the system. Keri (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:188.116.6.130 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 72 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 2)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 3)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 4)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 5)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 6)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 7)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 8)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."
 * 9)  "LMAO, PLACING *EGO* BEFORE THE ENCYCLOPEDIA AGAIN. I NOW SEE WHY THE PUBLIC LAUGHS AT WIKIPEDIA."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on User talk:Dane2007. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 188.116.6.130 (talk) to last revision by Dane2007. (TW)"


 * Comments:


 * Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Unknowncoolio reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Updated"
 * 2)  "a"
 * 3)  "l"
 * 1)  "l"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Not using edit summary on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW)"
 * 2)   "(Warning: Three-revert rule on Mohamad Al-Khaled Samha. (TW))"


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


 * Comments:

Editor claims to be related to the subject of the article and is reverting sourced material. User:C.Fred encouraged him to use consensus/talk page before reverting this via user's talk page, user continued to revert twice after this. Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * User has been warned for many things so far, but not explicitly for 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User was subsequently warned about 3RR here and made the same revert again here with the edit summary "It is up to you" --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been advised that he has now reverted a fourth time (diff of warning). —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If I'd caught this early this morning, a block would have been necessary, but for now the reverting seems to have died down, so let's hope that's the end of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Lalichii reported by User:185.20.165.182 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

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

Comments: I can't understand why does Wikipedia has two different information in two different pages about same subject. 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt page does not state any information about self-coup, however self-coup article and Template:Coup d'état template states the opposite. And when I tried to edit with standartization of information, above mentioned user reverted my edits, like he did to many other users in the past as you can see on the history of mentioned pages. This user seems to be biased. 185.20.165.182 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Verity345 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sexual fantasy. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sexual fantasy. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User appears to be pushing an agenda on the page, and is not paying attention to warnings from multiple editors about their edits (marking them as minor, not using the Talk page for consensus, etc.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can't revert the last changes per 3RR, can someone do the honors? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.194.13 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: )
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: [diff]

Comments:

I am the one who started the dispute. I initially reverted because it was non-neutral and didn't belong on the article. The IP added the same thing onto a Trump Organization page, which I also removed. However, they were repeatedly adding the same content after being told to take it to the talk page. When they didn't, I opened a section, which they only responded after they reverted for I don't know how many times. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, the rules clearly state that the most important info must be in the lead. That includes WHY there are protests. You give an explanation if you don't like mine! But don't leave our readers to guess or revert to the worthless form the article was in before. 63.143.194.13 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't represent the 7.1 billion people on this planet. Don't represent yourself as "our readers". This could had been solved if you had taken it to talk page in the first place. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't care what your intent was for those edits; you still disregarded MULTIPLE warnings and did not go to the talk page beforehand, and still edit-warred. This discussion is wholly warranted. Parsley Man (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User has also been reported to WP:ANI for related aggressive behavior. Parsley Man (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet of. Parsley Man (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Paramdeeptung (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751271232&oldid=748837154
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751287336&oldid=751271232
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751290330&oldid=751287336
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751291654&oldid=751290330
 * 5) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751295189&oldid=751291654
 * 6) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751295419&oldid=751295189
 * 7) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751295642&oldid=751295419
 * 8) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751298673&oldid=751296043
 * 9) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751299592&oldid=751298673
 * 10) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751300562&oldid=751299592
 * 11) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751301093&oldid=751300562
 * 12) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanded&diff=751304926&oldid=751301093

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arjayay&diff=751294835&oldid=751266646 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arjayay&diff=751298030&oldid=751297262 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arjayay&diff=751298518&oldid=751298156 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mlpearc&diff=751290070&oldid=751198122 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mlpearc&diff=751296505&oldid=751291535 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mlpearc&diff=751297213&oldid=751296648 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Biddulph&diff=751296030&oldid=751049551 [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Biddulph&diff=751296733&oldid=751296224

ITRIED TALKING WITH EVERY USER WHO WAS POSTING AGAINST ME WITH RESPECT BUT NO ONE HEARD ME AND KEPT ON EDITING THE MAIN ARTICLE.

The entire issue is about my religion. According to me Guru never dies, he attains immortality. Guru Gobind Singh Ji did not have three wives but only two, for which I have quoted the right encyclopedia too. We in India use Ji for respect. People aking remarks have shallow knowledge about the topic they are deliberating on. Plus i DID COMMIT A FEW MISTAKES EARLIER BY REMOVING PICTURES. bUT AS SOON AS I realised I asked for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This malformatted and confused report is presumably an attempt at a retaliation to the section above. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:PantherBF3 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There has been a clear indication that Politifact is allegedly a fact checking website. This in itself is not adhering to a neutral point of view."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751334561 by Imminent77 (talk)"
 * 3)  "So are you."
 * 4)  "Users are trolling the article without participating on the talk page."
 * 5)  "Talk page for incorrect claim"
 * 6)  "To be settled on talk page"
 * 7)  "Anonymous troll detected."
 * 8)  "Undoing the revision of a clearly hysterical and paranoid troll. Ignore."
 * 9)  "Continued trolling of the article without sources will result in a blocking of your editorial capability."
 * 10)  "You need a source for that claim."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * is a VANDAL ONLY ACCOUNT. Please see block log. Please block indefinitely for vandal only account. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone can probably close this report, for now, as the account was blocked 72 hours by Ponyo. Sagecandor (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked PantherBF3 for 72 hours. Given the content of their unblock request I imagine we will be back here in three days' time.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 02:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This report is a follow on from Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring above. I have limited the diffs to his edit warring of just one phrase, although they are edit warring over other aspects of the article, too. MaxBrowne is clearly gaming the system to continue edit warring at the article. Having evaded action for their edit warring last night, they then withdrew from the discussion in a huff. Finding today that their favoured version of the article had been reverted by another editor, who was engaging in discussion, they immediately reverted again. This is a blatant use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute, and stick 2 fingers up at the process. As I warned in the previous report, their behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, without meaningful discussion, and clearly intend to game the system in the process. Keri (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The intemperate language and assumptions of bad faith continue, and the accusation of gaming the system is getting into personal attack territory, as is the accusation that I left the discussion "in a huff". (A cursory reading will show that my language was actually calm and considered, and was simply an acknowledgement that attempts at discussion with the editor have proved unproductive). The aggressive and intemperate language continued even after I disengaged. User also claims to see inside my head and know what I'm thinking and know my intentions regarding reverts. And no I did not "immediately revert" User:DynaGirl's edits, in fact for the most part they are intact; she felt that the source I cited was given undue prominence and she's probably right. My subsequent edits were substantive, supported by sources and properly explained in editsums. User has consistently refused to assume good faith despite being admonished to do so by admins in the previous thread and has shown a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality throughout. This user clearly has it in for me. So... was that technically a 3RR violation? Possibly. The WP:RS I cited (Collins Dictionary) in fact uses the stronger word "derogatory". If admins feel it is appropriate I will remove that word and engage in discussion but I don't think a description based on both WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:RS should really be a matter for controversy. I also think a warning to this user regarding continued assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks and battleground mentality is appropriate. Do people ever get hit by WP:BOOMERANGs on this board? MaxBrowne (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * All that aside, it appears you have violated 3RR on the article. making at least 6 reverts in past 24 hrs. The 4 listed above and also and   --DynaGirl (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Since Maxbrowne has a clean block log, I'm going to give him a final warning for the minute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * MaxBrowne continues to edit war despite the warning. This edit here was reverted by MaxBrowne here. In another example of gaming the system, the editor "hid" the significant content change between 2 minor changes which he self-reverted with the summary "undoing totally correct edit because of 3RR crap" demonstrating that he was fully aware his actions were inappropriate. Again: Their behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, without meaningful discussion, and clearly intend to game the system in the process. This was entirely foreseeable, given Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive320 Keri (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it. I think MaxBrowne has gone right up to the line. Self-reverting is okay. Using a summary of "undoing totally correct edit because of 3RR crap" is not great, but it does mean he understands the policy and is consciously taking steps to respect it. However, the diffs you supplied clearly show a revert, and as good as my word I have blocked. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:188.66.89.124 reported by User:Paul W (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

{{subst:void|You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have tried to reach consensus via User Talk and Article Talk, but the user has not responded (is there is a COI issue behind the user's changes?). This is the first time I have ever had to revert to this process in many years of Wikipedia editing, and I am conscious there may be BLP issues here, but for completeness and balance of sources, the user's edits appear to be masking reliably reported facts. Paul W (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * {{AN3|p}} Semi-protected for 3 days <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Paramdeeptung reported by User:Arjayay (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page:

Comments:

Have also tried to discuss on my talk page, but later posts to my TP were reverted by another - Arjayay (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Arjayay's patient and pedagogical attempts to explain the MOS, three other people have tried to get the user to stop the edit warring. Unfortunately, the editor's stance is rather inflexible, it seems, and they don't appear to be willing to discuss or accept consensus. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

And of course, this behavior of the editor is continuing on other pages too; and now the reported editor has started sock puppet investigation against Mlpearc, claiming David Biddulph, Sro23 and Mlpearc themselves are socks of Mlpearc. Not to miss the report below filed by the editor against unnamed editors. Lourdes 01:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:175.136.182.147 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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

This IP repeatedly removing contents from the article without valid explanation. I've given final warning to that IP user, and it persisted. It has been later reported to WP:AIV. When i checked it's editing history, the IP has only edited this article, nothing else. – Stylez995 (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Flipping heck, that's a lot of reverts. Blocked. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:DataKnowledgeWisdom reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* McDougall Plan criticism */"
 * 2)  "Rmv duplicate mention. Author to decide placement 1.Intro / 2. Criticism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 751373036 by Alexbrn (talk) removed biased and baseless claim from competing author"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 747210646 by Jytdog (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Was given two edit warnings (a friendly one and a less friendly one.) Decided to try to just add "There are no substantial evidence up to this date" after a sourced cite which... I guess is slightly better but the duck test says it's still edit warring, at least to me. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit summaries suggest the user has an axe to grind; I predict they'll either disappear or return and edit-war some more. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Avaya1 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: roughly this version; with no section on Israel. (Other edits have happened in the meantime that are not the focus of any edit warring or dispute.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (initial addition of section)
 * 2)  20:01, 21 November 2016
 * 3)  00:15, 22 November 2016
 * 4)  09:32, 22 November 2016
 * 5)  20:19, 22 November 2016
 * 6)  08:36, 23 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page here and received no response.

