Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive332

User:Beshogur reported by User:Niele~enwiki (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Pleace note that user Beshogur did 3 reverts of edits of other users in a time-period of 24 hours: (Revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Azraq and Jubah) (revert of sourced 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled controlled village Azrak) (revert of 'SDF' + 'Syrian National Resistance'-controlled village Jubah)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752264460
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752151926
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=752147406

The 'Syrian National Resistance' is neutral force both loyal to SDF and Regime and using Damascus Syrian flag created so that Kurds from SAA territory and 'indirectly' SAA itself can help SDF advance on Al Bab.
 * Notice

A list of 13 sources of SDF control of Jubah you can find on http://wikimapia.org/28004322/Cob%C3%AA-Jubah Including Daesh sources claiming they shelled SDF-positions inside Jubah village.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeshogur&type=revision&diff=752319901&oldid=752286920
 * Talk page:


 * Extra reasons to report the account of Beshogur
 * User Bashogur was blocked for editwarring just a week ago, but never stopped doing it.
 * He was blocked in July 2016 but did not learn about it.
 * I count more than 10 warnings for edit warring but he did not stopped ding it.
 * He has permanently involved in edit warring, malicious editing and NPOV-psuhing following the full duration of his wikipedia-account, proving not being able to learn about warnings and blocks.

I also want to report the account of user Beshogur for being an account created with the sole purpose of targeting wikipedia information about Armenian, Kurdish, Jezidi, Cypriotic, Greek and other minorities,... and glorifying glorifying pan-Turkish organisations that are targeting minorities in Turkey and the region, the Turkish state.
 * Account created for sole purpose of targeting of minorities

The user that openly states he is pan-Turkisch 'Nationalist' has clearly made a account on wikipedia out of racist sentiment and objective toward all minorities that are usually targeted by pan-Turkish nationalists. A look at Beshogur account and edit history proves this.

Wikipedia is an international multi-etnic community. And users should act with respect to other peoples and etnicities. If a user is proudly targeting etnicities the user hate, based on racist motives on wikipedia, it should be sanctioned. Such behaviour focused on hate against peoples is not normal and should not tolerated here.

Please also note he was warned for this several times by multiple users.

I also want to report user Beshogur for stating he wants to target what he calles 'PKK-supporters' on wikipedia. Please note that with in present day (pan-)Turkish nationalist anyone that defends Kurdish people, human rights,.. is automaticly labeled 'PKK-supporter' and the actions of TAK (Kurdish falcon fighters), Daesh, others are atributed to PKK instead to frame the organisation as a terrorist organisation to justifying the human right abuses against Kurdish people and all AKP opposition in Turkey.
 * Treats of targetting of groups of wikipedia-users

In the same way they frame the Syrian YPG and the Syrian Democratic Forces, the main ally of the international coalition in Syria as 'PKK'. So in Beshogur's mind all wikipedia-users trying to stop them from targeting Kurdish, Jezidi, SDF,.. info and replacing it with false info are 'PKK-supporters' and should be targetted.

(Please note that my personal facebookpage is targeted 3 times in the last 24 hours by Turkish nationalists with attemps to hack it)


 * Discussion:
 * Beshogur reverted twice in 24 hours, not three times, which is still a violation of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The third one was actually also a revert of the same villages, just not done with the revert button. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In your list of edits where you count three reverts, two of them are consecutive edits and therefore count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then by that logic 2 reverts still took place, still a violation of policy. Additionally, he is editing with malicious intent. He is trying to represent the forces advancing on al-Bab from the western side as a pro-Assad force, rather than the diverse mix of Kurds and Arabs without a strong loyalty to Assad that they really are. Since he openly admitted he is a Turkish nationalist opposed to Assad, his editing is biased because he is trying to represent these forces as evil Assadists rather than the democratic forces they themselves proclaim to be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us also look at the bias of his edits. In the first revert, he cites a video on YouTube that appears to show some fighters in Jubah town. They have a Syrian flag with them. Beshogur takes this and claims the entire town must be held by the Syrian government and there is no SDF/Kurdish loyal forces present. This is an attempt to misrepresent.
 * Also, in the second revert, he cites one Twitter user to justify the town of Azraq not being taken by Anti-Turkish forces. It's literally one random Twitter user saying "no, Turks still control it!". How can he use these sources? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it was. Your edit was just based on Twitter rumor. Beshogur (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Syrian National Resistance ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is it a group from mostly local Arabs and Kurds which loyal to the Syrian government and not have any coordination with SDF. per Kurdish and reliable sources:linklinklinklink Syrian National Resistance or ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is a group loyal to the central government(SAA). Mehmedsons (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Syrian National Resistance with their armed-wing 'Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade' is neutral brigade loyal to both SDF and SAA fighting embedded with the SDF, it was founded by the SDF in negatiation with the SAA in SDF-held Tel Rifaat and is leaded by Rezan Hedo, who is a member of the 'Syrian Democratic Council' the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Sources: News article on founding, link,link, link [--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In all the acronyms and accusations -- some of which are being copy-pasted in part elsewhere -- it's hard to be clear what is going on, but it may be worth taking into account that of Beshogur's two reverts, one of them, according to the section above, may have been a revert of an edit made by an editor (Pbfreespace3) already restricted from making it. Not that this makes it OK, but it is possibly a mitigating factor. MPS1992 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

, I don't know why but you are so childish. First there's nothing wrong with Turkish nationalism. If I am Turkish nationalist, so what? This has nothing to do with this kind of discussions. You're using mostly your "own sources" for the edits. Mostly Wikimapia, etc.. Dear users, please check the edit history by Wikimapia locations, you can see his name. The newly formed group, Liwa Shuhada Kafr Saghir is not SDF-affiliated but Government. It's not 'loyal' to SDF as 'your source' on Wikimapia. Beshogur (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Please check: NPA Beshogur (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also called me several times as "racist", this is a big insult, I'm not racist. This guy added fake maps on Ezidkhan article which doesn't exist. And I removed them, this user reported me again and I had 24-hours ban. Reason? Because I removed fake map.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Also, I never called anyone as "PKK supporter" and never said that SDF is part of PKK. Beshogur (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What's the point to add Armenian and Kurdish names into Iğdır page, which the word "Iğdır" has Turkic origin.
 * What's the point to add Kurdish name into Great Mosque of Diyarbakır, which is built by a Turkic Seljuk leader. The fact of mosque is based in Diyarbakir doesn't make the mosque Kurdish. Other user said: "Haghia sophia has turned into mosque and it's the part of turkish republic. What about this mosque?". Yes, because it's located in Turkey!
 * What's the point to add Armenian name into Erzincan? Why? Because it was inhabited by Armenians 100 years ago? We are not in 1900's. So, we should add Turkish name into Yerevan, because the majority of population was Azerbaijani?
 * And someone calls me "racist" and "vandal" when I revert those edits. Niele is using dozens of fake DNS to revert my edits. You can see at the IP accounts, they're mostly from Belgium and Niele is also from Belgium. Beshogur (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Niele is using dozens of fake DNS" -> don't invent completely fake accusations. I never ever have used a fake DNS on wikipedia. I only seeing a user-account that is fully dedicated on attacking Armenian, Kurdisch, Jezidi, Greek, Israeli,.. info and making racism-motivated edits against those etnicities and so as a neutral human right caring person a few times with my own public account try to stop you. And like you do, with everyone that questions you're behaviour on wikipedia you try to attack them. But not question the problem of you're behaviour toward other etnicities.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, I never attacked an ethnicity in Wikipedia. Ok there were disputes with Kurdish articles but what about Greeks, Armenians, Israelis? So I should add Turkish name for Yerevan city because Wikipedia is a "multiethnic" area? I don't understand why some users are still adding fake informations on Wikipedia. You added before a fake map of Ezidkhan which took Mosul and Tal Afar. Yezidis are just a small people in Iraq, "Ezidkhan" does not exist. Stop adding fake informations on the article there. Beshogur (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never added a map to that article, nor made a edit to the article. You where targetting other users that stopped you're vandalism of removing this valuable map and edit-warring about it. And I reverted you're vandalism once while you where editwarring over it with other users already for a while. A map picturing the area claimed by the Jezidi people as Ezidkhan and their homeland is valuable information over this culture/ethnicity. It's not because you hate the minorities that are standing in the way of you're pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals, that all attributes of these minorities are fake or you can use wikipedia to target the all articles with info over those minorities--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah man! You never added the map. The map is now deleted. Because "Ezidkhan" is not a real place. You can not find the word "Ezidkhan" in history books, same as Shahba region. Showing those two areas as an "old cultural area" is abnormal and should be deleted. Beshogur (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Eye-opening edit-history of user Beshogur:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Beshogur&offset=&limit=5000&target=Beshogur

Everyone can look at User:Beshogur edit history and see this user is dedicating the last year of his live to target info over the minorities that are standing in the way of his pan-Turkish/neo-Ottoman ideals. Offcourse a lot of people try to revert his vandalism and constant edit warring. You can speare a a huge amount of wikipedia users valuable time by blocking him indefenitly. Because after multiple blocks and dozens of warnings he will not learn to stop edit warring and he is damaging wikipedia with his behaviour.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Other edit-warring actions of user Beshogur of only the previous days:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I%C4%9Fd%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=752348659
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erzincan&diff=prev&oldid=752348749
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=752348413
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=752265749
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grey_Wolves_%28organization%29&type=revision&diff=750987231&oldid=750961036
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_language&diff=prev&oldid=752150216
 * 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_Turkey&action=history
 * 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arabs_in_Turkey&diff=prev&oldid=751934965
 * 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751935157
 * 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=751897668
 * 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox&oldid=752149214, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_infobox&oldid=751890045
 * 12) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Mosque_of_Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751888745
 * 13) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diyarbak%C4%B1r&diff=prev&oldid=751888605
 * 14) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&action=history (!not sourced)
 * 15) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homs&diff=prev&oldid=751726578
 * 16) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdish%E2%80%93Turkish_conflict_(2015%E2%80%93present)&diff=prev&oldid=751712033
 * 17) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cizre_operation_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=751709056&oldid=751612475
 * 18) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mosul&diff=prev&oldid=751447717
 * 19) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qabasin&diff=prev&oldid=751440991
 * 20) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qabasin&diff=prev&oldid=751440495
 * 21) And so on and on...

You are so childish. Did you checked the articles? They were vandalised by IP users. I have many contributions on Wikipedia and in those articles. Someone added unsourced contents and I deleted them then some IP users reverted my edits. Do you think it's an edit war?! How funny that an user call this as "edit wars". Here is an other proof about 2 times reverting in one day by Niele. Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Here is the proof how Niele using fake DNS and reverting my edits.
 * 2) Proof 2. Since when became Wikipedia a Kurdish nationalist forum? What is "East Kurdistan", "North Kurdistan". So, if you're writing anything in this kind of articles, you must just write Turkey, not non-existing countries.
 * 3) WP:3RR:, , & Beshogur (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) I did the edits mentioned above with IP 2003:77:.... To clarify: I'm not Niele, I do not know Niele and I'm not in contact with Niele. I've been doing minor edits here and there as an IP user without having an account. By chance I ran into some anti-Kurdish vandalism by the user Beshogur and found that he is doing it systematically. I have now observed his destructive and malicious behaviour for a while by following his activity. So Beshogur is making false accusations if he exhibits the above examples with IP 2003:77:.... as "proof how Niele using fake DNS". Wikipedia should have the technical tools to separate my activities from Niele's activities. (I prefer to remain anonymous in order not to come under attack by Turkish nationalists.)
 * 2) Though Beshogur is sometimes doing some constructive work in articles concerning Turkish history he systematically erases and distorts information about Kurdish, Armenian and Jesidi people. While I agree that comments like "racism-motivated vandalism" should be avoided, I have to say that that often exactly describes what Beshogur is doing.
 * 3) In the above list of some 20 examples, Beshogur cherry-picked some 5 cases in which he is right, but the other cases are examples of a behaviour exactly as Niele described. If one would go deeper into his edit history I'm sure one could find 100s of such examples. (Today, being under discussion, he seems to make more benign edits, but look back in his history.)
 * 4) Apart from his destructive and malicious edit behaviour he also calls other users "Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)" on User_talk:Niele~enwiki.
 * I think the behaviour of User:Beshogur should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you're a sockpuppet of Niele. You're using similar language. Wow, an IP user is writing in very-well English. I saw this for first time. Beshogur (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In Germany we learn English at school and I also spent some time in England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Another recent example of Beshogurs behaviour:. 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 Armenian 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Neile's reverts with different DNS IP's, they're using same kind of language.