Comments:

Avaya1 is involved in an edit-war to include a particular quote on the page Tulsi Gabbard supported only by a primary source. At least three editors have objected to the inclusion. The editor communicates via edit summaries in a clear but non-constructive way, and did not respond to my attempt to initiate discussion on their talk page. Usual wiki-jargon bs is evident, including edits to include a quote with primary source citing WP:primary (numbers 2, 3 above) followed by edits to remove a quote with primary source citing the same policy (number 5).

Possibly, I have violated 3RR in the course of this edit war (I have not counted carefully, but have certainly made a bunch of reverts). I contend that my contributions are less disruptive and supported by consensus, but am willing to sit out a block if it is deemed appropriate. A quick look at Avaya1's talk page suggests that this is not the only article in which the user is currently engaged in contentious behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to count again and you've mis-written the times above. I've made 3 reverts within the first 24 hours. The fourth revert was over 24 hours after the first revert. And the fifth revert was more than 24 hours after the first two reverts. There is no revert there that contravenes 3RR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&action=history Avaya1 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Avaya1 seems to think it's OK to edit war as ling as he doesn't breach 3RR. This edit warring over the same or substantially similar content is disruptive. For example, see - MrX 14:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right: the accusation is disruptive edit-warring, not violations of 3RR. And the evidence on this point is pretty unambiguous. --JBL (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:213.113.97.221 reported by User:Oddbodz (Result: blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ Dan Koehl you are repeatedly reposting false information, please stop, there were no reported firearm homicides of females in Holland during the time frame. the source used is not credible."
 * 2)  "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ whoever wants to leave factually incorrect information on the site please resign, i will keep removing this erroneous information whenever i am on the site."
 * 3)  "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */  No female of this description was murdered in Holland during the time frame, keep putting it back in and prove that wikipedia does not fact check properly."
 * 4)  "/* Ali Hassan Salameh */ The second time i have had to edit this part, there was no female assassin, no female fitting the description of the assassin was murdered in Holland during that time, and there is no credible sources that detail this version."


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


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

~Anachronist (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:ICarriere reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751308468 by MrX (talk) There can be no consensus on the use of a pejorative term."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751295366 by FuriouslySerene (talk) Wikipedia should not be dictated by editors with a political agenda."
 * 3)  "Far-right is a pejorative word. The existence of references does not substantiate a pejorative. - ICarriere"
 * 4)  "/* Breitbart News */ Removal of bias from article. Far-right is a pejorative word. The existence of references does not substantiate a pejorative. - ICarriere"
 * 1)  "/* Breitbart News */ Removal of bias from article. Far-right is a pejorative word. The existence of references does not substantiate a pejorative. - ICarriere"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Steve Bannon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2016 */"

Article subject to 1RR... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Reverting appears to have stopped, content is back at the "alleged status quo", article is very group mind with teams of users, no need to block anyone unless reverting continues, it's at one revert but if you have multiple editors all ready to make one revert then your pov is a win win situation and apply to have anyone that steps in and doesn't understand the group play blocked. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Editors who ignore prominent 1RR notices and talk page warnings, and don't even bother to justify their edit warring here, should be blocked, otherwise there's no disincentive for continued disruption.- MrX 01:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation on Steve Bannon on November 24. The user has also been marking large article reverts as minor edits. WP:MINOR states "A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." The user further confirms his misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy with his comments in Talk:Steve Bannon. He is accusing others of editing with far-left bias. He considers his own edits so obviously correct that he is entitled to mark them as minor edits.  User is already alerted under WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:NFLjunkie22 reported by User:331dot (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "racist one drop rule is racist. and no. it's not white or chinese people that get to decide is it racist or not. black is black. multiracial is multiracial"
 * 2)  "racist one drop rule is racist. and no. it's not white or chinese people that get to decide is it racist or not. black is black. multiracial is multiracial"
 * 3)  "a chinese man deciding that anyone with a drop of black ancestry is black? now that's racist"
 * 4)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 5)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 6)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 7)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule. title says black players, not multiracial players"
 * 8)  "reverting racist edits by a racist individual"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 751537865 by Marc87 (talk)"
 * 10)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 11)  "/* List */"
 * 12)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 13)  "/* List */"
 * 14)  "removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule"
 * 15)  "we both violated the 3RR policy, but you still keep reverting and refusing to engage in talks. what is the reason of your revert?"
 * 16)  "no one does. you are a far more experienced editor than me, but now it's obvious you never heard of Wikipedia:Ownership of content"
 * 17)  "still refuse to engage in discussion. you don't own the page sir"
 * 18)  "reverting vandalism"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 751533163 by Marc87 (talk)"
 * 20)  "still no talk only edit warring from you. i therefore keep reverting your vandalism"
 * 21)  "and still no reasoning. As a chinese individual, you don't get to decide who is black and who is not."
 * 22)  "that's it? you just revert without discussion. as a mixed person to me this is insulting and ignorant"
 * 23)  "bi racials aren't black. this page is racist"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 751531200 by Marc87 (talk)"
 * 25)  "have you seen him. he's obviously bi racial"
 * 26)  "there. specified"
 * 27)  "/* List */"
 * 28)  "/* List */"
 * 29)  Another revert here
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751531200 by Marc87 (talk)"
 * 2)  "have you seen him. he's obviously bi racial"
 * 3)  "there. specified"
 * 4)  "/* List */"
 * 5)  "/* List */"
 * 6)  Another revert here
 * 1)  Another revert here


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on List of black NHL players. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2016 */"
 * 3)   "/* November 2016 */ clarify"
 * 4)   "/* November 2016 */"
 * 5)   "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Marc87. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User continually removing information from the article; disagrees about the criteria to be in the article. Did post on the article talk page. Also has been calling another user racist. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

reported user here! Yes i took offense and will keep taking offense. I was removing multiracial individual classified as black under the racist one drop rule. title says black players, not multiracial players. As a multiracial individual myself, i take offense at chinese and possibly white individual denying me my heritage by labeling me only one race. that is offensive and ignorant. I am a mixed individual, I AM NOT BLACK. i have a diverse background. you don't get to deny my heritage and definitely not with slavery era racial classifications. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I also made multiple attempts at dialog, even attempted to stop the edit war, but i only got reverts.
 * please see One-drop rule for further understanding.NFLjunkie22 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 08:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "that's it? you just revert without discussion. as a mixed person to me this is insulting and ignorant"
 * 09:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "and still no reasoning. As a chinese individual, you don't get to decide who is black and who is not."
 * 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) "we both violated the 3RR policy, but you still keep reverting and refusing to engage in talks. what is the reason of your revert?"NFLjunkie22 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

example,Evander Kane the ref is just a link to players NHL profile, no mention of race. this is false sourcing. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Rampant false sourcing on disputed page. User:Marc87 keeps reverting to unsourced and false sourced state


 * I have restored the article to the pre edit war state as the status quo and projected it from editing for a week. User the talk page and discuss it calmly. -- GB fan 13:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

you probably didn't even read the noticeboard. User:Marc87 outright REFUSED TO TALK! I bet you can't find a SINGLE instant in which he justified reverting. The information on the page is not properly sourced. A whole section ISN'T SOURCED, and he blatantly said in his last revert that he will keep reverting. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * by . Katietalk 13:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:‎Avaya1 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: roughly this version; with no section on Israel. (Other edits have happened in the meantime that are not the focus of any edit warring or dispute.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (initial addition of section)
 * 2)  20:01, 21 November 2016
 * 3)  00:15, 22 November 2016
 * 4)  09:32, 22 November 2016
 * 5)  20:19, 22 November 2016
 * 6)  08:36, 23 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I attempted to discuss with the user on their talk page here and received no response.

Comments:

Avaya1 is involved in an edit-war to include a particular quote on the page Tulsi Gabbard supported only by a primary source. At least three editors have objected to the inclusion. The editor communicates via edit summaries in a clear but non-constructive way, and did not respond to my attempt to initiate discussion on their talk page. Usual wiki-jargon bs is evident, including edits to include a quote with primary source citing WP:primary (numbers 2, 3 above) followed by edits to remove a quote with primary source citing the same policy (number 5).

Possibly, I have violated 3RR in the course of this edit war (I have not counted carefully, but have certainly made a bunch of reverts). I contend that my contributions are less disruptive and supported by consensus, but am willing to sit out a block if it is deemed appropriate. A quick look at Avaya1's talk page suggests that this is not the only article in which the user is currently engaged in contentious behavior. --JBL (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You need to count again and you've mis-written the times above. I've made 3 reverts within the first 24 hours. The fourth revert was over 24 hours after the first revert. And the fifth revert was more than 24 hours after the first two reverts. There is no revert there that contravenes 3RR. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulsi_Gabbard&action=history Avaya1 (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Avaya1 seems to think it's OK to edit war as ling as he doesn't breach 3RR. This edit warring over the same or substantially similar content is disruptive. For example, see - MrX 14:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right: the accusation is disruptive edit-warring, not violations of 3RR. And the evidence on this point is pretty unambiguous. --JBL (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Marc87 reported by User:NFLjunkie22 (Result: Page protected)
Previous version reverted to Diffs of the user's reverts
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * 1) (cur | prev) 11:50, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,334)‎ . . (Undid revision 751551106 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 11:49, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+5,025)‎ . . (Undid revision 751550931 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 3) (cur | prev) 11:43, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,376)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 4) (cur | prev) 11:42, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,876 bytes) (+15,376)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 5) (cur | prev) 11:31, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+1,136)‎ . . (Undid revision 751548856 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 6) (cur | prev) 11:10, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+15,057)‎ . . (Undid revision 751546900 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 7) (cur | prev) 11:05, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+15,057)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 8) (cur | prev) 10:58, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+13,921)‎ . . (Undid revision 751545317 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 9) (cur | prev) 09:52, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+6,553)‎ . . (Undid revision 751538957 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 10) (cur | prev) 09:48, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+6,553)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 11) (cur | prev) 09:46, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 12) (cur | prev) 09:45, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (Undid revision 751538315 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 13) (cur | prev) 09:41, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+5,083)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 14) (cur | prev) 09:24, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,954 bytes) (+174)‎ . . (→‎List) (undo | thank)
 * 15) (cur | prev) 09:13, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751535268 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 16) (cur | prev) 09:09, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (then who?) (undo | thank)
 * 17) (cur | prev) 09:05, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533219 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 18) (cur | prev) 09:04, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533183 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 19) (cur | prev) 09:04, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751533120 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 20) (cur | prev) 09:01, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532894 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 21) (cur | prev) 08:59, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532680 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 22) (cur | prev) 08:57, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532508 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 23) (cur | prev) 08:53, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751532193 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 24) (cur | prev) 08:47, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (Undid revision 751531325 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 25) (cur | prev) 08:41, 26 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (undo | thank)
 * 26) (cur | prev) 21:15, 25 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Undid revision 751427820 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 27) (cur | prev) 16:13, 25 November 2016‎ Marc87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43,780 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (Undid revision 751414711 by NFLjunkie22 (talk)) (undo | thank)