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

Beshogur (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As explained above I did the edits with IP 2003:77:.... and I'm not Niele. Beshogur should stop making false accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F27:1E56:E939:EB0D:3945:C408 (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2.25.27.199 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Pornography Addiction */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* WHY DON'T YOU CHECK THIS - DO YOU WANT A CERTIFIED STATEMENT ???? */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* PORNOGRAPHY ADDICTION  */ new section"
 * 4)  "‎PORNOGRAPHY ADDICTION: new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on User talk:Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Mr. Vernon. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by 2.25.27.199 (talk) to last revision by Mr. Vernon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by 2.25.27.199 (talk) to last revision by Mr. Vernon. (TW)"

I already reported the user at WP:AIV, since the edits to the Talk Pages were vandalistic in nature.  Dark Knight  2149  04:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Aniruddhbhaidhadhal reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: )

 * 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 Kathiawari. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Requests to discuss (in edit summaries): ,
 * Request to discuss (from another editor) on talk-page:


 * Comments:

The user has posted on my talk-page, which seems to show some willingness to collaborate. It's disappointing that he/she also made a third revert after being warned not to. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:A123soup reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 752628056 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 752626757 by Watchfan07 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on United States presidential election, 2016. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Supposedly new editor, edit warring aggressively over BLP vio and blog-like content - obvious they won't stop without being forced to do so. Also, shouldn't there be discretionary sanctions active for this article as it's politically-related? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 10:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, the page is already under WP:1RR. And the offending user appears to be WP:NOTHERE. — JFG talk 11:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dkendel reported by User:WilliamJE (Result:)
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752503032&oldid=752447155
 * 2) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752435497&oldid=752319185
 * 3) 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752238584&oldid=752162761
 * 4) 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mayday_episodes&diff=752265688&oldid=752263872 Which was a modified version of a post that had been reverted here

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

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

Comments:

At least 4 editors have been involved in reverting this editor's additions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Dkendel has reverted once again. See this....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Just adding a note that DKendel tried to delete the above comment but I reverted that. - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Hakan3400 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakan3400 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user refused to use the talk page on the article and instead kept editing the article many times despite being warned by me. I asked him still to use the talke page and he refused. After a while he used the talk page on the user page (not article) and yet he kept editing it without comming to an conclusion witch is against the rules. By now he still ignores me by not going to the talk page of the article and keeps editing/reverting back the edits I did by using first the talk page. Hakan3400 (talk)

User:Ag97 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Manually undid the edit by Neutrality. You have refused to negotiate and deleted my claims about why the word falsely should be removed rather than responding to them. Please stop edit warring or you will be reported."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 752661586 by Neutrality (talk) Article isn't a biography, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. You can't add your personal opinion to Wikipedia articles, see WP:NPV"
 * 3)  "removed word "falsely" as per consensus on talk page"
 * 4)  "removed word "falsely". That is only the opinion of the writer, the conspiracy theory has neither been proven nor disproven"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Plenty of discussion on the talk page as to why this is a serious BLP issue; user is edit-warring to create FUD about a false, fabricated and debunked conspiracy theory which makes highly-defamatory claims about identifiable, non-public living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , clear reverts. Kuru   (talk)  17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "The only person edit-warring is he who is not willing to find a compromise. RV"
 * Comments:
 * 1)   "The only person edit-warring is he who is not willing to find a compromise. RV"
 * Comments:
 * 1)   "The only person edit-warring is he who is not willing to find a compromise. RV"
 * Comments:

Was blocked for edit-warring three days ago -- after the block expired, the editor repeated the exact same edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the same exact edit as the one I was blocked for, but I wouldn't expect someone of Nomoskedasticity's vigilance to notice that. I also changed it back FYI. Bull dog123  21:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

After looking at the recent edit history, it is my opinion that Bull dog123  appears to be pushing the POV that Spencer is not known for white supremacist views; each edit; regardless of subtle tiny differences, is designed to dilute the well-sourced lead sentences to make Spencer appear more mainstream to the casual reader. I don't see any improvement, at least, not to this point, in how Bulldog is collaborating on the page - in short, he's not. He's just edit-warring in the hopes that his unilateral changes stick. Rockypedia (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The behavior continues. These edits all focus on the same, extremely controversial perspective, as Rocky says. Justification on talk hinges on a hyper-literal interpretation of sources which does not have consensus. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Katietalk 03:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:86.187.163.107 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 752813767 by LuK3 (talk) nothing to discuss unless someone has the goddamn courtesy to explain their objection to the edit"
 * 2)  "DO NOT revert if you can't be bothered to explain why you are reverting.  the section you are desperate to include is NOT ENCYCLOPAEDIC.  NO-ONE has claimed otherwise."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 752813406 by Bbb23 (talk) grow up"
 * 4)  "/* Notable cases */ rv vandalism. do not restore unencyclopaedic text.  if you believe it is encyclopaedic, then explain the objective criteria that you believe exist for items to be included in this list."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 752804992 by SeniorStar (talk) rv vandalism"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 752800831 by SA 13 Bro (talk) you are reverting for no reason. that is disruptive. either explain yourself or stop."
 * 7)  "rv the rest of the vandalism"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 752796289 by SeniorStar (talk)"
 * 9)  "rm jargon again, restored by a careless and rude editor"
 * 10)  "/* Selected court opinions */ selected for what reason? no objective criteria for inclusion = not encyclopaedic. previously restored by a careless and rude editor with no attempt to justify why"
 * 1)  "rm jargon again, restored by a careless and rude editor"
 * 2)  "/* Selected court opinions */ selected for what reason? no objective criteria for inclusion = not encyclopaedic. previously restored by a careless and rude editor with no attempt to justify why"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Do note the lack of any explanation for why people were undoing my edits, and restoring the self-declared vandalism of this edit. If the user reporting this here intended to be productive, they would simply give a reason for their edit in the summary, would they not? 86.187.163.107 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page Blacorum (Result: Declined)
With DIFF1  started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2: (

DIFF3:

DIFF4:

DIFF5:

DIFF6:

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * We ask you to use the template because we need all the information there, and this comes nowhere near the data we need to make a judgment of any kind. Katietalk 03:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The editors KIENGIR and Arpabogar after extensive discussions at Talk:Blacorum and Articles for deletion/Blacorum still don't understand nor want to accept the WP:NPOV principles. They are against the different intro because they don't want to accept that the information (hypothesis) they push is a refuted WP:FRINGE theory. Even if we go on a consensus and there equal votes (2vs2), the principles will give weight to the specific side, but what to do when those two editors don't accept the principles? I started the discussion Talk:Blacorum, also see Fringe theories/Noticeboard.--Crovata (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Katie, I'll do it. The above remark is again an accusation of a personal POV, although I definetly understand what is WP:NPOV on the contrary, this user is pushing his personal views and misusing the rules, even if a theory would be considered fringe, it does not mean it is refuted only this user, however not any scientific refute exists. But the problem is they simply did not respect WP:BRD principles, this is the issue here. The user even removed my notification about edit war under the pretext that "false talk page", that is ridicoulus....(KIENGIR (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I can't believe what kind of liar KIENGIR is - what he said refers to him. He ignores the Wikipedia's editing policy, and due to personal POV he ignore and twists the policy and facts to push information on a extremely minor, refuted, fringe theory.--Crovata (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not lying, and be careful because this is not the first time you make personal attacks and uncivil comments towards other editors, only my good faith keeps me not to raise another incident right now. It is funny to hear from a user about "ignorance of Wikipedia policy" who reflects his own behavior to others, on the other hand multiple times harmed WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and started an edit warring despite many notification! Be civil and polite, with such a behavior things cannot be solved!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC))

User:Ukc71116 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Definition was wrong"
 * 2)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Definition was wrong"
 * 2)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Updated to proper definition"
 * 1)  "Updated to proper definition"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Obvious. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who to site this definition, but it cur is a breed of dog recanized by the untitled Kennel club.
 * Re-instate comment, not intentionally disruptive I don't tgink. Just clueless. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Pointer22 reported by User:Primefac (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 6)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 7)  "/* References */"
 * 8)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 9)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 10)  "/* References */"
 * 11)  "/* References */"
 * 12)  "/* References */"
 * 13)  "/* References */"
 * 14)  "/* References */"
 * 15)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 16)  "/* References */"
 * 17)  "/* References */"
 * 18)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 19)  "/* References */"
 * 20)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 21)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 22)  "/* References */"
 * 23)  "/* References */"
 * 24)  "/* References */"
 * 25)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 26)  "/* References */"
 * 27)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "/* References */"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 7)  "/* Controversy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ reply"
 * 2)   "/* request to remove excessive negative details */ addendum"
 * 3)   "/* The new "Controversy" section */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* The new "Controversy" section */ reply to pointer22, indending stuff"


 * Comments:

Pointer22 still insists on just editing away without reaching a consensus at the talk page (despite multiple attempts to get them to actually state what they want). As a note, a warning was placed on their talk page by (they beat me to the punch). Primefac (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably should have come here now that I think about it. I reported to ANI instead. Eh. I'll remove that one. --Majora (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm surprised Twinkle didn't throw an EC on the talk page.
 * While the admins can probably see this already, this is not the first time we've had this dance. Primefac (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a further note, the editor keeps using the phrase "we" which pretty much shows a shared account issue as well. So, COI, edit warring, shared account. Fun. --Majora (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually read that as "we" meaning the community, as AN3 is a community noticeboard. SQL Query me!  04:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Pointer22, where another user editing the article made this comment about their use of "we". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also say that this example makes it clear that "we" refers to multiple users of the account, . Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the rule regarding who can add material (with supportive references) and who can not. Why can some remove misleading or false information and other can not? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , anyone can add or subtract material from a page. However, when there is a dispute about how the article should be written, it should be discussed on the talk page (see WP:BRD for more info). I have been trying to gather a consensus on the talk page about the content to add to the article, and you keep deciding that you want your edits in there regardless of how much effort I'm putting in to reach a middle ground. Though I will say, if a user is making improper edits (e.g. removing reflist tags and/or the references themselves) they will be reverted every time (regardless of who it is). Primefac (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Still confused, if material is added that meets the criteria and is factual and is straight forward and unharming ( and most of all not based, on opinion journalism) why it repeatively removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pointer22 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Crovata and User:123Steller reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * note: meanwhile many other intermediary edits appeared, before the last revert 123Steller made a rephrasing as Crovata proposed, it was accepted, but after again in an inunderstandable way 123Steller made again a revert to the unconsensused version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In a very tolerant way only after the 4th diff it was stated the next will be regarded as an undoubt edit warring

-> Some remarks section Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All this section is about this mainly

Original title: Edit warring, continous breaking of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus on the page

The original report was:

With DIFF1 started everything, the bold edit of a user was reverted because of disagreement to the last stable version. Soon after in the past days, another user reverted continously to the unconsensused version more times with this breaking WP:BRD and only then he started a discussion in the talk page. He was informed about the rules of WP:BRD and status quo ante principle there until any possible consensus, but the user still continued, despite also other editors informed him that this is not an appropriate behavior. Soon, despite not any consensus has been reached, after waiting a while, this happened again, thus has been warned in the personal page also for edit warring as prolonged that the next similar action will be regarded undoubtedly the state of edit war. With a good faith - despite the frame of repeated reverts would imply a clear edit war - nobody acted yet just made more level of warnings.

Despite all of these warnings and notifications, the user who intially made the first bold edit again commited the same revert, knowing with this he intentionally continuing edit warring, breaking WP:BRD without any consensus reached. I tried to persuade the user on his talk page - again with a total good faith - that he should revert himself because of the mentioned above, and giving a time for that. It did not happen, although this user also knows and applied WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS and status quo ante principles in other cases but simply ignored them this time, I am extremely concerned.

The commited following reverts:

DIFF2, DIFF3, DIFF4, DIFF5, DIFF6.

I avoided personalization and name-calling intentionally, but if I would have done such behavior with just half amount of reverts harming WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS I would have been already reported everywhere and sanctioned heavily, I wish to believe that Wikipedia rules have weight and there are not a selected group of users who deal with different rules unlike others.

Everything else on the edit logs and in the discussion page.

UPDATE

- since the original report, Crovata deleted my notification about the warning of edit warring under the pretext "false talk page", that is amazing...