User continually revert article, despite a whole section not being sourced and many link that are given as reference don't mention the ethnic background of individual players. User:Marc87 refuses to give a response on why he reverts. User basically took ownership of the page, and refuses to engage in the talk page. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I have restored the article to the pre edit war state as the status quo and projected it from editing for a week. User the talk page and discuss it calmly. -- GB fan 13:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

not good enough User:GB fan. I have attempted multiple times talk with Marc:87 so far, nothing. he blatantly admitted he thinks he owns the page, also to the fact that he'll keep reverting. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * and still no response. tell me mister chinese User:Marc87, under what authority does a non mixed non black individual like yourself, feel you can classify and categorize people with my background? shm...still no answer? - I wouldn't be responsive to you either, try not antagonizing another user and then maybe you'll get a response. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, would a civility block of 24 hours be too much for this racially charged complaint; who the hell decided on this??? a bunch of white and asian people??? NFLjunkie22 (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC). Reping; . Mr rnddude (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Correction, and  an NPA block since NFLjunkie22 refuses to drop it; now he's calling an editor a bigot and racist?. Let me take a second to call a spade a spade and say; NFLjunkie22, you're acting the race baiter right now. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted, and I'm about to give the 4-npa warning. This will stop or I'll block him myself. Katietalk 13:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aight, thanks. Out of an interest for fairness I've given Marc a warning for doing the same thing here. Personal attacks are unwarranted and useless. If you cannot work with another editor avoid them. Carry on, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be as un-enraged as I possibly can. I AM A MIXED INDIVIDUAL I TAKE OFFENSE IN ANYONE WHO DENIES PART OF MY HERITAGE BY CALLING ME BLACK. User:Marc87 is basically telling me by reverting any attempt at specifying what is black and mixed on the page, shuttup blackie, you're black no matter what heritage you are, since you have one drop of black blood. The One-drop rule has a racist past to it. This is not about fairness this is about an individual perpetuating racist stereotypes and ignorant admins enabling it. BTW the players are still not properly sourced. only about 10 out of the whole bunch have link that states they're black or identify as black. Isn't properly sourcing articles part of the editors duty? NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Fully protected one week by . Katietalk 13:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd also note that we have a WP:RS that quotes Kane himeself stating that's he's Black: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/evander-kane-race-problem-winnipeg-183115925--nhl.html -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * that's one down, now properly sourced the 70 others. oh... and source the section that's hasn't been sourced so far, please. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm... possibly re-rename the article to something short, but, more nuanced. Say; List of NHL players with Black ancestry or List of NHL players with African ancestry. For this though, you'll need a RM on the article talk page. Admins won't counter community consensus except where policy necessitates it. Though, from the actual proposal, I did note this statement; in Canada and the United States "black" is defined as "of Black African descent". Mr rnddude (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * i support this, heck that's how this whole thing got started. i rewrote the lede from black players to players with black african ancestry, but it got reverted by one of you (i'm not sure which one), the justification was that the lede must mirror the title, so i started to remove non black players and players who's ethnicity wasn't sourced. in the meantime i was edit warring with User:Marc87 who just reverted everything, and literally gave no reason on why NFLjunkie22 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hakan3400 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 1RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article (and his) talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:Turkish military intervention in Syria
 * 1)  Talk:Turkish military intervention in Syria


 * Comments:

All Syrian- or ISIL-related articles are under a general 1RR sanction. The editor in question first canceled my update (based on a source) from 17 to 18 soldier deaths, claiming sources were only confirming 4 deaths in the last 48 hours, not 5. After User:Mr.User200 added a new source confirming 5 deaths in the last 48 hours, editor Hakan3400 cancelled his update as well. After I re-updated it to 18 based on available sources that 5 died in 48 hours he fully reverted me. Thus making a total of 3 cancellations in less than 6 hours. I attempted to discuss the issue with him at both his and the article's talk pages. I also warned him as I am obligated about the 1RR policy (at both talk pages) and that he should cancel his revert and continue discussing the issue. I asked him to cancel his revert 5 times. He continued to claim only 4 soldiers died because Turkey identified only 4 so far and claims the sources confirming 5 soldiers died are wrong based on his own opinion (Original Research violation). I pointed out his sources only point that Turkey identified 4 of 5 soldiers that were confirmed as killed (I even provided two links confirming 5 soldier deaths). He continued to claim those sources were wrong without providing verifiable evidence. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The death of 5 Turkish Soldiers in the last 28 hours; include 3 Maroon Berets killed in a alleged Syrian Airstrike, the death of a Turkish soldier by a ISIS attack at al-Bab and the death by wounds of a Turkish commando the same day. I still dont know the reason of the revert.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Editor in question also resorted to violations of WP:CIVIL during discussion: calling me a liar, my actions stupid, and that I'm afraid. At this point three out of four editors who discussed the issue are in agreement/consensus (including me) except the editor who violated 1RR. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for WP:1RR violation. This article is subject to WP:GS/SCW. The user is new since November 23. They have also been revert warring at Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present). EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

User:SlitherioFan2016 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This case is pursuant to this one: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Result of RFC on article talk page which went against SlitherioFan2016: Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system

Comments:

SlitherioFan2016 is an SPA whose sole agenda is changing the color scheme in the tables at four articles. At the original case SlitherioFan2016 agreed to not edit the article until the RFC was concluded. The RFC resulted in selecting the color scheme which offered better accessibility to color-blind users but SlitherioFan2016 refuse to accept the result and has changed the color scheme back on three occasions now. Within 24 hours of the original RFC closing he started a second RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system to overturn the result (which an admin advised him to withdraw) and then a third RFC at Talk:Motion_picture_rating_system essentially with the same goal.

I found his actions to be immensely disruptive so requested a topic ban at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. He promised at that filing to not change the color scheme again but continued to change the color scheme. He is clearly edit-warring against the outcome of the RFC and this needs to be dealt with.

If he wishes to explore other solutions this needs to be done on the talk page, but the RFC outcome needs to enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you had read my last edit summary, I said to not change the color scheme disruptiveIy again from that point on. Despite this, I'm still confused. Do you want me to change the color scheme or not? SlitherioFan2016 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not edit the article again. --Tarage (talk) 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Each time it appears that SlitherioFan2016 is about to follow consensus we are disappointed yet again. See two prior discussions at ANI. One of them is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive936. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "seriously. you're not going to make me say this again, are you?"
 * 2)  "As i said, if we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. This is untenable! If you make an exception for him, you can not make an exception for all other former members who wish to be identified here!"
 * 3)  "If i have to talk about Harvey Lester's change of party, then we also need to talk about a lot more than simply removing him from the discussion. Furthermore, if we accord him a place in this township'"
 * 4)  "Harvey Lester lost his re-election bid. He should not be on this page. He is no longer part of the council."
 * 5)  "Deleted reference to Lester, who is not on the Township committee"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hopewell Township, Mercer County, New Jersey. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* f we leave this person in our township's history, we need to refer to ALL former council members. */ new section"

New editor refusing to get that they can't keep pushing their content removal agenda. Three experienced editors have reverted back to status quo, given reasons why the removal isn't helpful or appropriate for the article, newbie keeps reverting anyway. Hoping this report will get them to stop, however, I'm expecting a gaming the system move to occur after 24 hours following their last revert passes. A short block might keep that from happening. Or not. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 14:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Note: The disruptive editing continues with these additions:, . Something needs to be done to convince this new editor that his edits are not only disruptive but WP:POV and a violation of our WP:BLP policies. ("After two years in office, with no prior consultation and barely a word of explanation, he went back on his word, dropped his commitments, and flipped to the Republican Party (apparently to nominate and vote for himself as mayor.) His performance has been dreadful, allowing spending in the budget to skyrocket, ignoring the looming issue of state affordable housing mandates, all the while taking credit for the work of those who preceded him.") -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 18:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. Questions have been raised whether User:Bbbshell is capable of editing neutrally on this topic. I'm alerting him to WP:ARBAPDS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:104.245.38.23 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751670042 by Imminent77 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751669728 by Feinoha (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 751669484 by Feinoha (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 751669338 by Imminent77 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 751669232 by Imminent77 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Asr is closer to the Hebrew alphabet, so where did they get Asher from?"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 751667052 by Yintan (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 751666745 by Yintan (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 751666627 by Yintan (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 751666273 by Yintan (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly changing the content of the Asher page as well as another page despite being reverted by more than one user. Fei noh a  Talk 04:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Mailmehotlips reported by User:NOTNOTABLE (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"
 * 1)  "Highlighting the negative areas of Tesco not just the positive"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Tesco. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – By User:Favonian per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.193.75 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wrong. It was the deletio of this material that was contentious. How can it be contentious to mention a controversy in the lead? Per policy, all significant Controverises MUST (not may) be mentioned in the lead. Learn the rules or choose a new name, judge"
 * 2)  "Restore unexplained deletion of content, contra policy. This is your final warning against your biased editing. Go put the pom poms away and act like an encylopedist. :Contributions/Mr. Vernon
 * 3)  "How is it irrelevant? It is a protest of the inauguration. If you continue your harassment, I will have you blocked. Undid revision 751779846 by Mr. Vernon (talk)"
 * 4)  "Restore unexplained deletion of referenced content by vandals. Only a fool or a knave would thnk the protests are irrelevant. Undid revision 751435712 by 76.106.6.238 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Discussion of inauguration-related protests */ new section"