- also a new section named intro has been created with this topic I'll check on the discussion soon.KIENGIR (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)}}


 * NOTIFICATION***

- Crovata intentionally continoued edit warring as he again made and unconsensused revert - the 7th already - despite the ANI botice and the ongoing case, despite WP:BRD process ongoing dispute since there is no WP:Consensus achieved, with bad faith remarks and accusation and threats, he really lost his head, failed to grasp Wikipedia rules and principles. He is not even respecting not just the Wikipedia community, but also disrespecting the rules Katie, it is this not an immediate block, I don't what it is....Administrators, I kindly ask you to act rapidly!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * The discussion is over. It is useless to discuss and respect the opposition side who intentionally make a fool of everyone and everything, ignore the WP:NPOV principles. The editor still don't understand and don't want to understand and accept the way Wikipedia is edited (as well the topic issues), who calls NPOV and Wikipedia principles as invalid phrases. As well, there was no official BRD or Consensus because the editor doesn't even know how they work. The editor remarks on my behavior are nothing but lies which he done (push of his personal opinion and the fringe theory). As well see my reply in the report above.--Crovata (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No the discussion is not over, as also more users does not share your opinion and your claims. You repeat the same invalid statements about defamating others of a behavior you do "i.e. the famous NPOV". Claiming I would not understand how Wikipedia is edited is meant to be a joke, since you failed contiously the rules and deliberately crossing them. WP:BRD does not have to be official, the rules imply when it starts and ot has started, despite you have continoud edit warring. I did not lie, what you state about personal opinion - reinforced by other users - is true for you. However, I can understand you try to explain out the unexplainable, everything else are on the releavant talk pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * The editor still twists the facts by lowering and presenting the Wikipedia principles authority and policy as my personal "opinion" and "claims". He even admited that to him Wikipedia principles and NPOV are nothing but invalid phrases.--Crovata (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why you try to coin the Administartors, I did not do such, I answered to your nonsense, I reflected that your recurrent list of false accusation are totally unnecessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Now the Wikipedia principles became even "false" and "unnecessary". What will be next, that they are stupid?--Crovata (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Crovata such behavior is totally disruptive a WP:NOTHERE is suspected. You reflect your behavior and actions to other users, since you don't respect or follow the rules. I inform again the Administrators, that Crovata again continued edit warring, already the 8th (!) revert despite everything, onthe other hand as a further aggravating circumstance, he removed the ANI incident notification from his userpage, that is a very serious issue (KIENGIR (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Removal of ANI, any notification or discussion from the user talk is no incident, again he only shows that he is not familiar with Wikipedia policy and never read WP:USER and WP:BLANKING. The editor now even accuses me for WP:NOTHERE. KIENGIR is a typical example of WP:DISRUPT and WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Crovata (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have to be very much afraid of the consequences of your commited activites if you try to evade in such a way. It is a shame!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * ***UPDATE' - Crovata made the 9th (!!!) revert again, Administrator's, does Wiki rules matter anymore???(KIENGIR (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * The user Arpabogar again reverted the lead, and removed information i.e. quote which is in the reference, although he lied saying it is not. The user even more, like KIENGIR, shows WP:DISRUPT behavior. It seems the extensive discussions and remarks by the other editors was worthless.--Crovata (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, so this way you want to justify your edit warring activity, harming multiple wiki rules and to accuse other users with a bunch of attacks, incivilities. I am very sorry for you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed". Do you want to be sanctioned?--Crovata (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not cleanup or corrected mistakes recently, about policies and guidelines, you are continously harming them. The fact still you cannot stop is the proof, you are the only one has to afraid about sanctions. So please stop this kind of behavior.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * It is incredible, you're totally lost and go off-topic, invent things, lie, accuse. The policy-guideline above is about You. I didn't do a single correction on any policy or guideline, yet the article topic, discussions and issues...--Crovata (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is incredible is you continoue to reflect your activity to others, like you'd live in a different reality. I am very much sorry for you.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC))
 * I never did, what is really incredible, better to say amusing, is in what kind of obvious way you do it, and now did it.--Crovata (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Aha, so you never did..UPDATE: Crovata commited the 10th (!!!!!) revert, you are obviuosly keeping the rules...and with this you harmed 3RR (for today)...KIENGIR (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC))

I did the revert and I will continue to do it for the sake of Wikipedia, although one editor against three, as I said, because it is impossible to constructively discuss and achieve consensus with editors (WP:DISRUPT) who from the very beginning intentionally ignore Wikipedia principles (WP:NPOV), no matter how much discussion and remarks by different editors. Currently I write the report on the three (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) editors.--Crovata (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is noone against anyone, there are rules, you continously do not respect and explain out, meanwhile accusing other's. If you think you write further reports you cannot evade about what you have committed. 3RR is 3RR as the other rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC))


 * Crovata blocked two months – duration based on his extensive block log for edit warring and that asinine "I will continue to do it for the sake of Wikipedia" statement above. 123Steller is not in violation of 3RR and has not been blocked. Katietalk 15:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved party to intervene (Result: Resolved)


User (previously ) seems intent to edit war over a particular line of text at archive.is: "On 2 December 2016 the site became unavailable with browsers displaying Loading spinners indefinitely. It resumed normal operation late in the day." My attempts to explain (on my user page) why an unsourced status update is not appropriate seem to have rubbed him the wrong way, and I think that any further attempt to discuss on my part will be counterproductive. 3RR has not been breached yet, and I'd rather it stay that way (hence why I'm not including diffs here). Requesting outside voices to intervene. Feel free to move to ANI or elsewhere if that's more appropriate. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure that this is necessary, the editor has made a "let's discuss" comment at the article talk page. Hopefully a good sign that no edit-warring will be engaged in. That said, there was no tone in your comments. I don't think you could have been any more civil then you were. Any tone that JNavas2 is reading into your comments is entirely of their own making. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have notified User:Jnavas2 that they are being discussed here. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ??, the problem is that I've already been over, at length, why it should not be added. I'm not interested in repeating myself to someone who doesn't want to hear it. What about that article talk section makes you think engaging there will be more fruitful than the preceding thread on my talk page? There's also a problem in that the new discussion section is premised on an edit war and demand that the addition stand. I can't accept that he must be pushed to violate 3rr in order for others to intervene. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't necessarily mean for you to re-engage with him, but, rather any other interested party at the article talk page. That is where the discussion belongs after all. There's no need to push for him to violate the brightline rule and be blocked. That's not really a preventative solution. Unless you think that an admin should intervene in a less official capacity? - I imagine AN/I of all places will either get the editor blocked or alternatively, the discussion will be shut down as a "content dispute". For that matter, I'll leave a comment on the article talk page. Let's see if outside input from another random editor has any good effect. Mr rnddude (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been some progress made in a discussion with Jnavas2 at User talk:Rhododendrites. At this time it seems unlikely that any admin action will be needed. Any further discussion should take place at Talk:Archive.is. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're seeing progress. The entirety of that section up to your comment took place prior to opening this. It worsened rather than progress. Now there's not even any talk of the actual issue -- just personal complaints. The long section on my talk page (which I did not start there, btw) is explaining why the content is problematic. For Jnavas to dismiss all of that with "I don't like your tone", "I disagree", etc. and then open a section on the talk page claiming to seek the very discussion he dismissed is troubling to say the least. I can copy/paste what I already said to the article talk page, but I think that would be viewed negatively (understandably). Unless someone reverts the content again and Jnavas does not revert, I don't think this is resolved. The reason I'm here instead of ANI -- and doing so without pushing him to 3RR -- is precisely to avoid a block. Ideally we would be able to turn this person around... but at the same time I'm not going to stand by and let the edit warred content remain because someone dismissed all discussion of policy/guideline with "I disagree"/"I don't like your tone"/WP:IDHT. So I will be blunt in my request for intervention: I'm requesting someone else be the one to revert the added content and either reexplain why it's inappropriate to edit war to restore unsourced trivial original research, or to explain that Rhododendrites isn't just making this stuff up. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - I understand your frustration, I'm writing up a response at the article's talk to discuss both our policies and the pros and cons of them. I don't know how progress will turn out, but, no harm in trying. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - here's a possible happy thought. I think the issue has been resolved. Amicably even given the context under which it came here. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This page is for edit warring not dispute resolution. Try WP:Dispute resolution. Page protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As mentioned just above, it looks like it had already resolved itself. Protection not needed. Thanks, though. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 14:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Quite agree, the disputed material has been removed and the edit-war settled. The page protect won't do much except prevent others contributing. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've unprotected the page. Can't believe that I mixed up one week with indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Lamberhurst (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Experienced user makes little to no attempt to explain their reverts. Discussion is here. Edit warring has been ongoing since 1 December. Lamberhurst (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * When I first went through and restored Juncker and other Commissioners' articles to their prior state, anon went through a day or so later and made a mass revert. I reached out to them in thorough detail and didn't receive a reply., likely not seeing my discussion on the anon's talk, made their revert and when I tried to make a quick summation in the edit summary, I accidentally hit the enter key early, after which I immediately made a dummy edit (partially self-reverting to do so) with a finished summary. Lamberhurst reverted again, without comment and I responded in kind asking him his response to my summary. Then anon  went through a similar reverting spree and I made the similar talk comment to him that's cited above. At the beginning of this attempt, the anon continued to make reverts and I was trying to maintain the prior version until the discussion started in earnest (somewhat). I suppose I should have left the page in whatever state it ended up in after 3 attempts, but I was mistakenly trying to contain the reverts until the anon could come to the table. I probably should have posted the same explanation to Lamberhurst I gave to the initial anon as well. But given the long explanation I first gave that anon after the their round of mass reverts, the attempt to reach out to Lamberhust in the summaries and the eventual discussion on the most recent anon's page after his round of mass reverts, I at least dispute that I have made "little to no attempt to explain [my] reverts." Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When  on 3 December, the edit summary was "Relgion per the Village Pump". There is no such user called "Relgion" and no current or relatively recent discussion concerning infobox content on the Village Pump which I could find. The  on 3 December was the quizzical comment "I know but of my explanation got shoved to a dummy edit on accident but some counter would have been appreciated". None of  subsequent edits contain summaries which shed greater light on the actions. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I linked the summary with the dummy above, which reverted in kind alongside the first. I assume you didn't see it because the notification brought you straight to the diff rather than the page's history. As I said, I got cut off early but the Village Pump consensus I'm referring to is here. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A discussion about the religion parameter in an infobox doesn't provide a basis on which to remove pertinent information about a well-known politician, such as the fact that he was a national MP, the political party which he represented, his nationality and his spouse. Such information is present in the infoboxes concerning other well-known politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Nigel Farage. Lamberhurst (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, this was all further explained in the succeeding edit and which has helped with her new WP:TROUT on the article's talk. The political party he represented is shown, and the clutter of the anons superseding all domestic party changes with European parties is the main thrust behind this in the first place. His nationality is a moot point and is a parameter I hardly see included in any infobox. I've made no changes to his spouse, so I don't know what you're talking about there. The MP information is feasibly to be included, given the proportional representation in Luxembourg, all relevant info seems to be available there (with some minor formatting issues). Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

NFLjunkie22 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * link State before EW.
 * link Later state containing other useful edits performed during EW.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) prev warning
 * Previous AN / 3RR reports
 * 1) User:NFLjunkie22 reported by User:331dot (Result: Page protected)
 * 2) ANI - result: no evidence of wrongdoing

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

Comments:

Jim1138 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would seem several people disagree with your edit. Do you intend to continue making it repeatedly? -- slakr \ talk / 03:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * no. since i's been discussed on talk page. my last edit is just a link. it hard to make constructive edits, when i'm dealing people who are open about being fans of the person and view any edit, even if it's a quote as a personal attack on her. i think we might have an NPOV issue here. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:Slakr please watch this link . at 0:55 you'll see she admit's outright brags about being a man hater. hating men or boys is THE definition of Misandry. but User talk:Jim1138 can't accept that, because he's a fan of Zara Larson, so he and other fans censor anything i add about her, even if its coming from her own mouth on camera. tell me. how am i supposed to make relevant contributions to an article when a fan group takes ownership of it. NFLjunkie22 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Konsash reported by User:Hydronium Hydroxide (Result:Blocked 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752631428 is the version before the first revert below, however https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&oldid=752807240 is IMO a better subsequent version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811255&oldid=752807240
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752811728&oldid=752811541
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752812863&oldid=752812692
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752815050&oldid=752813691
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crimea&diff=752816607&oldid=752815893

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752812515&oldid=752800461
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Konsash&diff=752816483&oldid=752812515

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * N/A - no discussion on talk page, however repeated requests to use talk made have been made in edit comments, as well as requests to take it to talk also in the warnings above.

Comments:

The article is under Discretionary Sanctions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Konsash contacted me on my page at User_talk:Hydronium_Hydroxide; I have responded there. Hopefully that will suffice. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 16:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the user went on adding their personal opinions to the articles, I blocked them per WP:NOTTHERE--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MarcBell reported by User: Dapi89 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
See The Blitz. New editor, with some strange views, refuses to discuss and continues to revert; has being going on for since this afternoon. Dapi89 (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Favonian (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Had to be done. He's new, so I have asked him to go to the talk page next time. He was arguing, in effect, that we should take the word of Adolf Hitler in a propaganda speech as to why the Blitz took place. I think he just needs to be educated. Dapi89 (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "general cleanup; rv weak evolution discussion to its own section, not lede material; copyedit; reference cannot be verified; rv primary info/sources from renamed research section"
 * 2)  "(Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Again. (TW))"
 * 3)  "(Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Repeat as unnecessary. (TW))"
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by 79.43.194.53 (talk): Unnecessary. (TW))"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring and apparent WP:OWN: Zefr started by reverting an IP three times, removing a valid properly sourced edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal, was given a 3RR-warning, and then shortly after removed the same material plus about 6K more, most of it properly sourced, with not even an attempt to discuss any of it on the talk page of the article... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The first revert described the entry as "unnecessary", which seems sufficient as an edit reason. The last revision was thoroughly noted in the edit description. Much of the removed material was primary (lab animal) research which violates the sourcing standards for human health information per WP:MEDRS. I notice hasn't made any edits on this article in the past 100 edits/3 years, so do not understand the urgency of bringing this article to admin attention. Why not edit it yourself? --Zefr (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You personally feeling that sourced content is "unnecessary" doesn't exempt you from the 3RR-rules, as I clearly pointed out to you on your talk page, and instead of posting a warning on the IP's talk page, with the message "I reverted your entry because the information is minor and out of place", you should have told the IP why you regard the properly sourced and properly formatted content the IP added as minor and out of place. And removing 6.6K of content, 90% of it properly sourced (including the material added by the IP and re-added by me after your three reverts), with no attempt to discuss it on the talk page of the article first was clearly pointy. And I can't see what my not having edited this article before has to do with your edit-warring, not only on this article but also on Mangifera indica, an article that has been on my watchlist for a very long time, and is where I first noticed your behaviour, both the edit-warring and the apparent WP:OWN... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Following your notice, I acknowledged the potential value of the evolution entry by the IP user and put it here because I feel it is not lede material, as noted in my edit. And I could not verify the reference inserted, so have a "dubious" tag on it. I did address the IP user on the Talk page. In my opinion, the edits were justified and the encyclopedia benefits from fact challenges and bold removes by a long-term editor. --Zefr (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's rules do not require sources to be available online, and a quick check on Google would have led you to multiple pages with information about the source, including long excerpts from it. Which is a check I made before getting involved in this, and that you could also just as easily have done. So why the "dubious" tag? Long-term editors are not exempt from the rules, BTW, but have to abide by the exact same rules as IPs... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * commenting - unclear to me what Thomas' goal is here. The edit was actually blatant COPYVIO and by restoring it, Thomas has violated that policy.   There are a host of other issues that I will raise on the article talk page but this filing stinks. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC) (redact; their goal was clearly stated above, my bad Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC))
 * ??? Zefr obviously did not know that it, according to you, was a copyvio, and obviously didn't even suspect it, so it's not an excuse for the edit-warring, especially not since he's behaving the exact same way also on other articles... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As a third party you should have actually gotten involved and looked closely at the problem, and promoted dialogue. You violated policy and escalated the conflict instead of making things better. Zefr has too heavy a hand sometimes but you picked a bad test case, and instead really put your own foot in dogshit.  Your filing is unclean.  And your own remarks above show that you were looking for a case to "bust" him.  Beware WP:BATTLEGROUND. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND? Look who's talking, bursting in like a bull in a chinashop. I got involved because of noticing the exact same behaviour on another article, one on my watchlist, saw his repeated revert of the IP, without an IMO valid reason, as a sign of ownership, and saw his sudden removal of 6.6K worth of (mostly) sourced content on Polyunsaturated fat, his fourth revert above, as pointy. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One can often resolve a very specific content dispute by stepping back and looking at the article overall. That is what Zefr did in this diff, and if you actually look at it (which you clearly have not) Zefr included the content from the IP in the body of the article in that diff (which is where it should have been added in the first place if it had been a valid edit).  With respect to your initial filing and what you have written here -- you are demonstrating the result of a battleground mindset  - you are not dealing with the actual edits here and are just gunning for Zefr.  You missed the initial COPYVIO and you didn't see that Zefr kept the content in their big revision.  The more you write here the more you are providing diffs for there being action taken against you in the future if you continue this behavior.  I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK now.  I won't write further here, as there is no active edit war and the admins who mind this board have a lot of work to do.  Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:198.184.147.7 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP editor has made the same edit five times, reverted by 3 separate editors, again following a 3RR warning, and is entirely unresponsive on his Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (Now blocked 24 hours for vandalism.) JohnInDC (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

User:BOTFIGHTER reported by User:Mike1901 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753142091 by Mrjulesd (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Vice City: ethnic discrimination */  removed unnecessary info"
 * 3)  "/* Grand Theft Auto V: torture and sexism */"
 * 4)  "/* Chinatown Wars: drug dealing minigame */"
 * 5)  "/* Grand Theft Auto IV: drunk driving */"
 * 6)  "/* Grand Theft Auto III: general violence and crime */"
 * 1)  "/* Grand Theft Auto III: general violence and crime */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned by Kleuske on their Talk page and encouraged to use article Talk - which user has done but then carried on anyway! Mike1901 (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Just echoing what I've said at the related ANI thread, I've asked them to explain what they were trying to do and for what reason as there are concerns of WP:CIR. I'd like to at least get an answer before they are blocked, but I have no issue with another admin dealing with this request in the meantime -- samtar talk or stalk 12:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Blocked indef for multiple reasons (this incident included) -- samtar talk or stalk 09:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Damien2016 reported by User:Barthateslisa

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

The user is engaged in edit war on the page, Ranvir Sena. He has been warned ad invited on the talk page, but no constructive response from him. Barthateslisa (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've pinged you both to the talk page of the article in question - you've both edit warred and demanded each other use the talk page. I note, however, that neither of you have actually started a thread there. Please try to discuss this -- samtar talk or stalk 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . This is because both of you have continued the edit war after 's post here and asking you to join the talk page discussion. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I seem to have misread the time stamps (I read 's as 01: instead of 10:) but given that you both are well over five reverts each, I think it is appropriate. However if you agree to go to the talk page without making any further reverts I don't mind an unblock. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  13:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Horizonlove reported by User:TheMagnificentist (Result: no action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753460813 by TheMagnificentist (talk) Picture is relevant as she is referred to as The First Lady of House Music"
 * 2)  "/* UK: 1986–early 1990s */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 753308991 by TheMagnificentist (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753308991 by TheMagnificentist (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on House music. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been adding misleading content. Resolution initiatives is currently being discussed on my talk page with the user continuously reverting. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't feel like the information is misleading. I added "House music initially became popular in Chicago clubs in 1984, pioneered by figures such as Frankie Knuckles, [19] Phuture, 'Kym Mazelle',....". That is supported in this article, which refers to Kym Mazelle as "the first female pioneer of House music".


 * I also wrote "In the late 1980s, American-born singer Kym Mazelle relocated to London with the intention of making house music a popular genre within the United Kingdom. She later signed a recording contract with EMI Records and her first album Brilliant! in 1989, which was based in the genre of house music. Mazelle's house record "Wait!" featuring Robert Howard became an one of the first international hit." That is a well-known fact and contribution to the article as it also talked about successful house music records in the UK. It is implied in this article that she relocated to the UK, from America to pioneer house music in the UK. She later said this during her failed audition on the The Voice UK. Horizonlove (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please also note a similar motif with the article "Funk", where a picture of Chaka Khan was inserted in the article with the caption "Chaka Khan (born 1953) has been called the "Queen of Funk." I used a similar style on the House music page and added a picture of Kym Mazelle with the caption "Kym Mazelle (born 1960) has been called the "The First Lady of House Music." Horizonlove (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply - Your first claim is backed by a potentially unreliable and biased source, Voice Online. My argument to why it's bias is that a Google search about its reputation has provided that it does not fact-check its info before publishing. Your second claim about her "relocated to London with the intention of making house music a popular genre within the United Kingdom" is misleading as it's not even backed by the sources you provided, AllMusic and Telegraph. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Reply - Every "reliable source" does not mean a Billboard and/or Rolling Stones' magazine articles. Just because you have not heard of Voice Online, it shouldn't be dubbed as "potentially unreliable and biased source". As for "second claim about her "relocated to London with the intention of making house music a popular genre within the United Kingdom" is misleading as it's not even backed by the sources you provided", it is said in the articles that she was pioneered house music 'in the UK'. Common knowledge is that she was 'born in America'. Do the math! And this link where she said she relocated to the UK can be added as a reference. The bottom line is that you calling the edits "promotional" when in fact it is no different from the information already on the page. Horizonlove (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)




 * I will add that I know it is difficult to live under a 1RR restriction as is currently under, which may seem like giving an unfair advantage in a dispute with someone not similarly restricted. The correct response in this case might be a WP:BOOMERANG indef block on the Magnificentist for violating that restriction. But because there has been no 3RR violation on either side, and the parties are discussing their dispute as they should, I feel the discussion should continue to resolution. So I'm going to let this slide, this once. If there is a dispute about the reliability of a source, take it to WP:RSN. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Coco977 reported by User:Bradv (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It was said in the first sentence that flags of Taiwan should be in List of Taiwanese flags"
 * 2)  "Listing a Taiwanese flag as Chinese flag violates neutral point of view"
 * 3)  "/* Non-state flags */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of political parties in Taiwan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Thank you for reporting this. Coco977 is POV pushing here and is edit warring on not one, but multiple article such as Chinese Taipei, , . --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Republic of China is so rarely used that it is confusing to an average reader. Readers might still not understand what Chinese Taipei is for after reading it. Taiwan is the common name. Since many articles has the same problem, I will open an RFC for this issue.Coco977 (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is talk about what you plan to do on the talk page. You refused to do that, even after multiple warnings. Bradv  05:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would help if you at least try to understand that edit warring is not useful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. See the user's talk page. They may be disputing something they don't understand. We have an article on the Chinese Taipei Olympic flag, an unusual flag that Taiwan/ROC was required to use in the Olympic Games as a condition of participation, starting in 1980. You could argue about which flag lists it should be in (if any), but its mere existence is a question of history and not of POV. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User is edit warring by adding the same content again and again, this content clearly violating WP:NPOV, WP:BLP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1), , , , ,

2) ,

In addition, the behaviour of user shows severe violations of WP:CIV:





Comments:

Let me add that this user has repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page which shows a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and other problematic behaviour: , ,  2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC) (corrected second link 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Semi-protected 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:95.135.110.45 reported by User:RSTech1 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "teams are Canadaiens, Rangers etc. All-Star is a post-season AWARD, but not a team"
 * 2)  "this is an award, not a team!"
 * 3)  "/* References */ not a team"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on NHL All-Star Team. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on NHL All-Star Team. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on NHL All-Star Team. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * NHL All-Star Team and NHL All-Rookie Team are post-season awards, not a NHL teams (clubs)! 95.135.110.45 (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Team" is in the title of the article. It's a bit hard to argue that point. Either way, we don't just keep reverting each other and "brute force" our own opinion on others. I'd like to point out that User 95.135.110.45 immediately deletes any kind of warning from their Talk page, so it becomes difficult to track, forcing you to look at the history to track warnings and add sequential warning levels. RSTech1 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Team" is a word only in an award title! It's not a team, such symbolic teams have played zero games! So, it is absolutely wrong to categorize them under "NHL teams" branch. For example, similar article NBA All-Rookie Team categorized in and, but not in the NBA teams category. Your warnings about vandalism are absolutely inadequate. Try to read what is WP:Vandalism first. My edits are correct! 95.135.110.45 (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (November 19)
 * 2)  (November 20)
 * 3)  (November 20)
 * 4)  (November 24)
 * 5)  (November 24)
 * 6)  (December 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Do note that rather than being a report for a 3RR violation, this is a report for constant edit-warring over multiple days.

Please see a further discussion of the editor's behavior at, which includes notes of previous occurrences of identical behaviour as that which is currently being reported (which, if you look at their contribution history, they are continuing even as this report processes on yet another article). The editor continues to revert even while they take part in the discussion, completely ignoring any form of WP:STATUSQUO or WP:BRD. Also noted is the editor's extensive block log, consisting almost entirely of edit-warring blocks, going as far back as early-2008. Pinging, another involved editor who is familiar with the behaviour of the editor in question here. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a little drama we play out with Twobells from time-to-time as he edits on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. After a couple blocks for edit warring, he's learned to game WP:3RR by slow edit warring; the pattern above (one edit a day with an occasional day off) is quite commonplace (check the long, drawn-out slow edit war and fruitless discussion over some sort of British weaponry a year or so ago).  Meanwhile, he runs through a series of reasons to continue to revert, and to disengage from the corresponding discussion:  a) that his edits are "non-controversial and reliably sourced"; b) that national "mash-ups" aren't appropriate (just common as can be on engWP); and c) that his edits represent "best practice" (as though there is such a notion described on WP) and thereby cannot be reverted.  And it goes and it goes until he finally gives up and moves on to the next edit war.  He started the same thing with Lawrence of Arabia, a film produced by Columbia Pictures and American Sam Spiegel, this morning.  He has a rabid resistance to labeling American involvement in increasingly common British-American/American-British co-productions.  The production at issue here was commissioned by Netflix, and produced collaboratively by Sony Pictures Television (which is in Culver City CA) and Left Bank Pictures (a production company which is British-based, but a subsidiary of Sony Pictures Television)   He's pushing the show as British-only based on a website that promotes films produced in Britain.  No one is questioning that the film was made in Britain, but it doesn't alter the fact that there is substantial American involvement in the production, which the article must reflect.  But Twobells is determined to edit war it out, and is unwilling to discuss or to work toward any form of consensus.  And so we find ourselves here with him once again.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reports created after this one have already been closed. Requiring action from administrators. Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is unfortunately days old at this time. Edit warring appears to have stopped, and ny action at this point would be punitive, not preventative. SQL Query me!  04:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Naturally. The edit-warring has not stopped, indicated by their previous behaviour. When the editor resumes editing, they will see this "stale" report, believe that their behaviour is perfectly alright due to you allowing them this by your lack of action (after all, the only reason this is state is because of the lack of action by anyone who moderates this page), and continue to edit-war. I believe that when reading this report, if you did, you missed at least half of it; note that they deliberately border 3RR by spanning multiple days - two identical edits in their warring were a week apart, and they take the same edits on multiple articles. When they return, and they will, I will be restoring this same report. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, I was right. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This sort of behavior (multiple pings, accusations of neglect, sarcasm, etc) directed at me really doesn't make me want to help. That being said, if another admin believes a block is needed for the ongoing protection of the encyclopedia - I wouldn't object. SQL Query me!  19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts at :


 * 1)  (initial edit days ago)
 * 2)  (the following five are within the same hour)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Your view now, ? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 10:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And again, we wait while other reports filed after this one are addressed. Is it any wonder Twobells is such a persistent edit warrior? --Drmargi (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And now he's back at it at The Crown (TV series). I'd add diffs, but I'm not sure it's worth my time given the administrative neglect of this report.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

User:45.248.180.9 reported by User:RSTech1 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A belief is not a confirmation. And there is no consensus needed for removing an unsourced text."
 * 2)  "What you added is not actually what the source is saying. All content must be verifiable and yours is not. Simple as that. Per rules you need a source and discussion. Edit-warring won't help anyone."
 * 3)  "I didn’t make any disruptive edits. Besides I have given the legitimate reasons for my edit. I have already started a discussion on talk page. Discuss instead od reinstating unsourced edits."
 * 4)  "The CNN source it used here iself stated that it is a "belief" of the investigators. I didn’t make any unsourced edits, I simply on the other hand actually removed unsourced text."
 * 5)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."
 * 1)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."
 * 1)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2016 Ohio State University attack. (TW)"
 * 2)   "uw-tempabuse2 wrn"


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


 * Comments:

Several editors have interacted with this user to help them understand that their edits are not following Wikipedia guidelines. It started simply, but now this user will not listen, and is engaged in a full out edit war. They are also abusing warning templates, by posting them in retaliation to multiple editors' talk pages. (The editors who have previously warned them.) RSTech1 (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They have left templates on talk pages of users (Chrissymad, Natureium, and RSTech1) about disruptive editing and accusing them of edit warring, when some of them only reverted his edits once. This is pretty clearly harassment. Natureium (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:45.248.180.9 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A belief is not a confirmation. And there is no consensus needed for removing an unsourced text."
 * 2)  "What you added is not actually what the source is saying. All content must be verifiable and yours is not. Simple as that. Per rules you need a source and discussion. Edit-warring won't help anyone."
 * 3)  "I didn’t make any disruptive edits. Besides I have given the legitimate reasons for my edit. I have already started a discussion on talk page. Discuss instead od reinstating unsourced edits."
 * 4)  "The CNN source it used here iself stated that it is a "belief" of the investigators. I didn’t make any unsourced edits, I simply on the other hand actually removed unsourced text."
 * 5)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."
 * 1)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."
 * 1)  "The supposed motive is just a belief, hasn't been confirmed beyond any doubt especially seeing as the attacker himself didn't state any motive."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2016 Ohio State University attack. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Motive */ added a sentence"


 * Comments:

Has been asked repeatedly to wait for consensus and shown where the source is credible with this claim. Users have offered alternative solutions (ie. adding allegedly, suspected) but continues to edit war and delete content, as well as giving erroneous warnings on others pages  Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  Talk   20:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:User new reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753618881 by Volunteer Marek (talk) try reading it carefully"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 753615502 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 753614669 by ClueBot NG (talk) not vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Luhansk People's Republic. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The contributor has already been warned about discretionary sanctions here by EdJohnson, but has persisted in reverting without any attempts at discussion. I wouldn't normally report a new user without having tried to discuss it further with him/her, but having only 12 edits under their belt only on the LPR and DPR, with no interest in discussion, is seriously indicative of WP:POVPUSH and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * per WP:NOTHERE. Any admin may feel free to unblock if they agree to a topic ban from Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 20:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

User:207.62.170.217 reported by User:ThePlatypusofDoom (Result: Blocked 55 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "These are the sources cited for this. Huffington's Wikipedia page specifically says it's left leaning. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=washington+post https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/"
 * 2)  "@CogitoErgoSum14, Like I said before, 2 of the sources are outright biased and unreliable. The last sources describes only a single circumstance, most likely edgy kids meming, that is grossly exaggerated by the Left to be anti-Muslim hate crime."
 * 3)  "Deus Vult being alt-right hate crime rallying cry section is removed. The listed sources are not reliable and highly biased."
 * 1)  "Deus Vult being alt-right hate crime rallying cry section is removed. The listed sources are not reliable and highly biased."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Deus vult. (TW)"
 * 2)   "info"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps edit-warring. A potential sock just deleted the information that this IP was deleting. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * and will protect the page shortly. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:110.146.128.181 reported by User:RSTech1 (Result: IP stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753495300 by RSTech1 (talk) Skeptics don't like to collaborate on edits which accuses their skeptic Gods of being liars."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 753494151 by RSTech1 (talk) This article is very one-sided. Censorship by skeptics is unencyclopaedic"
 * 3)  "/* Explanation and analysis */ Klass got it wrong"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on 1976 Tehran UFO incident. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on 1976 Tehran UFO incident. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * No edits from that IP address for four hours, so it's likely been reassigned to a different person. Please re-report the new IP if this continues -- samtar talk or stalk 19:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger that. RSTech1 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:314C:3C00:6819:3BC1:CBF0:72DC reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Failure to provide source justifying the removal of the word "allegedly". Note that all reverts have been done by a slighlty changed IP which is identical in the first three parts of the IP - hence the same person. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This IP's reverting continues, I am not reverting him because that would cause me to break the 3RR rule myself. --Marbe166 (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

User: Rajivkilanashrestha reported by User:Damien2016 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Repeated edit warring on the article Madhesh and removal of sourced content.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753836898&oldid=753730029
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753837026&oldid=753836898
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753870933&oldid=753863762
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Madhesh&diff=753884638&oldid=753884334

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have warned him repeatedly not to keep reverting and to provide sources however he keeps responding in broken English.

Comments:


 * You did not include any diffs to show that there is any edit warring going on. Please add diffs to indicate this to this report above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * General note: added a fake block notice to 's talk page here. I have sternly warned Rajivkilanashrestha that this is not to be tolerated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No sure if it's relevant here but on my talk page he referred to me as a "fool", insulted my character and then assumed me to be an Indian.Damien2016 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

The reported IP User, who has been involved in previous edit-warring on the article concerned, on a daily basis deletes a "citation needed" template with passive-aggressive edit summaries. His timing is playing the 1RR rule for the article, does not engage in any meaningful discussion on the matter.


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753126939 by 2A1ZA (talk) I'll let you do all the work. Thank you."
 * 2)  "no need for a reference of a commonly known thing, if need be, any user can provide a dozen sources, especially 2A1ZA)"

The reported IP User is fully aware of the 1RR rule and of the problems associated with disruptive editing, on his blanketed talk page are diverse discussions on the topic (see, ), and he has been involved in numerous cases of edit warring on the article concerned, see article history. I would not know how to deal now with this persistent removal of a "citation needed" template on a sentence he inserted into the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't recall adding the sentence but you must surely know that it is a commonly known fact. Please stop personally attacking me and do something to contribute to Wikipedia. You might also take joy in blaming me with "blanketing" but I refer to it as cleaning. Good luck, -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * I just observed that user again has vandalised the page Salih Muslim Muhammad and called other users "mouthpiece of a terrorist" . 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Let me also add the uncivil behaviour of user at . 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget to mention that 2003:77:4F0C:9A16:B9F1:5AA8:B1A7:37E9 (talk) is the only vandalizer in this scenario. They keep removing other users' contributions with a myriad list of excuses in hope of hitting the target with one, whichever one it may be. Keep on complaining in vain. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history of user on several pages, it seems that nobody takes the edits of this user seriously. These unconstructive edits are usually quickly reverted and everybody tries to ignore this user as far as possible. This user then sometimes reacts with uncivil behaviour as described above.
 * This user has repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page which shows a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and other problematic behaviour:, ,.
 * The behaviour of user should not be tolerated. 2003:77:4F19:1A82:91D0:A27B:A2E5:7343 (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. Some IPs have been steadily reverting each other since mid-November. The closest thing to a real talk page discussion is at Talk:Rojava. The IP named in this report made an especially ironic comment at this link: "You said it, PKK=DAESH=YPG=Terror". This suggests the POV of someone who is not going to be able to edit this article neutrally. Some of the IPs evidently have knowledge (as well as POVs) but the right place to work out corrections for the article is on the talk page. You need to get consensus there and evaluate the quality of sources, not just keep repeating your personal opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Avatar9n reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 753854592 by Thomas.W (talk) removal of sourced content may be considered as vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 753848916 by Thomas.W (talk)"
 * 3)  "the essay is about deletion of the articles, not about their content. for unsourced statement citation needed tag is used. add info instead of deleting it"
 * 4)  "half of the article will be deleted if we keep on doing this"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on T-72."


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly restoring material that has been removed for being unsourced, first just reverting the removal and then adding "sources" that not in any way support the claim made in the text, even after being told that the text isn't supported by the sources (see this discussion on my talk page). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The edit clearly states what sources say. The "Globalsecurity" says that it was considered a big thread: "T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us.", while the russian source says that M47 (M47 Patton) suffered losses againts T-62s and T-72s. This is not an edit war, but a "reputation war" -  Avatar 9n  16:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What the sources say isn't at all what you say in the text you have repeatedly added, where you first claimed that "According to both Iranians and Iraqis,the T-72 was the most feared tank in the war.", and then slightly modified it to "According to Iranians, the T-72 was one of the most feared tank in the war.". The Gobalsecurity source only says that the T-72 was "a dangerous threat", as all tanks are, it doesn't compare the T-72 to other tanks used in the conflict, and say that the T-72 was "a more dangerous threat than other tanks were", as you do. Making even your latest version unsourced/OR/SYNTH. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You took what i have written out of context. As i said before, that passage is rather old. I cited sources in order to prevent its deletion. The sources may not be literally supporting what was written, as you kept crying, i changed them. What is written now can be verified by the sources. Avatar 9n  16:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it can't. See WP:SYNTH. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It (the source) does compare the T-72 with the other tank (Chieftain):
 * "...one of the highest Iranian officers Afzali in June 1981 praised the Soviet T-72 tank: "The T-72 has the maneuverability and firepower that British tanks" Chieftain "do not go to any comparison with it. Iran has no effective means of dealing with the T-72. "


 * In particular, a war veteran and commander of a tank company (tanks "Chieftain") Adar Forouzan, recalls that in this period tankers of the regular army could not say anything good about the "Chieftain" tank . Iranian officer writes: "The more I learned about the tank" Chieftain", the more I agree with them." He further said that the most dangerous weapons in Iraq were T-72 tanks, "the Iraqis were partially equipped with the new T-72 tanks. They had good speed and firepower, and their armor protects against RPGs our infantry. T-72 was a very dangerous threat to us."


 * Then he tells the story of the first clashes with T-72 tanks during the onset of Iran in the region near the Dasht Abbas Dizful in spring 1982. Iraq threw a counter-offensive of T-72 tanks, and the "Chieftain" of Adar Forouzana was immediately shot down: "In my tank hit the MTO exploded fuel vapors, the shock wave blew off the headset. We all jumped out of the tank and fled on foot." This military officer says other cases T-72 superiority over the US and British armored vehicles."

Is "a very dangerous threat" not evoking terrified military personnel? You can replace it with the exact line, but it won't change the meaning. I (or the old statement) didnt say that it was a more dangerous threat than other tanks were. To performed well against does not necessarily mean "to destroy", it has various meanings, such as disabling. Avatar 9n 17:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. I don't know who is right about the fighting power of the T-72 but you can't break 3RR with impunity. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Earflaps (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) I have chosen not to engage in a third revert myself, and therefore do not know if Alexbrn would have reverted a fourth time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Note that User:Alexbrn has been warned of edit warring violations on his talk page in the past, and as they responded to that warning, they were obviously fully aware what the third revert entails. As such, I chose not to insult their intelligence (i.e. template a regular, basically) by linking the same WP:Alphabet soup during our interactions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I am here to complain over the balance tag, not their revert of the weasel wording tag, the latter of which I'd rather just fix while working on the page directly. I know this is just a balance tag, but if Alex is so willing to war over something as temporary and insubstantial as that, I worry I've encountered a case of WP:Ownership (where he/she prefers the page frozen as it is, possibly due to hard-earned victories in previous talk page discussions). As such, I'd rather establish immediately that my opinion on the page is every bit as valid as her/his own, and that I also have a right to add a balance tag and keep it there until I feel satisfied that the page is fixed (or there is consensus or lack of discussion, per Template:Unbalanced).