 * Comments:

Editor is currently aggressively attacking other editors. Note that he was given a 3RR warning but blanked his talk page, see Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm obligated to add something, since I'm mentioned by name (and is the one who gave the 3RR warning). He won't stop reverting, even when we have told him to stop. Sro23 suggests they may be, and I'm led to believe he might actually be a sock. Also this edit. JudgeRM   (talk to me)  20:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Widr (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

User:71.222.33.212 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: No action, self-reverted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The edit that I was reverting was clear and obvious vandalism, after which I warned the user and can be seen here. If this edit wasn't obvious vandalism, then I apologize, as this was not meant to be any sort of content dispute; just reverting vandalism, that's all. 71.222.33.212 (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Not vandalism. Please self-revert or you will be blocked.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Self-reverted per request, no further action required.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Antiochus the Great reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed Spain. Neither of the two citations are academic and neither state Spain is globally recognised as a cultural superpower.)."
 * 2)  "removed unsourced)."
 * 3)  "Removed Spain. Once again, none of the sources are describing Spain as a Cultural superpower)."
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 751594289 by Antiochus the Great: Again, a source that describes Spain as a Cultural superpower is needed. (TW))."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   " 1st warning inserted on the talk page of the user "Antiochus The Great". Next time, this warning will be listed at the administrators noticeboard. This edition is for preverting false reversions.)"
 * 2)   "Added a warning in his own talk page"


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




 * Comments:

Was given two edit warnings, both quite friendly editions, where the 1st was maded after adding an additional source of the University of San Diego. and one directly maded on his own talk page). But the user keeps deleting the changes without major/reasonable reasons. All of this started the last week when another user decided to remove Spain from the page Power (international relations), which included Spain from several months ago and many other users have edited the page without changing it.

Spain is a cultural superpower, it's the founder of the Hispanic Heritage and the Spanish culture, being also the the place where it was originated the 2nd most widely spoken language in the world (Spanish). Spain maded the expeditions leaded by Cristopher Columbus (Columbus wasn't Spanish, but the expedition was Spanish) which resulted in the official discovery of the Americas in 1492 (Voyages of Christopher Columbus).

Also, many Spanish icons are present nowadays in the top of the European culture, like Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dalí, Francisco de Goya. Miguel de Cervantes, El Greco or Felipe II, just for putting some examples. The sources say that Spain is a main cultural reference for the world, and a main cultural influencer; although it doesn't say specifically "cultural superpower" as this term is unspecific, and it's mostly used on Wikipedia or in British internet articles. Anyways, "cultural superpower" means huge influence on culture, and that's what it says the source from the University of San Diego as other sources. The Hispanic heritage is noted on all continents, due to spanish ex-colonies, as mostly of Latin America has Spanish colonial architecture. Huge influences are also found on Morocco, Western Sahara, Equatorial Guinea. and Philippines.

The same user also added on his edition maded at 21:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC) exactly this: "Unlike traditional forms of national power, the term cultural superpower is in reference to a nations Soft power capabilities." While Spain is listed as a soft power country by many sources, like for example the prestigious Time newspaper or the role of the Spanish language in the foreign policy. . In fact in the architecture of the global presence maded by Elcano foundation, Spain appears as one of the top 10 countries in global presence; this same user linked the soft power cultural capacity of a country to the cultural superpower, and Spain enters inside that categorization. So another thing that links closely Spain to a cultural superpower, which the user deleted without any reliable reason (even being something obvious). A very prestigious and trustworthy source says exactly this: From Seville to Brussels: The Architecture of Global Presence --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The filer, User:TechnicianGB, has stated that consensus was reached about this dispute. Can anyone explain? EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Per Talk:Power (international relations) it appears that some mention of Spain in the article as a cultural power has been agreed to by the two parties. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, here it is the agreement: Talk:Power (international relations). Kind regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Drdpw reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:57, 24 November 2016
 * 2) 17:59, 24 November 2016
 * 3) 17:40, 25 November 2016
 * 4) 20:03, 25 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is currently a debate going on as to whether the table at said article should be redesigned. I (along with and the user-in-question) am in favour, but rather conditionally. Drdpw unfortunately has displayed a few traits of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR over the article, reverting any minor tweak he isn't satisfied with while claiming that the layout is still under discussion. All I had done was tweak the alignment back to the way it was originally (when the redesign was first implemented), but I was reverted. So then I thought it would be better if I just reverted to the layout before all this hullabaloo started. I was reverted again. I am wits' end here. Two users (namely and ) oppose or are cool to the redesign. Therefore reverting to the layout before this commotion would favour the wishes of the majority for the time being, while a consensus is built on the article talkpage.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems mostly to be a dispute over which version should remain in main space while a discussion is taking place. I think both and  have been spending too much time and effort reverting and unreverting changes in main space, and I am sorely tempted to quote Shakespeare. I would hope that they would both devote themselves to the discussion I have been attempting to carry forward. I myself agree not to make any changes in main space without first announcing what I am about to do on the talk page and then waiting for a period of time and/or someone to tell me to go ahead. I think it would be good if these two editors would agree to this also. I am inspired to make this offer by this edit by Drdpw. YBG (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I should have let sleeping dogs lie, but I didn't, and here we are. So, to cut to the chase, I myself agree not to make any changes in main space unless consensus has clearly been reached for them, and to make them only after getting the green-light to do so. I hope that will agree to this as well. Drdpw (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It appears that a reasonable discussion is taking place on the talk page, and that User:YBG is helping there. I hope that User:Drdpw and User:Neve-selbert will be careful going forward. If more problems occur, full protection may be considered. It is non-trivial to get agreement on a page that is so stuffed with information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am utterly dismayed by your decision, . Drdpw violated 3RR and hence should at least undergo a block of 24hrs. As you very well know, I once made four reverts on a page and you were the one that blocked me, despite how similar my plea was to Drdpw's (above). I strongly urge you to reconsider; it's as if there's some kind of double-standard that you have here.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 16:31, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The last revert was more than 24 hours in the past at the time of this closure. I advise both parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further reverts, since blocks are possible. I'm posting this message to User:Drdpw as well as you. Notice Drdpw's assurance just above: "I myself agree not to make any changes in main space unless consensus has clearly been reached for them.." EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still somewhat bemused, but I'll accept your judgment for now. If he decides to go off on another reverting spree, I shall inform you.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Jjreedreed reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 751608690 by Alexbrn (talk) new scholarly source and information added back in"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 751607560 by Geni (talk)"
 * 3)  "added more current scholarly research and source information; expanded to complete quote from CDC report to provide context"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* November 26, 2016 additions */ new section"


 * Comments:

New editor has now been reverted by three separate editors and edit warred after warning. Warning given by another editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

On unrelated note, this new editor's other early edits were to. Jjreedreed was adding content and links to material by and about Jennifer J. Reed, a sociology Ph.D. student (?) who has published some work on the topic. Someone who's up to speed on the appropriate links to advice for editors with a COI should probably provide her with suitable guidance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this not outing another editor? DrChrissy (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. If J.J. Reed is inserting links to J.J. Reed's blog and publications while editing under the username JJReed reed, then they've openly identified themselves.  (Indeed, if the editor in question isn't J.J. Reed, the account should be renamed or blocked as an impersonator.)  Going forward, DrChrissy, it would be a very good idea for you to read WP:OUTING before making accusations of such serious misconduct in the future.  The answer to your question is in the first sentence: "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. " TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you realised I asked a question rather than making an "accusation". I have another question for you: If your identification of the editor is unrelated to the thread, as you stated in your opening sentence, what was the motivation behind making the posting? DrChrissy (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * JAQing is just a sleazy way to cast aspersions without taking responsibility for your actions. To be clear, outing is generally a gross breach of decorum, highly obnoxious, sometimes illegal (depending on circumstances and jurisdiction), and may carry the risk of serious off-wiki harm to its victims&mdash;aside from being a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy.  I guess you're still carrying some sort of grudge from the times I've criticized your editing in the past, but insinuating that I am engaged in outing is serious business and not the sort of thing you should casually toss around.
 * The "motivation" was simply to avoid spawning multiple parallel noticeboard discussions which would be needlessly confusing and potentially intimidating for a new editor. (Heck, it would be needlessly confusing for any admins interacting with her to have to deal with multiple separate discussions, too.)  I didn't think she needed to get dragged to WP:COIN as this didn't look like a particularly complicated issue; I just hoped a "word to the wise" from a fellow admin who had the links (and the time and patience) handy would suffice. WP:NOTBURO and all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The hostility in your posts above and the one you sent to my Talk page (now deleted) are ample evidence that you have failed to WP:AGF. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of how WP works.  Rather than this, you have directed me to a page which is not even an en-wiki page, and even more importantly, the article states in the opening It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is NOT invalid. We are now well off the topic of this thread and I suggest an admin (not a non-admin) has a look at this to see whether anything is actionable and if not, I suggest it should be hatted. DrChrissy (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Person discloses here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Jjreedreed is warned they may be blocked if they make further reverts at Morgellons that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. They are also advised that WP:MEDRS is taken very seriously when making changes to medical articles. I notice that a COI concern has been raised about Ecosexuality but so far I don't see one at Morgellons. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Semi-auto reported by User:Johorean Guy (Result: Article Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  Undid revision 752038216 by Johorean Guy