 * In fact it is you who are trying to force a contentious change by adding the tag, as other editors have informed you on the article Talk page. By my count my undoing of your repeated problematic drive-by badge-of-shame tagging puts me at 3RR, which is not over the bright line that normally applies in this kind of circumstance. You do not have a "right" to add a tag. Alexbrn (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Earflaps, you should have notified the user on their talkpage before filing a 3RR case. WP:DTR does not say "don't post messages on regulars' talk pages." In fact, it says quite the opposite. As for the substance of the dispute, Alexbrn challenged your tag by removing it. The next step is to discuss the controversial change and establish consensus, not to revert the challenge. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 06:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I stand corrected. I thought I had explained why I didn't do the talk page report - I will next time. And no, a balance tag is not a "contentious change" - it is quite mundane and common, and as it is temporary, hardly something to treat with aggressive contempt and dismissal. That said, I of course have no problem discussing the issue at length, but I stand by my argument that Alexbrn is escalating for no reason - he could have addressed the balance tag on the talk page with no reversions at all. Earflaps (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As as a note, I resent the implication this was a "drive-by badge-of-shame tagging" in any way - I find that, again, contemptuous to the umpteenth, and a poor argument for edit warring. Go through my history and you'll see I practically never tag pages, unless the problem is so egregious I feel like a bad editor leaving it without a mark (as with this case). I also work to remove my own tags with improvements, which I haven't yet been given time to do (it has been a day since I added the balance tag, not a week or several, which is the norm on when to remove such things for being stagnant). Earflaps (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The real "contempt" might be shown by waltzing into an article and, without having consulted the relevant sources or even (apparently) the extensive article Talk page history, deciding that a problem is "so egregious" that you insist on a tag to show how deficient all the many other editors who have worked on this article have been. You then announce your intention to edit war if the tag is removed. Remember complainants here have their own behaviour scrutinized: I am wondering if a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * for 1 week. Blocking would be pointless since it would stop any discussion about this tag underway on the talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:GolfFan1 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable people */Added notable resident"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754260483 by WilliamJE (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Notable people */Added notable resident. Do not delete. A Wikipedia article is being created about this person. Again do not delete."
 * 4)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 1)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 1)  "/* Notable people */"
 * 1)  "/* Notable people */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Boiling Springs */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boiling Springs, South Carolina. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been adding a redlinked name for several days under their account and with an IP. A new article on the subject was moved to draft space but has not been developed. Not taking action myself since I've reverted.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . ~Anachronist (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:117.253.146.17, affected Eugene Pandala
Page:

User being reported:

Edit-warring by potentially sockpuppeteer of user:112.133.221.240 at Eugene Pandala, ignoring Talk:Eugene Pandala and comments at the related version history, Roland zh (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (semi-protection) due to similar disruption from multiple IP addresses. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:166.70.67.50 reported by User:Bejan1 (Result: Blocked/Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  tag bomb
 * 2)  revert (undone by User:Billinghurst)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Aug-sept set of edits with WP:SPS violation of WP:BLP
 * 5)  reverted by GermanJoe as BLP Violations
 * 6)  reverted by Krelnik in May. Same edits

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP user's first edit on the article was tagged as BLP violation. He has been reverted by 4 users from may to now and two users yesterday. He has continued to add WP:SPS with WP:BLP violations to the article. This is long term abuse of the article by this WP:SPA IP address. He should be blocked for such behavior and his very hostile attitude to consensus of others on talkpage. After last revert, he made another snobbish amend and tag bombed the article. This is not 3RR but it is clear cut long term edit war with every editor who opposes his BLP violations. Please block his IP range or semi protect for long term. Thank you in advance. --Bejan1 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: RfC closed)
Page:

User being reported:

For over 10 reversions despite the talk page consensus against her position. Though not a formal RFC with an RFC tag, the question was posted at the Wikiproject biography page and the infobox template talk page for over a month. The question is whether to include academic institutions that people withdraw from, as is done at the pages of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg who withdrew from Harvard University. The talk page consensus was supposed to stop the edit warring. I understand what it is like to not have my opinion become the consensus, I disagreed with the removal of commas with "Jr." but accepted it.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Over 10 reversions despite the talk page consensus against her position. Though not a formal RFC with an RFC tag, the question was posted at the Wikiproject biography page and the infobox template talk page for over a month. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's clarify a few things here:
 * Those reverts occurred over the course of two months. I raised the issue on the talk page two months ago, after a single revert on the issue. RAN subsequently started a formal RfC, for which I have requested closure at WP:ANRFC.
 * Not a formal RFC, that would require an RFC tag. I posted for people to comment at the places discussed above. It is a "request for comment" without using the formal RFC functionalities, so there is no formal closure, and that is why it has been open for almost two months. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There WAS an RfC tag. The bot automatically removed the tag after 30 days, just as it does on every single RfC. That doesn't mean this wasn't an RfC, and doesn't mean that it shouldn't be closed as such. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Then that means the issue is closed and time to accept the outcome, if consensus changes again, we can change the results then. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That means it's time for the RfC to be closed, which is why I listed it for closure. As I've already said several times, let's let someone uninvolved decide what the consensus is. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So far as I'm aware, there was no discussion of this issue at Template talk:Infobox officeholder. There was such a discussion at Template talk:Infobox person, but as I've repeatedly pointed out to RAN, that is not the template in use for this article. I'm also not aware of any relevant discussion at WikiProject Biography; perhaps RAN can provide a link?
 * Per above, the RfC on the talk page is pending closure by an uninvolved editor. At several points since the posting of the RfC, RAN has re-instated his preferred version, despite repeated requests to wait for the RfC to close. This isn't a "snow" case where such an action might be warranted, which is another reason for an uninvolved closer to decide on what consensus is.
 * I have made several efforts to engage RAN on this matter on the talk page, giving him ample time to respond, but he has on several occasions reverted without discussing. My two most recent posts of 21 November and 8 December have not been responded to except with reverts.
 * I'm open to suggestions on how better to resolve this issue - I've done my best to provide policy/guideline-backed rationales in edit summaries and on the talk page rather than simply reverting, and to allow time for reasoned discussion, but clearly that hasn't been sufficiently effective in this dispute. Another editor recently raised a discussion at WP:AN regarding a similar pattern of behavior on the part of RAN - implementing an RfC "consensus" from an RfC in which he expressed an opinion before said RfC closed - but there was limited discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, Norton, "...it takes two to edit war", and from I can see you're far more culpable.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   00:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except, I cited precedences at Gates and Zuckerburg, not personal opinions ... and I started a discussion on the talk page ... and I asked for other's opinions at the template talk page ... and I started an RFC ... and I followed the current consensus on the talk page ... my ideological opponent just reverts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's really challenging to discuss things with you when so much much of what you say is untrue. We both cited precedents, and you started the RfC. Now, I'm quite happy to respect whatever consensus an uninvolved closer determines exists in that RfC. Could we agree to leave the article be until that happens? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment. RfC closed. The opening party's case was always going to be weak as he has also reverted multiple times, and the talk page consensus is not what he thinks it is. DrKay (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am challenging your closing at ANI, you combined votes for other formats and counted them as votes against the format that has consensus. This is the equivalent of assigning votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson to Hillary Clinton because they are not votes for Donald Trump. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B418:6BF8:133:C6AA:8B65:AFA3 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Blocked/Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 3)  "/* See also */"
 * 4)  "/* See also */"
 * 5)  "/* See also */"
 * 6)  "/* See also */Added synonym"
 * 7)  "Adding a synonym"


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


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


 * Comments:

Kept adding Donald Trump link in the see also section which is not needed. KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 16:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Niyazib reported by User:Marvellous Spider-Man (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754415905 by MusikBot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 753349292 by Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) /reverting consistant removal of sourced info/"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 753123756 by Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) - It is just rearranging words, Seems your intention is to keep wikipedia unedited and away from updates."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I want to assert that this report is not only for Popular Front of India, but also reverting my edit on my user talk page.

His edits are less but his account was created in 2012. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  18:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Making speculative accusation on my talk page "Seems your intention is to keep wikipedia unedited and away from updates". <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  18:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I notice that he reverted himself a minute later. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Soewinhan reported by User:Za-ari-masen (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "will be reported for edit-warring"
 * 2)  "revert massive POV changes without discussion"
 * 3)  ""Rendering a majority of Rohingya stateless" has already mentioned in the lead. Your details appear in lower sections. Lead is not for details."
 * 1)  ""Rendering a majority of Rohingya stateless" has already mentioned in the lead. Your details appear in lower sections. Lead is not for details."


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


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


 * Comments:

User is displaying act of ownership of the article. He has also previously reverted other editors. He argues that the article should keep "long-standing, several years old" version and keeps reverting recent changes, despite the fact that there have been some major developments in recent years with regards to the topic. The User has also removed the 3RR warning from his talk page. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit in question. Za-ari-masen, noted by several other users on that page as deliberately pushing pro-Bangladeshi views, has removed sourced content and attempted to push POV changes through edit wars. For example, another user noted about him and Markus Karner, "I have reverted both your edits and the other pro-Bangladeshi editor Za-ari-masen. Both of you are removing sourced content for no legitimate proven reason." His edits remove entire paragraphs and well-sourced information about the mujahideen rebellion and replace them with a single reference to the 18th century, a reference that is repeated several times in this article.

Under no circumstances would I say this article should be kept at several years old version. In fact, several other editors have improved and edited since then. More recently, a health section has been added. What I meant was that the version we have now has been discussed and agreed over the period of several years and such a massive POV change to pro-Bangladesh stance is not warranted without discussion. It's an affront to countless other editors who have dedicated hundreds of hours to reach a consensus. S WH® talk 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The other user you are referring to was a vandal IP and posted it more than a year ago. Soewinhan has already indulged into edit wars with other editors (a glance over the article history would show that) to push Pro-Burmese viewpoint and reverting all the edits which go against his views. I've attempted to discuss but he kept on reverting, without pointing out any specific concern. And the edit was not a massive change rather some additional information which was present in the article before being removed by some troll IPs over the months. I've also explained my edits in the edit summaries. This article is clearly under an ownership of this user. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not want to argue with you. Anyone can see that other than removing the consensus-supported version, your edits do not add any new information but keep repeating Hamilton's paper several times.  S  WH® talk 14:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have removed all the sources, all the contents and yet it added over 1000 bytes to the article. I agree everyone can see what I have added, so I am also not inclined to argue over this thing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, you added 1000 bytes through copying and pasting Hamilton's paper (which is already mentioned two times in this article) to hide your content removal.  S  WH® talk 15:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a critical information which should be in the lead. And besides, the edit also added information about recent developments and comments from UN which has been deleberately removed by you to push pro-Burmese POV. Za-ari-masen (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Izno reported by User:Раммон (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygyny&diff=prev&oldid=754590327
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygyny&diff=prev&oldid=754585221
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygyny&diff=prev&oldid=754583363


 * Comments:

The user tries to add unsoursed lying map in the article. This map asserts that polygamy is crime in Russia and in European Union while it is mere lie. In accordance with WP:PROVEIT "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In spite of the warning Izno several times reverted my edits in the article. Раммон (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have honestly no opinion on the value of the map, but I don't think one off-color region (if indeed it is off-color as the reporting editor believes) is sufficient cause to remove the map itself. As can be seen at my user talk page, I've asked the map's creator to comment. I have not attempted to "add" the map but instead have reverted to the present-consensus position, which has been such since June 2016. --Izno (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Only three reverts. Take it to the talk page, folks. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User:172.58.216.164 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "restore legitimate version that explains to readers exactly why he wasted himself lol"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754393499 by RSTech1 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Yes it does work that way. Objection overruled, I overruled you after determining you lack any standing or significance here so your opinion is irrelevant."
 * 4)  "I have decided that this information was correct after all and so therefore it MUST be restored."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * for persistent disruptive editing as well as edit warring. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the above a suggestion? I noticed the user is not blocked yet(or perhaps you have had technical difficulty?) 331dot (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding: I've blocked the range 172.58.216.0/23 now, after being reminded there were two of them. Technical difficulty? Me? Never! ;-) Bishonen &#124; talk 13:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Displaying the single IP's contributions now shows the range block, though you would miss it if you only view their own block log. Amazing but true. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Anmccaff reported by User:Bradv (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Jytdog (talk) to last revision by Bradv. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn (talk): Cite does not support contention. . (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn (talk): Ite does not prove contention, it only shows that a particular study which was not designed to evaluate something did not evaluate it. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Contentious? */ 3rr warning"


 * Comments:
 * At the same time this was filed, I filed an ANI case concerning the long term disruption, here. I recommend this be closed so that the community can focus there. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * — Bradv  00:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:174.91.166.158 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754708996 by ViperSnake151 (talk) You have been warned about BRD. You are now being reported for edit warring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754697631 by ViperSnake151 (talk) Please follow BRD rules and use talk page or you will be reported"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 754691992 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 754656295 by ViperSnake151 (talk) Not"
 * 5)  "order of importance"
 * 1)  "order of importance"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Ownership of articles on NHL Centennial Classic. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Fussing over wording of copyedits, with little explanation of objections beyond threats of action. Editor has had conflicts and confrontational behaviour on other articles (see IP talk page) ViperSnake151   Talk  02:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Clear 3RR violation. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 02:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:193.63.96.254 reported by User:MrX (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported: (same user - see admission here:
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:09, December 14, 2016‎ "Article states and it is sourced that she was previously a Democrat. Under Wikipedia if you swap parties your previous party is still included in the categories even though you have left."
 * 2) 13:18, December 14, 2016‎ "Not sockpuppetry, I'm merely using a different IP address. As it states in the article she was elected as a democrat, so regardless of her current party, her previous one also stays!! Do not revert again!"
 * 3)  "She was still a Democrat and like everyone else who switches party their former party stays on their wikipedia article in the category section"
 * 4)  "She was a Democrat until 2015. Clearly says so in the article. Do not revert again"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kim Davis (county clerk). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kim Davis (county clerk). (TW)"