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

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

Comments:

He removed the link of neutral and reliable sources.
 * Article protected, now go and discuss the issue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Johorean Guy reported by User:Semi-auto (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 752063989 by Semi-auto (talkRemoved unreliable sources. 2016 Penang state population only 1.8 million."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 752039357 by Semi-auto (talk)Remove unreliable source. So called Greater Penang is not second largest city."
 * 3)  "Removed unreliable and obsolete sources"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on George Town, Penang. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on George Town, Penang. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on George Town, Penang. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Johorean Guy was given the third warning after he undid my revisions the third time. Semi-auto (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Article protected, now go and discuss the issue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Coneleir reported by User:Mehmedsons (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * 1)  User talk:Coneleir
 * 2)  User talk:Coneleir
 * 1)  User talk:Coneleir
 * 2)  User talk:Coneleir

Comments:

This is my first complaint so do not judge strictly. But I ask experienced participants to do something in this situation. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yor are must take action! No one to should violate a rules. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

– 48 hours. See my notice to Coneleir. I was hoping they would respond before it was time to close this but they haven't been active. I'm going ahead with a block for the 1RR violation because they were previously warned about this at ANI, back in October. They had a chance to respond then but did not do so. See their talk page. Various people have left them five different warnings about the Syrian war map, to which they don't respond. According to the ANI complaint, the problem is not just edit warring but making unsourced changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:TRUEV140 reported by User:Essex-1799 (Result: Both indeffed for sockpuppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Last best known revision

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , (Not exactly edit war warning, but for deliberate inclusion of factual errors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff, diff (user did not participated)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff, diff, diff (user did not participated)

Comments:

User is again edit warring after the expiration of his recent block. The user is a "large scale" IP hopper, one of his frequently used IP was blocked recently along with his original a/c, which apparently again started edit war in other pages. See this report to get a better understanding. For edit warring, the user alternatively uses his original a/c and his IPs. Last time he used his IP, hence this time its his original a/c. User is trying to re-add some long-disputed content, to leave no stone unturned it is further manipulated in the maximum possible way through his own extra additions and alterations. The user is not willing to participate in any of the discussions initiated in the article talk or in his own talk page, which I tried 3 times. I am pretty sure that the user very well knows what he is doing is deliberate inclusion of problematic content, hence he has nothing to discuss about it (other than bluffing in edit summary). So his only option to establish the content is through edit war. This is not the only page he is doing this. As far as observed, the account is created only to promote his favorite actor Mammootty and his films, by adding puffery and other claims in favor of his star. If anyone questions his activities, he don't care. --Essex-1799 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

reported user here! I have given explanation for each of the edits. Essex-1799 is actually edit warring which can be checked in : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) The Essex-1799 is removing sources, which are valid and correctly explained, so I am restoring these valid sources and informations. In this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film)#Box_office - Firstly the user is telling Times Of India report(http://m.timesofindia.com/others/news-interviews/Hariharan-MT-Vasudevan-prepare-for-Randamoozham/articleshow/9807050.cms) is invalid without any proofs. Secondly the user is providing producer's box office claim(http://movies.ndtv.com/regional/pazhassi-raja-to-be-shown-at-tokyo-film-festival-52284|title=Pazhassi Raja to be shown at Tokyo Film Festival), which can not be actually placed as source according to wikipedia rules WP:V. Admin Cyphoidbomb has explained rightly about this thing in talk page of the article Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kerala_Varma_Pazhassi_Raja_(film)&action=edit&section=7. After this explanation also, the user Essex-1799 has started giving invalid reasons against admin's explanation and started removing valid sources and restoring back invalid sources. The user is also removing sources from other pages also without any valid reasons...TRUEV140 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

To administrators, for knowing this issue correctly, visit the talk page of this user and the article talk.--Essex-1799 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - TRUEV140 has cited IndiaGlitz, a site that is not considered reliable per WP:ICTF. Onlookersmedia is a blog formed by a few nobodies who met on Facebook, so it shouldn't be used as a source as it fails WP:UGC. TRUEV140 incorporated an International Business Times (IBT) reference that cites Onlookers as the source of some information, so TRUEV140 is using an inappropriate reference by proxy. I think that TRUEV should have left the status quo alone and gone directly to the talk page immediately upon being reverted, rather than participating in this edit war that appears to have gone on since October. I've been just too busy with other stuff to notice this going on. Both editors haven't behaved at their best. I do note that at least Essex opened a discussion circa 8 November, where TRUEV140 didn't respond until 26 November. I will also note that at Indian cinema/actor/TV articles in general there is a significant problem with paid editing rings who sweep through articles puffing them up with arbitrary records, so I can understand Essex's sensitivity to puffery. I note that some of the content submitted by TRUEV140 included subjective ideas like "The film was successful at both Malayalam and Tamil versions.[38] The film was successful at Kerala,Tamil Nadu,Mumbai,Delhi,UAE and USA[39][40][41][42][43]" I haven't scoured through these, but this is one reference that is attributing the claim of success in the Indian state of Kerala to the film's director, which I would argue violates WP:PRIMARY.  So there might very well be fundamentally flawed information and sourcing going on here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Essex-1799 is simply edit warring with TRUEV140 with invalid reasons...OneFourZero (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that, user is a possible sock account. He is doing exactly what the other user is doing.--Essex-1799 (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree., don't war with the new account. leave things alone for a little bit, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also like to encourage any reviewing admin to hold off on sanctioning Essex for the time being, please. Some of the IPs used by TRUEV140 have generated some disruptive content, like this one who kept adding hyperbolic statements about films being "highly successful" or in this case describing a film as a "disappointing failure". I feel very strongly that I've dealt with this person a number of times, and there's a strong possibility they are evading another block and are already de facto banned. In which case, Essex would be protected from 3RR per WP:REVERTBAN. An SPI case is pending CU. What is clear, is that this user has, while logged out, been warned numerous times about promotional tone and introducing subjective content about film success. Here's a warning from FoCuSandLeArN about this very thing. And Materialscientist warned this IP for unsourced content, though it was in fact for this edit, which introduces the hyperbolic description of a film as a "super hit". Admins should also check this report. The IPs mentioned above all geolocate to Thiruvananthapuram, in the Indian state of Kerala, on ISP Asianet.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, Much to my chagrin, Editor Essex-1799 was determined by to be a sock of . The progression of events went: I opened an SPI case against OneFourZero and asked for CU to compare the account to TRUEV140. That actually turned out to be a dud, but since I was also suspicious that OneFourZero had been created as a decoy, I asked Bbb23 if Essex could have created it themselves to throw off the edit-warring case. During B's investigation he uncovered a "can of worms" and as detailed here that sweeped up a few accounts including Essex, Charles Turing and Inside the Valley. I'm at least shocked about Charles Turing, who was developing as a very strong, communicative editor. However, I still think that TRUEV140 has dirty hands, considering the months-long campaign to assert his preferred version of articles despite community-approved sources, etc.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Both accounts have been indeffed for sockpuppetry. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Homunculus 2 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No YOU stop changing and discuss. No "common sense" except your opinion and leftist sources. Yes, PBS is leftist."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 752118457 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 3)  "Do NOT link to leftist sources calling them "Nazi" salutes. The opinion of leftist sources does not count as objective reality."
 * 4)  "NOT "Nazi" salutes and no chants of "Sieg Heil". Linking to a leftist source calling them "Nazi" salutes does not count as objective reality."


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


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


 * Comments:

Simple, blatant violation of the rules to remove a well-sourced description of an action as a Nazi salute, because apparently this user has a sadz that people don't like Nazi salutes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. How to describe the salutes in our article is a matter for editor consensus to decide, but four reverts is four reverts. The New York Times has also used the phrase 'Nazi salutes' describing a different Spencer event. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:SWF88 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In my attempt to have a talk page discussion, this is all the user had to say. Parsley Man (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reported user comment: In the same talk page you can see that you're the only one having the issue adding it. you've even been called out for using the threat of ban as a debate method. SWF88 (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the one who reverted you last time, so clearly at least one other person has issue with it. Also, read the rest of the talk page. There a number of other users who would be in opposition to this inclusion as well. Parsley Man (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And another person who is clearly opposed to your contribution! Parsley Man (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * fine then, that's 2v2. We need a tie breaker. SWF88 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I told you to read the rest of the talk page. There's definitely more people who would object. Parsley Man (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did. now my position holds a 3v2 lead. SWF88 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you read this section? Parsley Man (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Either way, it doesn't matter. You reverted four times, which is a violation of WP:3RR. Therefore, this report is perfectly warranted and legitimate. Parsley Man (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ironic, coming from a guy banned multiple times for revert warring. SWF88 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is how I knew when to stop and let others do the work for me when the whole affair got drawn out. Which you failed to do. Parsley Man (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the concensus was against you, and still is btw. you made an unjustified removal. that's why i reverted. SWF88 (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not reading this section... Parsley Man (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And what part of WP:3RR do you not understand? This attempt at deflection really isn't going to work... Parsley Man (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Parsley, your attitude is very provoking and you do very rarely attempt to sort things out in a civil tone. You leave messages at SW88s talk page about him having a "snippy attitude". If you had contacted him and used a civil tone there would be no issue here. Threatning another editor with a ban for simply a 3RR violation is excessive at best. I think that both Parsley and SW88 needs to stay away from each other, period. BabbaQ (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You clearly did not read the diffs I provided. I stopped at my third revert and attempted to take the dispute to the talk page, but SWF88 made no attempt at a civil discussion and simply posted an incivil reply that was not contributory whatsoever. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that SWF88 is a new editor, he's been around only since last March and has ~700 edits.  Note that the attacker at OSU, posted a message on Facebook indicating his sympathy for violent Islamist attacks yesterday morning, then phoned in a fake emergency which emptied a building, then drove into the crowd of people who had evacuated the building, then took out a knife and began stabbing people.  New editors can have a hard time understanding why an attack like that can't be called Islamist.  Parsley, who has a documentably WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude towards fellow editors who write about Islamist attacks, ought to have begun by engaging this new editor, explaining policy, and attempting to work this out.  This sort of attack chase editors off the project; why put your time into editing in such a nasty environment?  I do wonder to what extent this sort of attack on newish editors is merely part of an editor's style, and to what extent it is a targeted effort to chase an editors whose POV on an issue in uncongenial off the project.  Whatever the motivation, Parsley should try harder to work with fellow editors.  And try harder not to waste the time of dedicated editors trying to keep up with complaints on this board.  This one truly looks as though a little patient courtesy could have ended with an amicable solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And please note that states as if they were fact an number of things which have yet to be determined or to be reported by any reliable source.  No source has as yet confirmed that the attacker posted the Facebook message being investigated, and the Facebook post criticized American actions toward Muslims; it was not a obvious confession or declaration concerning the attacker's actions.  No source has confirmed (and in fact several agencies now dispute) that the attacker "phoned in a fake emergency".  And even if either of these had been established as facts, neither would permit the labelling of the incident as "Islamic terrorism", which is the effect of the edit SWF88 persistently asserts, until authorities have (any authority has) made that determination.  So far, none of them have. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoa. I never said that such an assertion should have been put on the page. Only that one can understand why a newish user would think so. My assertion is that the proper response would have been to explain how we make this sort of decision to User:SWF88.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you stated those assertions as if they were facts that somehow supported the contentious edits. SWF88's Talk page and the Talk page of the article already bear evidence of attempts to explain our policies and procedures to an editor who is intent on ignoring them. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:General Ization i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents. i don't intend to be a wiki maverick. SWF88 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't claim to be a mind reader. We can only judge editors' intent by their actions.  In this case, your actions are what have led to the opening of this case.  When editors follow or even appear to be trying to follow policy, they generally do not find their edits being discussed on this noticeboard. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization   Talk   20:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * has every right to participate in this discussion, especially he's also made fruitful contributions to the article and has knowledge of the situation. And if you never intended to be a "wiki maverick", you should've heeded the very important rule of WP:3RR and discussed the disagreement with me and others on the talk page in a civil manner before you made any further edits. Parsley Man (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * never said he doesn't have the right to be involved in the discussion and you know it. you're just looking for a petty excuse to start a confrontation. also, take you own advice Palsey 'banned numerous times for edit war' Man and have a nice day. SWF88 (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's being incivil and confrontational here. "i'd appreciate if you don't speak for me or for my intents." Really sounds like you're trying to lock him out of the discussion, or at least limit what he has to say. Parsley Man (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * we're done. go troll someone else SWF88 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a troll. You have five reverts under your belt, and this needs to be addressed. I of all people would know the importance of this. Parsley Man (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try to hear yourselves as others hear you, particularly as new editors hear you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? This is a discussion of core Wikipedia policies and of repeated but so far unsuccessful efforts to convince an editor to follow them. My communications with you and with the editor have been civil, but to the point. What are you proposing? And by the way, there is only one of me. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  Talk   19:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, E.M., you're clearly trying to deflect here because of our longstanding issues. I did make an effort to discuss with SWF88 on his talk page and that of the Ohio attack, but he really did have a snippy attitude in response. Look at the diffs I provided. Parsley Man (talk) 20:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; clearly exceeded 3RR on this article. He was warned, continued, violated, was reported&mdash;was aware of the report and commented on it&mdash;and continued anyway.  Also, calling someone a troll and shutting down doesn't help anyone. -- slakr  \ talk / 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:HeheDNCE reported by User:IndianBio (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Seriously? So at Wikipedia it's ok to assume someone is a sock without any proof whatsoever and just continually revert their edits? What a toxic site this is."
 * 2)  "I've given you a reason for why this should be here, you're being unreasonable now. I will get you banned if I have to."
 * 3)  "So? Look at the pages for any song that features a singer; the featured singer is credited here. Look at the page for "Telephone" by Lady Gaga for reference."
 * 4)  "Page doesn't exist"
 * 5)  "She needs to be credited here"
 * 1)  "She needs to be credited here"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: You are a suspected sockpuppet. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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

I am absolutely confused by the mass Edit warring going here between this user and. Someone please intervene. — I B  [ Poke  ] 19:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Do not delete my comment. I would suggest that whoever looks into this takes a look at their edits as well, as they are involved in the same edit wars. The difference is that I gave reasons for my edits, they did not. HeheDNCE (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, your comments were not deleted, it got removed in an . — I B  [ Poke  ] 19:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

And let me clear up the confusion for you: they are refusing to state their reasons for reverting my edits, which is not ok. I tried to be reasonable with them, but they are not reasonable, just like you. HeheDNCE (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because you gave a reason for your edit does not give you the right to continue edit warring across multiple article and similarly should not continue warring. — I B   [ Poke  ] 19:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Well then tell me, why did you only report me but not Kellymoat? Just admit it, you have some personal issue with me, and that's why you're reporting me. I haven't done anything wrong, you just want me off this site for some personal reason. Oh and also, I added sources for the MC scores. HeheDNCE (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * on the contrary, you have done something wrong, despite being warned about it. Please familiarize yourself with our three-revert rule, as well as our other policies and guidelines in order to avoid this confusion in the future. -- slakr  \ talk / 22:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:67.11.0.43 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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

See block log - already blocked twice for this edit war and has returned to grind the axe.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:
 * . Obvious long term issue; same editor on static IP. Kuru   (talk)  04:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

and it continues

5.

6.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */To remove errorous information"
 * 2)  "/* Career */Removed false information"
 * 3)  "/* Career */"
 * 4)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */Removed false information"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 3)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"
 * 1)  "/* Career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2016 */ further explanation"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Allen Meadors. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is being paid to edit the article in question, and is clearly NOTHERE to do anything except whitewash the page. Has been reverted and warned multiple times with no indication that they are doing anything other than "removing false information" (which, in and of itself, is a false statement, since everything is referenced). Primefac (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion has finally started on my talk . Whether it goes anywhere remains to be seen. Primefac (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The user removed some of the sourced content again, while logged out (they clearly identified themselves as Pointer22 here). --bonadea contributions talk 07:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blocks will quickly escalate if this behavior continues after the block expires. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:187.189.240.192 reported by User:82.5.252.160 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

I think this is also the same user: 2600:100F:B00C:7725:9417:9BDF:BE8A:BA4A

Unfortunately the user above is right that user can post from other locations and is now using 2600:100F:B02C:8AB7:205A:B1CE:938F:354 User:IanB2 29 November 2016

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

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

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

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

Comments: <br /

User (blocked once before for similar) delights in introducing tiny mistakes into an active page and then reverting or reintroducing it each time it is corrected. On the Arrival film page this has been going on for several days with various users restoring the earlier version until giving up due to 3RR. I have revised the paragraph concerned to close off the apostrophe dispute he has been waging just recently, but am reasonably confident he will resume somewhere else; his entire edit history consists of similar.


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A good outcome. Unfortunately the user above is right that user can post from other locations and is now using  2600:100F:B02C:8AB7:205A:B1CE:938F:354 User:IanB2 29 November 2016

User:Johorean Guy reported by User:Semi-auto (Result: protected)
Page: Johor Bahru

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

According to 2010 census, Iskandar Malaysia conurbation, including Johor Bahru, is the third largest metropolitan area in Malaysia. User:Johorean Guy has posted misinformation claiming that Iskandar Malaysia is the second largest metropolitan area without any substantial evidence. In fact, he posted some crude, ridiculous explanation on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Semi-auto.

Translation: Helo Penangite, Penang has fallen behind... So do not feel paranoid... haha :) Ikea, Paradigm Mall & Southkey Megamall are about to open in JB. JB's highways are also longer than Penang.. JB's built-up area is larger than Penang.. High-speed rail is also about to be opened in Iskandar.. About 60 elevated highways are under construction.. Penang's era is over.. Stop vandalising the Johor page or I will report your Wikipedia account.

Semi-auto (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * by someone else -- slakr \ talk / 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 1st introduction, 18:19, 21 November 2016
 * 2) diff, restored after reversion 18:43, 21 November 2016
 * 3) diff 21:12, 21 November 2016
 * 4) diff 16:16, 28 November 2016

Separately there is another bit of edit warring on a different piece of content
 * 1) dif 21:12, 21 November 2016
 * 2) dif   21:37, 21 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk section started by Johnvr4: Comments:
 * 1) Faulty reasoning for reversion of edits
 * 2) Origin of conspiracy theory and relationship to historical covert CBW testing (added by JohnVR4)
 * 3) User_talk:Alexbrn (added by JohnVR4)
 * 4) ANI Noticeboard Reversion Comment (added by JohnVR4

Johnvr4 has been fixated on this topic for a long time (see contribs) and has returned after a long break. For some reason is demanding that the article state that there were no books on this topic as as of 2003 or so - waging a slow edit war to put that in and bludgeoning the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The other involved editors have been "fixated" on that page even longer. User:jytdog asked me to take a break from editing that page, to regroup and come back. He also helped me develop the material I've inserted.  "Demanding" inclusion is a misrepresentation as the stated reasons for these edits are available on the talk page while the actual  legitimate reasons for reverting are not.  The edits have been discussed extensively on the article talk page as was consensus and editor participation in the discussion and the merit of concerns.  I feel this is going to be a npov noticeboard issue. Johnvr4 (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnvr, we have provided reasons; you are not hearing them. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The concerns were expressed by you and other editors who were utterly unable to support or explain their concern on the talk page. You also included reliably sourced Diffs above that I reinserted because they were removed with mistaken and utterly absurd obstructionist reasoning such as wp:v or wp:or Johnvr4 (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you've also included diffs of improvements to citations of the very sources that involved editors admittedly didn't read and that they fought me over repeatedly because they didn't read it and then refused to listen when I explained they did not read it. That is how this problem started. This is pretty pathetic and I pray that uninvolved editors understand it for what it is. Johnvr4 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User:47.201.179.7 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And another revert. They even reverted the formating on the reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for 3 days. I think the IP is dynamic so a block might not do anything, and it's now stale anyway. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Apeanof reported by User:Noq (Result: Stale)

 * 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 Bilderberg Group. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeating same comment despite multiple warnings from multiple editors noq (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And continuing to revert after being notified of this discussion. Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A block would have been justifiable 12 hours ago but he's stopped now. If he starts up again, ping me and I'll look into it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They just did it again Fyddlestix (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hyperforin reported by User:Jytdog (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 05:17, 29 November 2016
 * 2) diff 05:36, 29 November 2016
 * 3) diff 05:41, 29 November 2016
 * 4) diff 06:15, 29 November 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; previously warned on 16th twice dif and dif.

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

Comments:

Note block log stemming from ANI Nov 18 and ANI Nov 24 and these comments on my Talk page: diff, diff. Oy. Jytdog (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the hell this is about because the three reverts were mainly for varying and evolving content. Jytdog is a masterful selective displayer of edit history to make others look bad when they are trying to do the right thing. Although he linked to the Talk page, he completely failed to discuss the disputed statements on the Talk page. Moreover, he is a hypocritical user who asks others to use only recent Pubmed indexed recent sources, whereas he himself used substantially older non-Pubmed indexed sources. He has a documented conflict of interest with regard to neurological drugs, one which shows clearly to me in his edits for the noted article. --Hyperforin (talk) 07:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My COI is clearly defined here. Adaptogens are not relevant to acute neurological injury as far as I can tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't say I believe the declared limits of your COI, although this is a disagreement which we won't resolve today. It's also terribly easy for a COI to bleed into closely related concerns. --Hyperforin (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 21:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Hydloc009 reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Protected 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has engaged in 3RR with multiple users. Notice was posted on his talkpage, which he has deleted. Refuses to listen.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Not going to block here because I had a minor dispute with Hydloc009; but this user is being rather disruptive at the moment. They have been advised not to engage in further reverts several times, by several more experienced users, but choose to ignore the warnings or to defend their position. Vanamonde (talk) 08:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User continues with disruptive editing. Despite me leaving him several messages and warnings, this user again indulged in disruptive editing. I started a discussion on WikiProject Numismatics talkpage here to get a feedback from experienced Numismatics users and am awaiting outcome. User Hydloc009 does not listen to anyone, is pushing his POV, engaging in 3RR, I suspect he is sock of another account (which was blocked and I have opened a SPI also) and is causing lots of problems for other users. Kindly block this user asap. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If some body checks edit history of Indian paisa, I've constantly mentioned "do not use wrong infobox, this article is about Paisa, please move the pie and anna tables to Coins of the Indian rupee". I hope that's clear that I'm improving the article. How does one even think I'm vandalizing? Pie and Anna can be in the Coins of the Indian rupee article (which has all pie/anna/paisa/rupee coins). But when if comes to Indian paisa article, this article is about paisa only, so it must have information/tables about paisa. Content of the article must go with the title/subject of the article. I've also sent a message to User:AKS.9955 's talk page (1, 2), but the user doesn't seem to understand. I've also mentioned not to use "Infobox coin" in Indian paisa as the article is about a subunit of a currency, the article is not about a coin denomination, User:AKS.9955 keeps reading the wrong infobox even after I've sent him messages on this talk page. Hope it's understandable here. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hydloc009. Firstly, the article is still under construction and had in-use and under-construction tags which you removed blatantly (despite me telling you several times not to). Infobox; as I stated above, I have opened a discussion on WikiProject Numismatics talkpage. You need to wait for the outcome. Thirdly, it is important to highlight the transition from pie -> pice -> anna -> naya paisa -> paisa and hence the details. Lastly, yes you are vandalizing the page by changing key information like "aluminium series" (which was defined by Reserve Bank of India) and other such subject headers; you just want to push your POV. STOP THE DISRUPTIVE EDITING; wait for the article to get over and the Numismatics group to reach to consensus. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that "it is important to highlight the transition from pie -> pice -> anna -> naya paisa -> paisa" = which you must do it in the Coins of the Indian rupee article. The Indian paisa article is paisa coins only. Second under construction template cannot remain for days. Thirdly, after posting a message on talk page or any where please use 4 tilds to sign. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, is for coin articles, not for unit of currency articles. Indian paisa is an article about subunit of a currency. Do not add  to Indian paisa. Hydloc009 (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you mad or something? Did you not read anything I have written? Let me (for the last time tell you)


 * The page is under construction and hence you should wait till the article is finished.
 * Infobox discussion has been opened on the relevant WikiPorject talk-page. Stop jumping to your own conclusions.
 * You are vandalizing the page by changing the terms defined by RBI and adding your own interpretation of the series.
 * You are blatantly engaging in WP:3RR with multiple users; despite several warnings and messages.


 *  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , under construction templates cannot be on the page for days, is for coin articles and not currency unit articles, Do check what you're editing. And for your information I have not been in any edit war with any user. Also the RBI website does not have the complete list of coins on RBI website, let's look into other sources for the complete series list of the Indian paisa. Thanks. Hydloc009 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

for 48 hours. Please use the talk page and/or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute, not edit warring. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Reaper Eternal, the reported user has been blocked indefinitely for SPI. He was the one who engaged in 3RR with multiple users (please check his talkpage history). The article in discussion was under-construction when he started disruptive editing. Can you please unprotect the page or mark it for WP:SEMI? Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Happydaise reported by User:Bradv (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contributing disciplines */ Ethnology definitely should be there- tell me why if not"
 * 2)  "/* Contributing disciplines */ have discussed this now too"
 * 3)  "/* Contributing disciplines */"
 * 4)  "I took time to work out all the steps how to list this at the dispute resolution noticeboard"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Organizational behavior. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2016 */ reply re 3RR"


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


 * Comments: "


 * There is some further discussion at User_talk:Iss246. Also, please note the discussion at Sockpuppet investigations/Mrm7171 (not directly related to this article but may be relevant). Bradv  13:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the other user and what they did too. Bradv why did you not report them too after you told them this-




 * Also Softlavender today deleted my entry twice after I explained it and asked them to explain why they did it. how is this not edit warring? How do i put the edits here in the way of diffs to click thru to to show what i mean? They made the two deletions just today with no explanation.Happydaise (talk) 13:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean how many more times would softlavender have done this deletion within hours of each deletion. Why did they choose not to discuss it when I started a new topic on ethnology even? I had justified why I added it in this new section I started and then Softlavender chose not top participate but just continue edit warring and I talked about including ethnology, like i should have but they did not participate in discussing it.


 * How is that not edit warring by user Softlavender and also by user Iss246 based on what Bradv showed they deleted my addition 3 times within a couple of hours? Is this about trying to frame me? Why wont anyone discuss things. I have listed twice now on the dispute noticeboard and took a lot of time working out all of the steps involved in doing that and still - no-one participated in discussing things peacefully with me. Softlavender did not participate there either. they just kept on edit warringHappydaise (talk) 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in the content dispute — I have no opinion on whether "Ethnology" is related to "Organizational Behaviour". I am merely trying to get you two to discuss this rather than edit war. I've reported you since you crossed the WP:3RR limit. Bradv  14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User: 198.30.10.254 reported by User:BlaccCrab (Result: 3 years)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #

Comments:

Keeps trying to say that Paul Mccartney participating in the manequin challenge is "irrelevant" to the Black Beatles song. Dumbest edit warring that could possibly occur on the page. This is my 4th time undoing it and he's just some random ip address who argues with everyone on every page he edits. BlaccCrab (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . This school-based IP has an extensive block history, and this behavior seems to coincide with prior disruptive activity. <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I JethroBT</b> drop me a line 19:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Pbfreespace3 reported by User:Beshogur (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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

This user reverted my edits several times without any source. His only sources were:
 * Comments:


 * 1: An unreliable Twitter account named as Civil War Map.
 * 2: His own poor arguments.

Now, I will ask from the moderators to ban this user for a time. He's doing edit war since days with me and other users. The other user is which he's doing edit war is, this user added several sources and changed villages while User:Pbfreespace3 reverted all edits, with poor sources or without any source, with his own arguments. Beshogur (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Beshogur. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bro, also this user reverted my edit before on Yemeni Civil War detailed map.

, you seem to be under a 1RR per week ARB enforcement restriction on articles with discretionary sanctions. You agreed to this explicitly as release from an indefinite block. Can you point me to the discussion that removed this restriction? Kuru  (talk)  17:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Gah, drat! I forgot to adhere to this rule that was put in place. I'm not aware of a resolution to remove it. How long will I be blocked for? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * . That's just not credible. Outlined on your talk page. Kuru   (talk)  01:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Numbered list item