Editor edit warring from multiple IPs, adding a category that is factually incorrect. Admits they are the same user here: - MrX 13:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Iaof2017 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Albania now under ECP)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit-warring picture uploaded by master Igaalbania 17:24, 10 December 2016: File:Lake komani 2016 Albania.jpg
 * 2)  "/* Transport */"
 * 3)  "/* Middle Ages */"
 * 4)  "/* Transport */"
 * 5)  "/* Government and Politics */"
 * 6)  "/* History */"
 * 7)  "/* Economy */"
 * 8)  "/* Government and Politics */"
 * 9)  "/* Economy */"
 * 10)  "/* Geography */"
 * 11)  "/* Ottoman Albania */"
 * 12)  "/* Era of nationalism and League of Prizren */"
 * 13)  "/* Tourism */"
 * 14)  "/* Republic and monarchy */"
 * 15)  "/* Communist Albania */"
 * 16)  "/* Post-Communist Albania */"
 * 17)  "/* Climate */"
 * 18)  "/* Cuisine */"
 * 19)  "/* Media */"
 * 20)  "/* Cuisine */"
 * 21)  "/* Cuisine */"
 * 22)  "/* Tourism */"
 * 23)  "/* Transport */"
 * 1)  "/* Media */"
 * 2)  "/* Cuisine */"
 * 3)  "/* Cuisine */"
 * 4)  "/* Tourism */"
 * 5)  "/* Transport */"
 * 1)  "/* Transport */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Albania. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tourism in Albania. (TW★TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tourism in Albania. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Block evasion. Sock of. Following my recent ANI report regarding IP socks of the master, this named account takes over where the master left. Large-scale edit-warring,. Dr.  K.  17:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to add the copyvios, a hallmark of the master. Please check this copyvio: verbatim from the source (archived): An important gateway to the Balkan Peninsula, Albania’s ever-growing road network provides juncture to reach its neighbors in north south, east, and west. Albania is within close proximity to all the major European capitals with short two or three hour flights that are available daily. Tourists can see and experience Albania’s ancient past and traditional culture. Dr.  K.  21:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ? Drmies (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't see a technical connection between Iaof2017 and the proposed master (I called it based on geolocation only), and the SPI results came back as . This case should be reviewed based on behaviour as opposed to relying on technical evidence.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  20:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's look at another example of massive copyvios: which is copyvio from http://www.akt.gov.al/en/top-destinations/kruja/
 * which is a copyvio from www.valamarresidences.al/en/about_albania/lalzi-bay.html
 * The rest of that huge edit is either GFDL no-attribution copypastes from other Wikipedia articles or copyvios from other sources. In addition this is just a single edit by the sock. There are more edits of that type. Dr.   K.  06:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Another example: which is a verbatim copyvio from http://albaniatourism.info/hiking-in-albania/  Dr.   K.  07:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I opened another SPI. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Melarnik. Dr.  K.  17:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: This is more of a sock case than an edit warring case, and I hope the SPI will eventually make progress. Though the current editor is unlikely to be Igaalbania (per checkuser) there is nonetheless a long-term odor of sock editing on this article. So I've put Albania under extended confirmed protection. Semiprotection alone has not been sufficient to control the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Balki Chalkidiki reported by User:2A1ZA (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:




 * 3RR warning:

User_talk:Balki_Chalkidiki


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Turkey


 * Comments:

The issue here is a brief paragraph in the Turkey article, in the "Administrative divisions" section, which elaborates on the topic of decentralization, one of the most debated constitutional issues in Turkey for decades. User:Balki Chalkidiki continues to delete this paragraph without any discernable reason or justification to do so, his edit summaries obviously make claims unrelated to this text he actually deletes. My best guess is that he might hold a certain political view in the Turkish political landscape (ultra-nationalist) which seeks to make discussion of the topic "taboo". Please protect the article, and the paragraph concerned, from this disruptive conduct of the reported user. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

As the reported User still does not engage in any discussion, neither here nor on the article talk page, I am now going to restore the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue to the article, which I can do now without breaching 3RR myself. I would really appreciate an administrator to take care of the issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The reported User just deleted again, as usual with an arrogant edit summary largely unrelated to this text of the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue he actually deleted. An innovation is that he now inserts some ad hominem into his edit summary.



As the reported User still does not engage in any discussion, neither here nor on the article talk page, I am now going to restore. I would really appreciate an administrator to take care of the issue. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins, the reported User keeps up his bulk deletion of the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue in the article, here is the next:



I would very much appreciate an administrator to take action. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like content dispute to me, however, it is unfortunate that Balki Chalkidiki did not reply at the talk page of the article and only briefly at their talk page; however, they continued reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is no "content dispute", as the edit summaries of the reported user do not actually address the text of the important and well sourced brief paragraph on the decentralization issue he actually deletes. Please see the talk page of the article for details. He obviously does not engage in a discussion because he wants to enforce a "political taboo" around the topic, not argue the actual content of the paragraph. And there was a clear violation of 3RR by the reported user. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

As Balki Chalkidiki still does not take up any invitation to engage in a discussion, either here or on the article talk page, I will give it another try to restore. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Balki Chalkidiki and User:2A1ZA are warned. They are risking a block if either of them adds or removes any language about decentralization from the Turkey article without first getting a clear consensus on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Though Balki's removals look funny, the text preferred by 2A1ZA is hardly neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear EdJohnston, while I actually disagree with that idea to "deal equally" with on the one hand a user who edits in good faith, seeks to discuss and violates no rule, and on the other hand a user who bulk deletes with insincere edit summaries, refuses to discuss and violates 3RR, I am fine with the idea that the decentralization issue paragraph now in the article needs talk page consensus for a change. Would you make that clear in general, not only with relation to the two accounts mentioned, to prevent abuse? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, less than two hours after your warning on his talk page, the folk is up again:



He had just before for the first time ever started to engage in a talk page discussion, but apparently intends to unilaterally change the decentralization issue paragraph to his liking irrespective of what is and will be discussed there.

What am I supposed to do now? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've blocked User:Balki Chalkidiki for continuing to edit the disputed material in spite of the warning. User:2A1ZA, you should pursue your case on the talk page and you should not edit again unless you get prior consensus on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just made a comprehensive presentation on that talk page seeking consensus to revert that "suicide edit" by the reported user. Hopefully some people care to give their views. I find it absurd that the folk can just turn the content of sources into their opposite and I am told not to do anything about it. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:179.7.208.162 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754845964 by Mlpearc Phone (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754845236 by Mlpearc Phone (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 754843556 by Ilovetopaint (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 754838811 by Ilovetopaint (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 754783600 by Oculi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Same person as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/179.7.216.226

Warned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:179.7.216.226 Ilovetopaint (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * -- samtar talk or stalk 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Accidental report - edited out - my apologies. Dr Strauss  talk  21:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

User:67.10.167.124 reported by User:UNSC Luke 1021 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Most recent pre-war edition

Diffs of the user's reverts: [*]Revert not made by the violating user
 * 1) First violation
 * 2) First reversion against the violator[*]
 * 3) Second Violation
 * 4) Second reversion by a different editor[*]
 * 5) Second part of revision II, most likely done to prevent another reversion[*]
 * 6) Third reversion; This is the last legal revert they can make
 * 7) Third revert against the violator; no more reverts allowed[*]
 * 8) Fourth reversion by the violator; they are now breaking the rules
 * 9) Fourth revert against violator[*]
 * 10) Fifth revert by the violator
 * 11) Fifth reversion against the violator by a third different editor; this also spawned a sockpuppet investigation[*]
 * 12) SIXTH REVERT BY THE VIOLATOR. I then revert this edit moments before sending this application in
 * 13) Reversion by me; this is the most current edit as of this application being written[*]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.10.167.124&type=revision&diff=753868894&oldid=753868746 The editor has received a notice warning them about edit warring both on this page and another page. I won't get into the other page now, but rather fill out another form if necessary]

Comments:


 * I warned the guy here a minute after the application went through UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are any admins going to reply? Everyone else received a reply so rapidly whereas I'm still waiting. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 12:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * can you look at this, because none of the admins are looking through it and you've done this before? UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies it's taken so long to get to your report - that IP has not edited since yesterday and as such this report is stale -- samtar talk or stalk 16:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Tlroche reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: AE blocked 60 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


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

Note that the user insists on referring to others' edits as "vandalism".

On 2016 United States election interference by Russia


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

Note that this article is under a WP:1RR restriction of which Tlroche has been made aware.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DS sanctions alert which makes user aware of 1RR. 3RR notice

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

Comments:

Other problematic behavior:
 * 1) Adds another user's signature

Incivility
 * 1)
 * 2)

Battleground:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

This editor needs to be blocked, topic banned, or both. They are some sort of mission to promote Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and I'm guessing they have a COI. They are brazenly ignoring multiple talk page warnings, edit summaries reverting their edits, article talk page discussion, and the prominent edit notice. There is no excuse for this type of behavior. It would be nice if this didn't have to go to AE where it will marinate for weeks.- MrX 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbitration enforcement . Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 17:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Alma Fordy reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop it, Chrissy!!!!"
 * 2)  "This is the correct version!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Trumbo (2015 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned several times for several changes in other articles and reverting. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Please be aware of Sockpuppet investigations/Alma Fordy. Although this has not been acted on as yet there is a lot of quacking and it also show AF's willingness to sock as part of their edit warring. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - per the WP:SPI case. EdJohnston (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:AldezD reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Warned)
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:

Comments:


 * The last edit was made after I tried to discus a needed change, but was made without any agreement being made as to what the change should be. Some of the material removed had been fairly long standing.Slatersteven (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The removed content added by a problem user who in the past has repeatedly added nonsensical, unsourced information to this article . Additionally, the problem user regularly resorts to accusing other users of WP:OWN when he does not get his way  and has even altered other users' comments on talk pages . The user has habitually disruptively edited Judith Barsi, and edits today were another attempt to stop WP:DE to this article by an evidenced patterned user. When confronted, the user devolves into a tantrum and threatens others on talk pages, even going so far as to claim retirement. In March 2016, the same problem user created an ANI referencing another editor, but then made baseless accusations of perceived stalking regarding my edits. AldezD (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that this ill-mannered and boorish editor dug through seven years of my edits to find a diff, rather does suggest a John Hinckley Jr. or Robert John Bardo-style obsession with me. I guess i should appreciate the devotion? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This coming from someone who reached out to me personally multiple times complimenting or asking for help, only to then accuse me of stalking you in an ANI you started about a completely different editor. You make dozens of disruptive edits which are undone, but when you don't get your way you either throw a tantrum on the talk page of the article accusing others of WP:OWN or start an ANI. You continue to make unsourced edits despite requests over several years to stop doing so, and then become upset when your unsourced edits are undone. You've even suggested using Twitter as a reference when challenged about your edit which contained unsourced details regarding a subject who died almost two decades before Twitter existed. This is not competent behavior—its disruptive. AldezD (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been here for fourteen years, I was promoted after a Request for Adminship that involved the wider community, I only resigned my adminship after failing to get support for tough measures after several far-left editors had openly stated on each other's talk pages that they would collude to maintain a far-left bias in communism and socialism related articles. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an example of why I think something needs to be done, and to be fair it is not just user AldezD.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Take Student unionism in Australia where it was noted on the talk page years ago that it suffered from a decidedly Leninist bent, talking about "bourgeoisie" and "petit-bourgeois", yet it's still there. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Paul, this is another example of WP:IDHT. What does the Student unionism in Australia article have to do with your disruptive, unsourced editing and behavior in ANI/on talk pages? AldezD (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:AldezD is warned for edit warring on Dec 13, when he made four reverts. You may be blocked if you revert again without having a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MonsterHunter32 reported by User:Fruitloop11 (Result: warned)
Page: Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012-16)

User being reported: MonsterHunter32

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * &mdash; the user hasn't continued since the warning, and I've gone ahead and added some edit notices to both that and other pages they're editing that apparently didn't get one. If they continue, feel free to re-open or re-report. -- slakr  \ talk / 19:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Iloveartrock reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754868494 by 73.96.113.90 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754866514 by Mlpearc Phone (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 754865013 by Ilovetopaint (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754865013 by Ilovetopaint (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 754865013 by Ilovetopaint (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User talk:Iloveartrock


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


 * Comments:

See above. Appears to be the same person Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * by another admin -- slakr \ talk / 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jucelio silva reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Links */"
 * 2)  "/* References */"
 * 3)  "/* References */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 6)  "/* References */"
 * 7)  "/* List of Prizes, Medals and Awards */"
 * 8)  "/* LIST OF PRIZES, MEDALS AND AWARDS */"
 * 9)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 10)  "/* References */"
 * 11)  "/* Academic life */"
 * 12)  "/* ACADEMIC LIFE */"
 * 13)  "/* BOARD OF DIRECTORS PARTICIPATION */"
 * 14)  "/* BOARD OF DIRECTORS PARTICIPATION */"
 * 15)  "/* Career */"
 * 16)  "/* Education */"
 * 17)  "/* References */"
 * 1)  "/* BOARD OF DIRECTORS PARTICIPATION */"
 * 2)  "/* Career */"
 * 3)  "/* Education */"
 * 4)  "/* References */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Alessandro Golombiewski. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Editing tests on Alessandro Golombiewski. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alessandro Golombiewski. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continued vandalism/edit warring on Alessandro Golombiewski user has been asked several times to review formatting/general wp guidelines and is recently back from 12 hour ban for same edits. Doesn't seem malicious but user continues to ignore help/warnings from other editors. Chrissymad ❯❯❯  Talk   18:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . User:Jucelio silva has been blocked indefinitely by RickinBaltimore. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:50.39.98.66 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 755209995 by Chrissymad (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755208343 by TriiipleThreat (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Development */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 755171542 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Development */"
 * 6)  "/* Development */"
 * 7)  "/* Development */"
 * 1)  "/* Development */"
 * 2)  "/* Development */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doctor Strange (film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Making legal threats on User talk:50.39.98.66. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Told to discuss in talk, user chose to continue rvt and making legal threats but no source that has been included for that statement so much as mention the production company user is claiming. (after typing this user included a visual source but article is cut off so no way of telling.) Chrissymad  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  22:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Bishonen &#124; talk 23:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Gerry1214 reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Correlations */ rm template; user refuses to answer"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755227933 by Toddst1 (talk) Use the talk page before reverting"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 755221034 by Spielkalb (talk) No factual arguments mentioned on the talk page; just disliking facts is no argument"
 * 4)  "/* Correlations */ more precise"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Immigration and crime in Germany. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bad sources, biased article, should be brought in line with the german language equivalent of this article */ agree"
 * 2)   "/* Bad sources, biased article, should be brought in line with the german language equivalent of this article */ revert please"
 * 3)  "/* Bad sources, biased article, should be brought in line with the german language equivalent of this article */  procedurally speaking"
 * 4)  "/* Bad sources, biased article, should be brought in line with the german language equivalent of this article */ r"
 * Statement of intent to continue edit war
 * Statement of intent to continue edit war after 24 hour period expires (WP:GAME)


 * Comments:

User has been recently blocked for edit warring on related subject.

Separate request for eyes on article posted at WP:NPOVN. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:JaanMatti reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:22, 15 December 2016
 * 2) 16:22, 15 December 2016
 * 3) 16:39, 15 December 2016
 * 4) 17:10, 15 December 2016
 * 5) 17:18, 15 December 2016
 * 6) 19:52, 15 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This warning was given after this revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user gave his input on this issue, but was ignored by the user that is reported.

Comments:


 * This user was warned on his talk page and article's talk page by me. I advised him to gain an understanding between him and other users, which he ignored. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

--

My edits are referenced and factual. The other user is the one who deleted the referenced content I created. Considering the issue, this looks more like a latvian-lithuanian POV problem from the side of Sabbatino and Xil. JaanMatti (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The full correspondence is on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baltic_states#Estonia_.26_The_Nordic_Countries JaanMatti (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This user changed his username after the report. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Go get a life. The username change was queued for days and started several days ago, it took effect coincidentally after your report. JonSonberg (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:32.211.63.156 reported by User:Aspects (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13 November

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15 November
 * 2) 24 November
 * 3) 2 December
 * 4) 3 December
 * 5) 3 December
 * 6) 12 December
 * 7) 12 December
 * 8) 13 December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: with notification of discussion:

Comments:

I first came to the article WTIC-FM because File:WTIC.png was in an orphaned fair use category. Because the logo is the radio station's current logo and there was no edit summary for why it was removed from the article, I reverted the deletion with the edit summary of "rv unexplained image deletion." with an edit summary of "Re-adding image (AGF: mistakenly removed?)" that was reverted without an explanation. also reverted a combination of logo removal and overlinking/repeated linking. Despite edit summaries to explain my reversions, a 3rr-warning on their talk page, a discussion started on the radio station's talk page and notification of that discussion, the IP has yet to use one edit summary or explain their edits.

Looking at the IP's other edits, I noticed that they WP:OVERLINKING common terms and WP:REPEATLINK other links numerous times on a lot of Connecticut ratio station articles. I reverted some of these links and have been reverted at WTIC-FM, WEBE, WEZN-FM, WPLR, WICC (AM), WRCH (FM), WZMX, WHCN and WKSS. started a discussion on the IP's address at User talk:32.211.63.156 that I seconded. Going through the radio station articles' histories, it is likely that this IP address was also 32.211.54.103 that made the same overlinking edits on the same articles. I keep trying to decide if this editor is WP:NOTHERE or if they lack WP:COMPETENCE, but an edit like this,, where they tried to add links to categories makes me lean towards the latter.Aspects (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 week--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:2003:77:4F41:7727:D94C:F64A:76EB:5C86 (Result: Semiprotections)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rojava conflict:, , ,

People's Protection Units:, ,

User shows a pattern of long term disruptive editing and edit warring, presently on the two articles Rojava conflict, People's Protection Units with the aim to include poorly sourced content (usually his only source is the Turkish Daily Sabah, the mouthpiece of the Turkish AKP gouvernment which considers People's Protection Units and PYD as terrorist organisations whereas the international community does not, therefore for this topic the most biased source one can imagine). This user tries persistently to add this content violating NPOV and without ever trying to explain why this content should be added and whether it is reliable. In the article People's Protection Units, in addition it is not even clear how the content is related to the People's Protection Units (however the aim is clear: to smear this group following the Turkish AKP gouvernment narrative: 'they are all terrorists').

The behaviour of user shows a long term plan to target articles related to Rojava. Before, this user in the same way targeted the articles Syrian Democratic Forces (see ), Salih Muslim Muhammad (in addition violating BLP, see ) and Rojava (see ). If the above two pages were protected, it is very likely that this user will just start to target the next best page related to Rojava by the very same methods.

In addition, the behaviour of user shows severe violations of WP:CIV: : "Where did this sock puppet come from? Are you good at yakking too?" : "mouthpiece of a terrorist"

The user has repeatedly "cleaned" his talk page which shows a history of edit warring, disruptive editing and other problematic behaviour: old versions with the "cleaned" content: , ,  2003:77:4F41:7727:D94C:F64A:76EB:5C86 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected Rojava conflict, People's Protection Units and Syrian Democratic Forces for three months each. People are making very little use of the respective talk pages. It would be time-consuming for admins to figure out what is happening when people don't give their rationales. At worst we have some kind of complex POV-pushing that doesn't rely on neutral sources. Judging from WP:GS/SCW it seems that all these articles are under a WP:1RR restriction.  Given the shortage of admin time, I'm predicting that we will wind up having to semiprotect any articles related to Rojava where disputes break out. EdJohnston (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:OkIGetIt20 reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 755289292 by PassenzaT (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 754514583 by PassenzaT (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Never Say Never (Brandy album). (TW)"

I have started a section on the Talk page of the album to resolve the dispute.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Asked for page protection of the Brandy page. Karst (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:PassenzaT reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Never Say Never (Brandy album). (TW)"

I have started a section on the Talk page of the album to resolve the dispute.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Asked for page protection. This has been going on since the 9 December tallying up around 11 reverts so far. Karst (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:24.7.14.87 reported by User:7&6=thirteen (Result: Protected)
User being reported24.7.14.87 Page: Shinola (shoe polish) Previous version reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=754378089 Diffs of the user's reverts <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755388384
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755237665
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=755116747
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shinola_(shoe_polish)&oldid=754721396


 * I refer the admin to the article talk page, where I have specified the consensus regarding IPC material on which my edits are based, and now answered objections. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Leaving the fact of four reverts within 24 hours uncontested. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Already protected by KrakatoaKatie CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:185.3.147.77 reported by User:Hanay (Result: Semi)
User being reported: Page: and

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

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

See also edits of User:185.3.147.93 here and User:185.3.147.194 and also here

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

Comments:

This are the edits of Hebrew Wikipedia troll User: יעל י, Her name is Yael Weiler Israel, and after she vandalised on Commons, see on Commonse User:יעל י also on Wikidata and German Wikipedia, she came here. All her edits need to be undo. I am not doing it by myself, because she will undo them as she did before. I need more eyes to pay attention to her vandalism. See also Category:Sockpuppets of יעל י on Commons. She was blocked globally on Meta. I thing you need to do range blocking as thay did in Commons. I am not expert in reporting here, It is more complicated than in Hebrew wikipedia, but I hope that my request is clear. Thanks Hanay (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to add to Hanay's request that this troll is known to replace IP quickly and we had to block the IP range on hewiki. I'm suggesting to either range block or define some AbuseFilter on IP ranges + patterns that appear similar to those edits. Eran (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: Two pages semiprotected. If this editor continues to hop within the same range then a /24 rangeblock of 185.3.147.0/24 might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, This troll came back see   She is vandalise consistently my edits and User:Geagea edits. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know she is edits also from the range 5.22.134.0/24 and 141.226.218.0/24. Pay attention she also removed my previous edit here. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Zzuuzz has blocked for 72 hours for long-term abuse. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:69.29.25.12 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (This is from November, in the diffs below I omitted two other reverted IP diffs, one of which was from this IP also)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Bold edit 22:40, December 15, 2016‎ 69.29.25.12 (talk)‎ . . (39,604 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
 * First revert (2nd of 2 edits) 22:55, December 15, 2016‎ 69.29.25.12 (talk)‎ . . (39,456 bytes) (-211)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, references removed, Visual edit)
 * Second revert 16:39, December 16, 2016‎ 69.29.25.12 (talk)‎ . . (39,859 bytes) (+274)‎ . . (The text contained numerous lies and distortions authored by LaVoy Finicum's murderers.) (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
 * Third revert 16:55, December 16, 2016‎ 69.29.25.12 (talk)‎ . . (39,587 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
 * Fourth revert 17:02, December 16, 2016‎ 69.29.25.12 (talk)‎ . . (39,741 bytes) (+156)‎ . . (rollback: 1 cedit | undo) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)

Warnings and efforts at engaging talk
 * 22:41, December 15, 2016‎, note at IP's talk page from Edit sum - General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on LaVoy Finicum
 * 22:56, December 15, 2016‎ note at IP's talk page from Edit sum - Level 2 warning re. LaVoy Finicum (HG) (3.1.22))

Comments:

The user is deleting RSs but not adding any, and is changing text to make unsourced claims in WP:Wikivoice

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Cadmus90 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 755463179 by MrX (talk) Have you seen the video on YouTube in which el-Sisi said what is exactly written in the source ?in"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755461447 by Malik Shabazz (talk) How about that you stop being a smart ass with these subjective reliable source nonsense, what do the media report about Trump?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 755458126 by Malik Shabazz (talk) I wonder what should we consider a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim !"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2016 */  question"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article editor's talk page:
 * 1)   "/* List of Islamist terrorist attacks */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* List of Islamist terrorist attacks */  replies"


 * Comments:

While Cadmus90 has not violated 3RR (yet), she/he made three reverts in little more than a half-hour. She/he was invited to join the lengthy discussion at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks about the Nice attack, but prefers to communicate via edit summary and personal attack. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * HAHAHA .. That is funny ! it seems that we are in a kindergarten so a pupil is asking that I should be banned from contributing in a freely-editing environment like Wikipedia ! if the edits dont satisfy certain people here so why do you let anyone to edit?


 * This is not my first edit on Wikipedia, but it seems that this platform has some kind of a lobby of not reporting anything about Islam. Cadmus90 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it's just a place where rules—such as WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Edit warring—matter, and you can't run roughshod over them because you think you're right. I warned you after two reverts, but you went ahead and reverted another editor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Malik Shabazz: HAHAHA .. you are the one who reverted my original edits TWICE !!!!

Can anyone please tell who had the final decision of not including 2016 Nice attacks in the list of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims ? Cadmus90 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , The community did. After a lengthy one month long discussion closed by an admin, the community had achieved the consensus that reporting the 2016 Nice Attack as an act of islamic terrorism was an act of reading the crystal ball and deriving a conclusion not yet accepted by the French investigative authorities or reported in a significant number of reliable sources. The evidence points towards it, but, the investigative authorities have not drawn the absolute conclusion that this is in fact what has happend only that this may be what has happened. There is a difference between speculation - which is what we have - and a fact. The difference being one is simply guessing and one simply is. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@ Mr rnddude: OK .. fair enough, now they caught 3 people were helping that Muslim in his terrorist act ! Let us wait their decision ! I still wonder which of the sources are considered reliable, you should make a list of them !

I hope that the admin who had the final decision for 2016 Nice attack was NOT Malik Shabazz !

Anyway, Thank you Sir Mr rnddude for your reply, much appreciated !

Regarding the last edit of what happened in Cairo, you can check this article of 2011 Alexandria bombing, where it is mentioned that there was blame on both the Egyptian Interior Ministry and Army of Islam (Gaza Strip) !! so if we include the Botroseya Church bombing in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks on Wikipedia, it would be a good thing to do for at least the families of the victims that I know some personally ! Cadmus90 (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Believe me when I say I haven't the foggiest clue which sources are definitively reliable these days. New York Times and Washington Post seem to be generally accepted. BBC is as well, but, I don't have any affection for them myself. You'll notice very quickly that left/liberal (I am left and slight liberal myself, so I have no bias against these sources in this regard) sources are more generally accepted. This is not only the view of Wikipedia but mainstream media and often society at large. As far as I'm aware the French police have arrested five people to date on terrorism charges but nobody's yet been tried or prosecuted. News on this front has somewhat died down. A similar discussion was held on the Nice article and the same conclusion was drawn; wait for the investigation to be completed. As for the Cairo bombing, I'm aware of what happened (Coptic church bombed with 25 fatalities), but, don't have any details regarding it and can confer no opinion on the matter for the time being. Best to check the article dealing with it Botroseya Church bombing and see what discussions (if any) are being held in the talk and also what content is available on the main article. Often times the sources used on other articles in Wikipedia can be screened for valuable insight. Thanks, Mr rnddude (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)