User:Mztourist reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User insists, despite clear consensus to the contrary (including a current RfC where the current consensus is 7 to 2 against it ), on adding "victory" or "defeat" to the infobox Result parameter. There's already been an ANI filed about this, and the user was instructed to leave consensus until consensus changes, but they are still reverting to their preference. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This issue is the subject of an unclosed RFC, Softlavender has to wait until there is a result, instead he/she insists on making the change that is the subject of the RFC and so it isSoftlavender who started edit-warring this on 24 November with this diff . Referring to a "current consensus" based on his/her own count (which I disagree with) is unacceptable. regards Mztourist (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC) I should also note that Softlavender made the non-admin closure of the ANI, the change to the page was originally made by Dino nam with this edit: and so the previous consensus should prevail pending the outcome of the RFC and Dino nam's IP-socking raised there by me was never addressed.Mztourist (talk) 09:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You are obliged to accept the overwhelming consensus (currently 7 to 2), as you were instructed to do in the ANI: . It makes no difference that the RfC hasn't been closed yet, the consensus is clear. If that happens to change, and the consensus veers equally widely in the other direction (which seems very unlikely), you are welcome to change the infobox. This has been explained to you several times: , , , . -- Softlavender (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll wait to see what an Admin says on these points, rather than relying or your interpretation or instructions. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You should probably also note this from WP:RFC "Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved." Mztourist (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 's forgetting to sign in and then reverting his own edits is not "IP socking", and repeated spurious, gratuitous, unfounded accusations of sockpuppeteering are personal attacks and subject to sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If it was a one-off I wouldn't have mentioned it, but it wasn't and he didn't self-revert each time. Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "he didn't self-revert each time". He most certainly did self-revert both times, within two minutes of his accidental logged-out posting: + ;  + . These continued personal attacks are digging you in deeper. Softlavender (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with this article. Plus the SPI was declined, and only established that might have forgotten to log in one day, as he admitted he might have there. One of the two IPs you tried to prosecute isn't even from the same continent as Dino nam, and is the same user as this IP, which can be clearly seen by the conversation they participated in and the geolocation. As I mentioned before, your attempt at attacking others to deflect from yourself is digging you in deeper and deeper. Softlavender (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said it was to do with this article, rather it shows a pattern of behaviour of IP socking. You claimed that he socked twice and self-reverted both times. The only time that Dino nam self-reverted his IP was here: . You also state that Dino nam self-reverted "within two minutes of his accidental logged-out posting", but this diff clearly shows that was not the case, although I'm unsure how the IP edit I reverted shows as being made by Dino nam. You seem very willing to AGF of Dino nam speaking of his "accidental logged-out posting"  and "he might have forgotten to log in one day." but you extend no similar AGF to me. The SPI was declined on what is to my mind a foolish policy that protecting the IP identity of a possible socker is more important than stopping socking using an IP. You say one of the IPs wasn't even from the same continent, which may be the case, but you ignore the fact that Dino nam admitted that the other IP was probably him. In relation to your comment that my "attempt at attacking others to deflect from [my]self", you were the one who closed the ANI by reference to the RFC and so the IP socking issue was never addressed, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to raise it. In relation to your digging comments, I suggest you look at your own behaviour and actions. Mztourist (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: In lieu of issuing at least one block I'm warning both User:Mztourist and User:Softlavender not to revert again until a clear consensus is found on the talk page. So long as the RfC is still running, clear consensus has not been achieved. The argument about 'current majority' would allow widespread edit warring during most RfCs, which is not a thing we want encourage. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but with respect, I'm not sure why you're warning me, when you are clearly agreeing that User:Softlavender was not justified in making the change while there was an open RFC. regards Mztourist (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is one of the two reverts you made while the RfC was running. If either of you had made no reverts at all during the RfC then no warning to that person would have been justified. I am puzzled by the edits by both you and Softlavender during the RfC. Each of you is a regular long-time editor who has has never been blocked but you were taking a risk of bad consequences, when there was already a proper discussion going on. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As noted in my edit summary and as per RFC guidelines and your guidance above, User:Softlavender should not have made this change during an ongoing RFC and yet when I reverted this in accordance with RFC guidelines I was then accused of edit-warring, so to treat me as equally to blame seems unfair. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:John reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "nah"
 * 2)  "IPA is unintelligible to most Wikipedia readers; citation please"
 * 3)  "redundant" – note: initial edit, not a revert

None – user is an admin and would be well aware of what constitutes edit warring.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

User is edit warring, but seems to be deliberately skirting around the third-revert rule – per WP:3RR, "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached". This edit in particular was purely antagonistic. Gibraltar is an archetypal "battleground" article, and has previously been the subject of ARBCOM sanctions. I don't know if the user has any previous involvement in that subject area, but as an admin and 10-year+ veteran editor (per his userpage) he would certainly be aware of that. We should not be encouraging a culture where editors can make multiple reversions against consensus on controversial topics without any consequences. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  19:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting timeline here. I raised the matter in article talk at 07:37, this report was raised at 19:18 by User:IgnorantArmies, followed at 19:49 by Ignorant Armies' contribution at article talk. Not for nothing has the user declined to fill in the mandatory Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section, because no such attempt was made. --John (talk) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you're just Wikilawyering. My timeliness in making this report has nothing to do with the report's validity. There is no "mandatory" requirement for an editor making an edit-warring report to engage in the actual content dispute, particularly where the edit-warrior doesn't appear to be acting in good faith. By the time you made this revert at 18:17 you had had three editors (Giraffedata at 7:07, myself at 9:11, and Wee Curry Monster at 9:17) express disagreement with your edits and provide a rationale for doing so. So there certainly was an attempt made to resolve the dispute, but you just ignored that and kept edit-warring. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  04:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You call it Wikilawyering, I call it basic competence. You made a false and malformed report rather than justify your position in talk. You lied to try to get me into trouble. I can't respect that. --John (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[3] is a bold edit, not a revert. [1] is a revert after which the talk page discussion started, [2] is disappointing as it took place whilst the discussion was ongoing. Sanctions are clearly not warranted here as the reversion appear to have stopped and there is a discussion, albeit rather bad tempered. WCM email 08:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * [3] was included automatically through Twinkle. I considered removing it but left it in for context, although I've now made a note to make clear I'm not suggesting it's a revert. I agree with you that there's no need for a preventative block, but I think there should be some form of sanction. A new editor who went around edit-warring and writing weird passive-aggressive insults in edit summaries  would receive a reprimand at the very least; Wikipedia admins should obviously be held to a higher standard. If bad behaviour never get penalised it usually re-occurs. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies   (talk)  09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing this with no action. No one has violated 3RR, and the edit warring is not so bad that a block would improve anything. Glad to see discussion at the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Ahahahahahahahahaha reported by User:DIY Editor (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly ignored and deleted warnings from different editors on user's talk page. Will not speculate or characterize behavior further, to assume good faith. DIY Editor (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You could add the link to the entire talk discussion...

I really don't see how my revision makes things less clear. Two ideas. Two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahahahahahahahahaha (talk • contribs) 16:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I did link the entire discussion. You were reported here for violating the 3RR after ignoring and deleting multiple warnings, not for disputing the phrasing of Harrier Jump Jet, although I do have concerns about the reasons behind that dispute. DIY Editor (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The same user also violated 3RR at LGBT rights in the United Arab Emirates. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts at 07:47, 09:37, 10:47, 15:41. Was warned. Kuru   (talk)  17:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:107.194.72.223 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
 * 5) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

User has responded to notice from Doc James about MEDRS sourcing with personal attack (diff); please also note personal attacks in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected five days. Please discuss changes on the talk page and remember WP:MEDRS. The IP reported here has not used the article talk page at all. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 reported by User:Beshogur (Result:)
User being reported:

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

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


 * 1) Sockpuppet 1
 * 2) Sockpuppet 2
 * 3) Sockpuppet 3
 * 4) Sockpuppet 4
 * 5) Sockpuppet 5
 * 6) Sockpuppet 6

Those 3 IP's are similar.

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

Comments:

I'm trying to make Wikipedia articles better, but this IP user calls my "vandal" also, he reverted all my edits with fake DNS-accounts and called me several times "racist". This user needs a warning. He reverted my 3 edits in 9 minutes. Beshogur (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * More detailed comments oncerning the edits:


 * 1) User Beshogur deleted content without any explanation, I reverted.
 * 2) User Beshogur deleted content without any explanation, I reverted.
 * 3) User Beshogur deleted the Armenian name of the town claiming that a simiar issue had been discussed on Talk:Erzurum as if on this page some solution or consensus had been reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases. In reality on Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Amenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide. If this were some isolated incident I wouldn't care but in the case of user Beshogur this is part of a systematic campaign to delete information about Armenian, Kurdish, ... people on wikipedia. This is just one more example of why user Beshogur is under discussion on "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) The coat of arms of Kardzhali is useless, I added the city's skyline instead the coat.
 * 2) About Turkish loses in Battle of Erzincan was clearly UNSOURCED, never found an info on internet.
 * 3) The Armenian name is already counted in the etymology section. The city has now ZERO % Armenian population. That's how Wikipedia works, get your facts.


 * 1) How can Beshogur decide "coat of arms of Kardzhali is useless" as just delete it? Maybe some user though about why to add it. Why doesn't he start a discussion on whether it should be kept? To me this seems to be vandalism, with Beshogur hoping that nobody notices that he deletes bits he doesn't like here and there.
 * 2) Concerning Battle of Erzincan user Beshogur could have mentioned that he deleted unsourced material. (But why deleting immediately and not adding, at least for some time, a comment that a source is needed?)
 * 3) As I wrote, in the discussion in Talk:Erzurum several users said that the Amenian name should be kept because of the towns Armenian history before the Armenian genocide even if there are no Armenians living there nowadays. There was even a user pointing out to Beshogur that "You really need to (re)read WP:NCGN. It concerns not only those living there currently, but those who lived there in the past as well." It is clear that no concensus was reached to delete Armenian names in similar cases, moreover, to me it seems that most users in Talk:Erzurum wanted to keep the Armenian name. I think it is a very questionable behaviour to justify deletion of content by falsely claiming that a discussion came to that conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm 100% sure, you heard the word Kardzhali for first time today. It doesn't pass on the infobox because it became too long.
 * 2) Since when is "deleting" unsourced material forbidden? Was the casualties sourced? NO!
 * 3) So I should add Turkish name in Bagdhad, Damascus, Cairo, because those areas were ruled by Turks? Beshogur (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think concerning 1) and 2) everything has been said: it would be helpful to give some explanation if something is deleted. Concerning 3): I don't know. Maybe its similar, maybe there are differences? Why don't you discuss this on the discussion pages of the articles mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion pages on such articles are not even active. Maybe an user will see that months later. Erzincan's Armenian name is already counted in etymology section. That's how Wikipedia works. Same with Turkish cities of Western Thrace such as Xanti, Alexandroupoli, ... Beshogur (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Guess Kirkuk who added this section? Yes it's me. Stop calling me "Armenophobic", "Kurdophobic" or another insult such as "racist". Beshogur (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never called you "Armenophobic" or "Kurdophobic", in fact I don't like these words, because I think they do not adequately describe what they are meant to describe, and therefore do not use them. I also never called you a racist. But looking at your edit history some of your actions seem to be racism-motivated, anti-Armenian, Anti-Kurdish, ... because you systematically delete content about certain groups of people. But I am just repeating what Niele tried to explain to you in the discussion "User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )".