Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive333

User:ERSPW reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 755429917 by Chris troutman (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755429486 by Chris troutman (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 754175230 by Chris troutman (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on SM City Marilao. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Last warning */ new section"
 * 3)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I've tried repeatedly to get to stop and discuss including at Talk:SM Supermalls. The last revert was done by an IP which I've reported at Sockpuppet investigations/ERSPW. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case reported by User:Calton (Result: Already protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Daniel Case is an admin AND he warned the other party about edit-warring, so he certainly should know better.

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

Comments:

Editor -- an administrator, no less -- is edit-warring to include an unconnected article, on the basis of, well, he feels like it. Instead of explaining how the two articles are connected -- such as by a reliable source connecting the two -- editor is proclaiming that the WP:MOS pretty much lets him do what he feels like. So Daniel Case is edit-warring and including material BEFORE consensus, as well as engaging in original research and (arguably but not unambiguously) BLP violations, since inclusion of the second case implies the two disappearences are connected, with potential damaging effects on either families if they find out.

Admin CambridgeBayWeather has -- for reasons I don't understand -- protected the page on the wrong version. Not the WP:WRONG version, the actually wrong version. I request that the page be unprotected and User:Daniel Case -- again, an administrator -- be sanctioned, by block if necessary. Calton | Talk 08:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: The page Disappearance of Sky Metalwala has been fully protected for a week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. He has reverted the article to a version prior to the current edit war, which is within admin discretion. (In other words he took out the disputed See Also entry to Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds). If you want further changes made, use the Edit fully protected template. There has already been a discussion with the protecting admnistrator at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather but you opened the further report here, which is not entirely logical. If you think the protection was a mistake, use WP:ANI to appeal it. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:69.116.254.187 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 755427075 by Eric-Wester (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755389880 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 755363012 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 754340630 by Loriendrew (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Badlist3. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Belarusian National Technical University. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly adding non-notable to alumni list, WP:ALUMNI and WP:WTAF apply. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  17:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.229.150 reported by User:Marbe166 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page: ,

User being reported:, other IP:s used:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Thsi IP user is by moving the Vatican in the list of honours trying to impose that the Vatican is a part of Italy - which it isn't, it is a soverign state. No defense of his/her actions or replies to my comments. Bringing this issue here in order not to break 3RR myself. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a sock puppet of indefinitely blocked User:Qais13. DrKay (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

User:100.35.194.25 reported by User:Pauciloquence (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:100.35.194.25

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:

SPA ip editoor is disruptively editing this article. He has made four reverts in far less than 24 hours. He has continually been trying to add back puffery and promotional items. He had falsified several references earlier by putting the article subject name into the title of the article on the references. He is suspected of COI and has been placed on the COI board. He is reverting and adding back youtube references that were discussed in the talk page where Voceditenore stated "Removal of YouTube videos as references for him having performed with a variety of people—completely inappropriate as references and verify nothing." Pauciloquence (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Contesting of Edit Warring: Pauciloquence is a new user of less than a week who unfortunately has been disruptively editing this article and seemingly negatively targeting the subject's page as compared to any and all the other pages they've edited. Wikipedia is supposed to be a positive community where the Talk page is utilized to work out any differences of opinions. Multiple major edits have happened without any discussion on the Talk page all the while other editors positively have been collaborating on the page to make the article better. Days of going back and forth trying to work together have been met with conflict instead of collaboration with Pauciloquence. The warring that has ensued has over -15,000 edits over 5 days of an article on the subject Charlie Zeleny which successfully has been a part of the Wiki community for over 5 years. Furthermore, Pacuiloquence has made 11 major edits to the article in 24 hours including 3 documented reverts. In attempting to update the article for 2016, each edit has been met with multiple posts of disruptive editing from Pauciloquence. Entire sections of information have been removed from the article without discussion on the article's Talk page including the Gear section which is a popular mainstay of many drummer pages as referenced below. Multiple edits have been undone and any attempts to work together have been met with opposition and conflict. Conversely, there has been a very positive and helpful dialogue on the Talk page and many edits have been made by multiple other editors to keep the page moving forward successfully.


 * A disagreement of language of weasel words and puffery has ensued. Pauciloquence has used improper syntax and grammar in editing some passages of the article making it sound much less encyclopedic than the original version. Please see the Page History for more information. But the puffery referenced was only due to the derailing of the article away from being less encyclopedic rather than more. That is why these changes were reverted.


 * There is an ongoing discussion of drummer's Gear and how much information to include in the subject's article. Any attempts to add a similar format to mimic the Wiki pages of the drummers below who have the exact same format and individual drum and cymbal information has been met with undoing of reversions without discussion on the Talk Page. Here are drummers that have similar pages to the information that has been deleted multiple times:

These drummers have similar complete lists of gear that Pauciloquence claims to be promotional but has been shown in the Talk Page of how it can be perceived as informational like all the pages below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Adler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinnie_Paul https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zonder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Young https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Yeung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Vannucci_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lars_Ulrich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Theodore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zak_Starkey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questlove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Rockenfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Roddy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Rose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Royster_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilan_Rubin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Rudd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pennie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Pridgen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abe_Laboriel_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Larkin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Luzier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_Lucas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jojo_Mayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Mullen_Jr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jordan_%28musician%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Kollias_%28drummer%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomas_Haake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Robert_Promi%C5%84ski https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Erlandsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zac_Farro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Fishman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Beauford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_Donati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dolmayan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brann_Dailor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Copeland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Cobham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damon_Che https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Bozzio


 * With regards to the alleged falsification of references, Pauciloquence continually removed giant chunks of information and formatting. Any titling that was incorrect was due to hastily trying to save as much information in the article with copying and pasting a similar format to references that Pauciloquence was using that they claimed as valid. The information was edited with each and every new website reference correctly and any incorrect info was completely a mistake due to the quickness of adding so many references to the article to try to save it from having Pauciloquence delete whole sections.


 * The COI situation is as follows:

This was spoken about earlier on the Talk page. There is no conflict of interest regarding the subject Charlie Zeleny. The drummer community on a whole seems to be under-serviced with many prominent and famous drummers and musicians that have incomplete, under-sourced pages that have not been fixed or updated for many years. This is one of the drummers on the list that needs to be cleaned up and fixed significantly and is being fixed with a variety of editors. These editors includ Bythebooklibrary and Voceditenore who are not just massively editing the article but bringing up points on the talk page and having us all go back and forth on as a community to fix this page. There are many more drummer and musician pages that we must all tackle after this to have the Wikipedia drummer community hold more weight. Thank you very much. 100.35.194.25 (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In reference to YouTube being a valid source as per discussion on the Talk page:

Usage of unreliable sources in article

I have removed a reference to linkedin as unreliable. References to facebook, social sites and youtube are also considered unreliable and should not be used within the article. Pauciloquence (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Understood on LinkedIn as unreliable or other social sites. Will find better sources for those particular links. But I must respectfully disagree on YouTube not being a valid source since that is the actual Video material in the Discography section. If you check all the current new sources on the Videos in the References, the references linked are the actual videos of the subject performing with the selected artists. It is clearly stated that YouTube is a valid source in the Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not remove or edits these links. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.194.25 (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see this excerpt from the reliable sources noticeboard:

"YouTube as a source

I have been the primary editor of Justine Ezarik for some time and have consistently tried to eliminate use of YouTube as a source. This includes, citing its pageview statistics as a source for popularity. I have recently been involved in a pair of popular viral videos (Kony 2012 and Cat Daddy) and am now wondering if it is Kosher to cite YouTube for number of pageviews and upload date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Nope. It is a "primary source" for what you seem to wish to use it - and the only value of the stats is in the area of what WP fondly calls "original research." If and only if a reliable third party source publishes the data does Wikipedia like to see it used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)"

located here:[1] Pauciloquence (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

From the same article link you provided:

Yes and no. YouTube is fine to cite for number of page views and upload date. Primary sources can be used to make straightforward statements of facts that any educated person will be able to verify. So, yes, it's perfectly fine to cite YouTube for the number of times a video is watched or when it was uploaded. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is verifiability, whether a reader can go to the appropriate YouTube page and verify that the video was uploaded on a particular day and has X number of views without performing any interpretation or analysis. The answer to that question is yes. Not technically, yes, but absolutely yes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Youtube is an acceptable source. Drawing any conclusion from those numbers is not ok. -- Despayre tête-à-tête 01:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

11:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

YouTube is an acceptable source for referencing facts and the subject's releases. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.194.25 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

We do not agree. Please cite where the guidelines state that youtube is a reliable source. Pauciloquence (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The information provided is found directly underneath the comment you provided here:

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.35.194.25 (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Plus, here is my response to the aforementioned Voceditenore claim:

3) YouTube videos showing the subject playing with the said parties should be okay as a source, no? That would be a primary source and show that he has actually performed with the artists and musicians claimed. Let me know your thoughts on the matter. I've seen many other pages successfully list YouTube as a source also. This seems to be just as valid as an actual website and I've seen YouTube claimed as a valid source for court cases even.

Thank you very much and look forward to having a speedy resolution of any and all issues related to Pauciloquence. 100.35.194.25 (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Protected before I saw this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Rebound55 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Exposure for those members on the infobox and then labeling as "past members," when the article labels them as "early" members makes it look contradicting. This isn't your usual band that contains past members."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755390967 by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) If it seems too generous to call "him" a member, then why give him some exposure on the infobox?"
 * 3)  "U2 was built by Bono, The Edge, Larry, and Adam. Ever since their first recording and earliest media exposure only the 4 of them appeared. Find me a recording of them that gives credit to other members, then we can have the infobox in placed."
 * 4)  "This isn't up for debate, Martin left after the band's first practice, subsequently followed by McCormick who left a few weeks later. Then, Evans left when they were "The Hype." So who left after the band was named U2 and recorded their first material?"
 * 5)  "Woah? Hold up? Past members? As in members that quit the band after their first recording in 1979, I don't think so."
 * 1)  "Woah? Hold up? Past members? As in members that quit the band after their first recording in 1979, I don't think so."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Past Members On The Infobox Dispute" */ reply"


 * Comments:
 * Result: User:Rebound55 is warned for edit warring on the U2 article. They broke the 3RR on 17 and 18 December. They may be blocked if they make any more reverts at U2 unless they get a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

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

 * 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
 * Talk:Turkey


 * Comments:

The reported User by now has a lengthy history of edit warring against the decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article. He has been breaking numerous Wikipedia rules (including 3RR, now for the second time) and policies in the process, displaying an extreme attitude of WP:OWN. The version he is attacking now with his disruptive edits is a clear and unanimous talk page consensus version. Among the motivation of the reported User appears to be a personally held fringe political POV. A constant feature of his conduct are deliberately misleading edit summaries.


 * He started the edit warring against the decentralization paragraph on 12 December. On 13 December I filed an edit-warring complaint with this noticeboard, which ended on 14 December with an Admin warning him (and me) not to do any further edits in the paragraph without prior talk page consensus. (Link to the file with all information here)


 * However, few hours later, the reported User resumed disruptive editing of the paragraph. (link) As a consequence, on 14 December his account was blocked for 24 hours. (link) After his block expired, he audaciously resumed disruptive edits against the paragraph concerned. (link)


 * Meanwhile I had started, also on 14 December, a talk page consensus finding on the decentralization paragraph with a comprehensive presentation on the article talk page. The reported User, pinged by me, even briefly participated after his block expired, however without offering any contribution to the discussion in substance. Other users did. Some days later, a clear and unanimous consensus version for the decentralization paragraph was found.


 * Early this morning 18 December, I implemented that clear and unanimous consensus version of the decentralization paragraph into the article. (link)


 * Few hours later, the reported User started edit warring against the decentralization paragraph again.

There now appears to be a need for decisive action to protect that decentralization paragraph in the Turkey article, for which now a clear and unanimous consensus version exists, from future disruptive POV edits and edit warring by the reported User. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - 1 week. 2A1ZA is claiming that his version enjoys talk page consensus, but he is the person who declared the consensus so the result is questionable. In any case, reverting to enforce an apparent consensus is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules in WP:3RRNO. It looks like both parties are prepared to keep on reverting forever. EdJohnston (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

User:71.81.58.55 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   Revision as of 17:36, 17 December 2016]
 * 2)  Revision as of 19:08, 17 December 2016]
 * 3)  Revision as of 04:32, 18 December 2016]
 * 4)  Revision as of 19:13, 18 December 2016]
 * 5) Latest revision as of 19:31, 18 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page :Talk:Captain America: Civil War

Comments:

Two veteran editors, myself and User:Favre1fan93 reverted the anon IP with explanations both in edit-summary and, later, on the talk page and on his own page that his edit was WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. He ignored that discussion and insisted he had sourcing, which is irrelevant since sourced fannish trivia is still fannish trivia. He similarly appears to be trying to game the system by making his two reverts just a little over the 24-hour mark. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, since he removed the 3RR notice on his talk page, here is a diff showing that the required notice of this discussion was placed on his page: --Tenebrae (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And continuing to ignore the issue for which two editors reverted him, he left a nasty, uncivil note on my talk page: . --Tenebrae (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae was the one being nasty. I wasn't violating the page. I was giving useful information about a film reaching $1 billion and he took it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk • contribs)


 * The anon IP cannot point to a single instance of nastiness on my part, whereas this anon IP called me "blind", and taunted, "You think you can do better?" and "I dare you.".


 * Regardless, he continues to deliberately not respond to the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue and he's got five reverts. He's clearly an edit-warrior disrupting Wikipedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not a edit-warrior disrupting Wikipedia. Tenebrae is turning away useful information. He's being the negative one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The material you are adding is an exact copy of the source—that is a copyright violation (policy) and fails WP:Non-free content (guideline). When engaging in a dispute about content on Wikpedia it is best to maintain a mild manner—and be open to other views and to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this case you picked a low-hanging fruit (copying the sentence rather than using your own words), made an intemperant response to reversion, and didn't engage in discussion on the article talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that anyone can edit. It would be impossible without the policies and guidelines for so many people to work together. You can turn this into a good learning experience and pathway to helping build the world's largest and most consulted encyclopedia. — Neonorange (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

User:213.74.186.109 reported by User:84.187.155.186 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User is edit warring by adding the same content again and again, this content forming a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1), , , , , , ,

2), ,,

In particular, user has violated the 1RR for articles related to the Syrian Civil War

,,.

about which this user has recently been warned (note that this user has "cleaned" his talk page since then with the comment "Cleaning vandalism by some POV users").

User shows a pattern of long term disruptive editing and edit warring with a long term plan to target articles related to Rojava. Before Salih Muslim Muhammad this user targeted the articles Rojava conflict, People's Protection Units (see also ), Rojava (see ). and Syrian Democratic Forces (see ) and Salih Muslim Muhammad (see ).

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?" (see also ) and : "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: , , , . 84.187.155.186 (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Salih Muslim Muhammad. For instance, he has repeatedly tried to make this edit since early December. There is no evidence that he has ever used the talk page to try to get consensus for this change. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

User:General Ization reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by MPS1992 (talk): Entirely adequate; I'm quite familiar with WP:BLP, thanks.  The sentence is currently meaningless. (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Acting */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 755748391 by MPS1992 (talk) Restore content not related to a Facebook source.  Where is the claim you speak of?"
 * 4)  "/* Acting */"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by P depp (talk) to last revision by General Ization. (TW)"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by P depp (talk) to last revision by KrakatoaKatie. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by P depp (talk) to last revision by General Ization. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by P depp (talk) to last revision by KrakatoaKatie. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Lily-Rose Depp. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I pointed out on the editor's talk page that I was sure his intentions were good, and that he may like to self-revert. His reply was less than helpful. There should never have been edit warring at all, this is WP:BLP material; controversial content should not have been re-added even once after being challenged. MPS1992 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What is it about the material that MPS1992 thinks is controversial or not well-sourced, and why does MPS1992 think that  was an an acceptable way to resolve their concern? After they removed a portion of the content, pointing out that it was sourced to a Facebook post (not by the subject), I simply restored the portion that had nothing to do with the Facebook post and added a reliable source to support it.  General Ization   Talk   23:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like to self-revert? I am sure that there is no need for unpleasantness. It is not a content dispute, it is a problem with your edit-warring, especially as regards WP:BLP. Perhaps you could self-revert and then this report would be unnecessary. MPS1992 (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, actually, my question above was a legitimate question (and not "unpleasantness"), a question which I would like you to answer. As for the first two reverts at this article (of ), those were reverts of what was evident vandalism, a perception shared by  and  who reverted the same edits by that user before I did so.  Did you happen to notice that I'm a rollbacker?  That's part of my function here.  General Ization   Talk   00:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Does being a rollbacker make you exempt from WP:3RR, in your view? You may consider it your "function", but consensus here on Wikipedia does not support that. MPS1992 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, let's take a moment to examine these events. I reverted two edits by which were repetition of evidently disruptive edits which were reverted previously by two other editors of some standing here, edits for which that user was ultimately blocked.  Then you came along and restored one of those edits, with the summary "A Facebook primary source on an underage WP:BLP that has been challenged by someone claiming to be involved? Oh dear. Undid revision 755737426 by General Ization".  This left the section in the state seen , beginning with a sentence fragment which is nonsensical and did not reflect the original content, less the comments sourced to Kevin Smith's Facebook post (the remainder of which is and was not any kind of WP:BLP violation).  Seeing your point about the Facebook sourcing (which had hardly been my concern up to that point – I was simply reverting massive and persistent blanking of an article), I restored only the portions of the paragraph that had nothing to do with the Facebook post referenced in your summary. I then added a source for the restored content, as there was none in the original content. You subsequently reverted my restoration with the summary "Not adequate - see WP:BLP", even though the restored content was now fully and reliably sourced.  Have I left something out?  General Ization   Talk   00:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A content dispute is not an excuse for edit warring. Would you like to explain why this revert (your fourth!) on a WP:BLP about an underaged minor, with potentially negative implications, sourced only to a bare url starting with "hollywoodreporter.com/heatvision", was a good idea? MPS1992 (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think any further explanation of that is necessary, having explained it thoroughly above. I would again like you to explain why you think the age of the subject is meaningful in this discussion, what significance the URL chosen by the Hollywood Reporter has to you, and what it is you see as potentially negative about this reliable source discussing her having been cast by Kevin Smith with her dad in an upcoming movie?  General Ization   Talk   00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the "bare URL", you will note that, which came directly from our article on the movie in which she was cast, Yoga Hosers, and where it seems to have been perfectly adequate there for some time.  General Ization   Talk   00:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BLP applies "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" -- next time, read it before edit-warring. MPS1992 (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have yet to explain what about this content you think represents a violation of WP:BLP (despite several requests now).  General Ization   Talk   01:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to drown this in walls of text and sophistry. I made it crystal clear already, to which you replied with this obfuscation and then this challenge and threat. MPS1992 (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to "drown this in walls of" anything. You repeatedly accuse me of violating WP:BLP and encourage me to read it, when I have read it probably more times than you have edits on this account. Yet when I ask you to be specific about the nature of the violation(s), you evade. You made nothing clear with other than identifying, as I requested, the text to which you were referring in your template concerning the addition of unsourced content (which by then was already sourced), and you have made nothing clear in your responses here. If you are going to repeatedly bring up BLP, you will need to justify having done so.  General Ization  Talk   01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a content dispute. Your edit-warring was not a content dispute, it was just edit-warring, after being warned, on a BLP. I am not going to argue round in circles with you on this. MPS1992 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I never received any warning, from you, nor anyone else, concerning edit warring until all of the edits being discussed had occurred. Your warning came in the form of  posted on my talk page at 23:44 UTC.  I assume you can compare that to the timestamps shown above.  And I'm not "arguing round in circles".  I'm asking you to justify accusations you have repeatedly made against me here, accusations that so far remain unjustified.  General Ization   Talk   01:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the warning was before the last of your reversions -- the revert where you boasted your expertise in the BLP policy. Do you wish to suggest that you were unaware of the policy on edit-warring before that warning landed on your talk page? MPS1992 (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Look again.  And I have already addressed the edit-warring issue as well as I am able, and I believe as well as I need do. Since this is WP:AN3, not WP:BLPN, and you seem to be unable or unwilling to justify your accusations concerning the latter policy, we should probably leave it at that.  General Ization   Talk   01:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You could easily address the edit-warring issue (from my perspective, anyway) by self-reverting your fourth revert, unless some mean person has already made that impossible. That was my first thought as to how you could have avoided this situation, and I have suggested it several times. But you refuse to do so, which suggests that you will continue to edit war until you achieve your preferred version. Wikipedia has policies to deal with people who make it clear that they will continue to edit war until they achieve and maintain their preferred version. MPS1992 (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Does it suggest that?  I think I'll leave that for our colleagues to decide.   General Ization   Talk   01:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking simply for myself, General Ization, your conduct both on the article and here suggests to me that you think edit warring is acceptable when you are "right." Dumuzid (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no such delusion, and you will find evidence in my recent editing history giving the same counsel to others. I think my intent, and the lack of any intent to edit war, is abundantly clear, and will be clear to my colleagues here after any reasonable review of the edits and my discussion of them above. It has nothing to do with "rightness". It has to do with two separate incidents which MPS1992 would like to combine into one, and with what I perceive as some peculiar fixation on their part about the content I restored during the second event, which they see as related to BLP in some way which they refuse to explain.  General Ization   Talk   01:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The content is not the issue. Your edit-warring is the issue. The constant NOTTHEM walls of text only serve to highlight concerns about the problem, not to hide them. MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I'm just completely out of time to deal with this. I actually had intended to do some actual editing tonight. I have reverted to, MPS1992, despite the fact that the section now makes no sense, and that what content remains at the beginning of the section is now unsourced. Despite my self-revert, I'd ask that the facts above be reviewed.  General Ization   Talk   02:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Given that the edit-warring editor has now self-reverted their 4th revert, I am content for this to be closed. I am not closing it myself due to their request (above) for the discussion -- such as it is -- to be reviewed. MPS1992 (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action due to self-revert. If there are questions about the quality of sourcing consider posting at WP:RSN. Fortunately, it looks like nobody is still advocating the use of Facebook as a source. It appears that this actress gets lots of press coverage so you can still write a proper article without needing to quote from social media. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ed – though I should note that the source I applied to the contested edit was not a Facebook post.  General Ization  Talk   14:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Bryan McLaude reported by User:Jennica (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff <- this one, instead of reverting, they edited it back to what it was, most likely to evade a 3 revert rule.

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

Comments:

[My comments somehow disappeared, so I had to retype.] - I have had a previous dispute with this user who in the past has reverted my edits and successfully resolved it on their talk page, however this time they have reverted several edits I made on a couple different pages, all having to do with infobox parameters. He is removing my edits or reverting. I would understand if I was in the wrong about the parameters, but that's what they are there for. Specifically referring to the "studio" and "venue" infobox parameter. They prefer to group it under "Recorded", which is for the date. The 2nd diff link, they wrote "Minor edit ;)" in their edit summary.. I believe they instead of reverting, they are editing it back to evade a 3RR.
 * Result: No violation. I suggest opening a discussion on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Monkster05 reported by User:Aaron's The Best (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 20:58, 19 December 2016/00:01, 21 December 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:59, 18 December 2016 - more detail on 95, and included windows alphabetas
 * 2) 17:47, 18 December 2016 - windows alphabetas
 * 3) 18:01, 18 December 2016
 * 4) 23:05, 20 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Spam and Good Faith.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already undone edit.

Comments:

This user has been making spam about "Windows Alphabetas", which doesn't exist, alongsides additional infomation on Windows 95 about it being the first edition with the "task bar" in a good faith way. I think it's time to block him! If you think so, reply underneath. Thanks. Aaron&#39;s The Best (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

WHY IS NO ONE REPLYING TO ME? Aaron&#39;s The Best (talk) 05:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . There is no need to shout. Perhaps nobody replied because there was no attempt on either the users or the articles talk page to address the issue. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 06:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MHP Huck reported by User:Keri (Result: Two editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "In an attempt to pust the article towards NPOV, I am adding a reference regarding the political group which has made the term notable. The sources are from the LA Times and the Guardian."
 * 2)  "Adding in a section related to the alt-right association of the term. These sources are clear that the term is associated with the alt-right. The sources are credible and the association critical to understanding the term."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 755769492 by DynaGirl (talk) stop DynaGirl - jsut because it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you can delete it"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 755619980 by Arkon (talk) there was no need for consensus, this fact is well publicized, and in multiple sources on this page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 755601709 by DynaGirl (talk) I disagree, one critical aspect of the term is who is using it. Period."
 * 6)  "Moved a mention of the connection to the alt-right in the lede, given their connection with the term."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) diff
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Generation Snowflake
 * 2) Talk:Generation Snowflake


 * Comments:
 * 1) Behavior indicates that editor intends to continue reverting repeatedly.
 * 2) Requests for page protection/Rolling archive
 * 3) WP:Gaming the system: diff

Comment - The amount of edit warring occurring on the GS article over the last week(s) is getting ridiculous. Temporary full protection is inches from being necessary. In the meantime, why not file an RfC? Linguist Moi?  Moi.  20:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where you stand but I would sure love it if we had some different voices over there. I felt like I added a well sourced comment to help move the article towards NPOV but instead I get tag teamed by two editors because the have WP:OWNERSHIP. I don't know how to avoid this tag teaming. MHP Huck (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There were at least 4 editors reverting your POV last I looked. Accusing us all of conspiring to tag team is a blatant personal attack that I suggest you strike out. Keri (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * False. And please WP:No angry mastodons. MHP Huck (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - 3RR has not been violated. Filer also claims to see inside the head of the person being reported. Filer appears to be using 3RR as a weapon. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - 3RR is the bright line, but MHP Huck has exceeded this anyway: the policy applies to any content, not just the same content. Simple perusal of article history demonstrates this. 2nd comment: MaxBrowne has previously been blocked for edit warring at article following report here made by me, so some sour grapes to be expected. Keri (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I have not violated the count. Period. Keri is harassing users because he has a clear POV. Sorry Keri, but just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you get to pretend to be the police man. MHP Huck (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - If anyone does follow up on this, I would like them to also refer to the AfD discussion on Generation Snowflake to get a glimpse of Keri's attitude and motives, particularly as it relates to the assertion that I am WP:Gaming the system, which I am not. MHP Huck (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Can an administrator please at least warn MHP Huck to stop ignoring talk page consensus and BRD. He has added the contested content again., even after this report was filed. This has been reverted by at least 3 different editors at this point (myself, Keri, and Arkon) and it appears at least 3 different editors have disagreed with this on the talk page (including myself, EddieHugh and even MaxBrowne didn't seem to support this sentence in the lead), but MHP Huck apparently doesn't care and just keeps reinserting this into the lead anyway, despite no current support and much objection. This is getting to be very disruptive. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't care? I care so much about Wikipedia. I donate every month and will continue to do so. I love wikipedia and think it is one of the most clever things we've ever come up with. But, its quality depends on the editors and I have added a number of sources to the article which are high quality. You and Keri keep removing them because you have a POV. The article with my sources and comments is more NPOV. I would love an admin to come look - I just want someone who is fair. (PS, I believe you're over the reversion limit too but I am not going to report you.) MHP Huck (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Feel free to report me, if you want. I haven't violated 3rr. Anyway, do Arkon and EddieHugh have a POV too? Face it MHP Huck, currently you have no support for this and there is significant objection, yet you just keep on adding this to the lead anyway. Also, no one is removing the sources. Multiple editors have been removing a sentence from the lead which is not supported by those sources as it appears to be synthesis, but the sources have remained in body of the article during all reversions. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with those users. I disagree with your assertions that they picked sides. Arkon presumably made a change based on his assessment of consensus. MHP Huck (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said they picked sides. I said they reverted you / disagreed with you on talk page regarding adding this to the lead. You have no support for this and much objection, but you just keep adding this to the lead anyway. --DynaGirl (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: User:MHP Huck and User:DynaGirl are both warned that they are getting close to a block for edit warring on this article. They may be blocked if they revert the article again without first getting a talk page consensus for their change. If people are capable of creating RfCs they should also be patient enough to wait for an agreement to be found instead of forcing their version into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , could you please specify which edits of mine were problematic on that page, so I can avoid any such mistake in the future? I believed all of my reverts were in accordance with talk page consensus and under 3RR. What would you advise i do differently next time? The page has been very disruptive and frustrating, and I would appreciate any assistance. I'm not clear which edits should I not have made. --DynaGirl (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - The page has currently been locked down and I can understand why considering the longterm disruption, but I'm concerned what's happened here has inadvertently rewarded MHP Huck's edit warring and his disregard for BRD. As EdJohnston commented on my talk page, MHP Huck actually violated 3RR. I was warned to stop as to not violate it:   and I stopped.  It seems to only encourage edit warring if getting your edit warred version locked down in place for days is the end result. MHP Huck's version of the lead has been reverted by multiple editors including; myself, Keri and Akron. No one restored it expect MHP Huck. It has also been opposed on talk page by myself and EddieHugh. No one supported it's inclusion in the article except MHP Huck. Is there any way the page could be locked down at a pre-edit war version as that would seem more reasonable? --DynaGirl (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay, it doesn't matter which version it is locked at: it is locked purely to prevent disruption and is not considered the "accepted" version: only discussion/RfC will determine what that should be. Keri (talk) 11:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I created an RfC for this disputed content: []. For anyone interested in commenting, It is one of multiple RfC's currently active on the page. --DynaGirl (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Liao reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed external links, keep the text. Unbelievable. If external links are banned. They should not be allowed in the first place in tUndid revision 755913881 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755913661 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please respect others work. Undid revision 755912560 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Tools for Detecting race conditions */"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding spam links on Race condition. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Adding spam links on Race condition. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Editor doesn't seem to want to talk. Typical of school projects where the editor is saying: "I want to get my work done and I don't care for working cooperatively, discussing the edits or achieving consensus". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Insanity. Walter Görlitz removed my entire section using the excuse of a few external links. He is a typical cyber bully showing no respect to others' contributions. The proper way is to just remove the external links. The accusations of me on spamming and doing school projects are laughable. First of all, I have no intention to promote anything or spam wikipedia. 2nd, I am way past schools and not doing any school project. Walter Görlitz's behavior is a typical cyber bullying showing no respect to others' contributions and baselessly accusing others' intentions. It is also a reflect of an old Chinese saying: the evils accuse others of wrong doing first.

--Liao 22:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't want to talk? I came to your talk page, twice. I added a notice there asking you to open a discussion at the article, and I'm the one who doesn't want to talk? Stop twisting facts. Inline external links, which in this case amounts to spamming, is not appropriate. A WP:SECONDARY source, or possibly WP:TERTIARY, should have be found to discuss these tools. 22:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And now the editor continues to expand the article with primary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. During the period of protection you can ask for an admin to make any change that has consensus using the Edit fully protected template. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but you've just sent a message to the new editor that edit warring is acceptable and will ultimately leave the article in a state that you want. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Aqswdefrgthyjukilopjmhngbfvdcsxazaqdyujvsxxv‎ reported by User:LibStar (Result: 31h)
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:


 * Comment — Thought I would mention I have opened a sock-puppet investigation against this user. You can see it here: Sockpuppet investigations/Guyguyguyguyguyguyguyguy
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Youalrightbruv2017 reported by User:331dot (Result: 36h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Well, after reading 'CONSENSUS', I have offered an alternative change. My concern is that not everybody knows where are small region such as NI is. By using a more recognisable location in the intro, followed by the specifics, it is simpler."
 * 2)  "Unless one would prefer to use 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. That is the name of the state. A bit big for an introduction, too.."
 * 3)  "Please try and explain where it is wrong."
 * 4)  "As factually correct as the other version, 'Northern' still appears everywhere else, link for 'Ireland' displays information for whole Ireland, therefore more information added, all with good intentions."
 * 5)  "Explained removal several times"
 * 6)  "Article was improved and provides more information via the link and is less geographically confusing for the reader"
 * 7)  "Like said but for, and, the link for 'Ireland' brings up details of Northern and Southern, more all round."
 * 8)  "The original edit posted from this account is as correct and the specific location is obviously shown. It enhances the readers' experience"
 * 9)  "Less confusing while still technically correct. Evidence of where he is specifically from still remains."

See user's talk page
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Based on their edit summaries, they seem well aware of what they are doing and have suggested that they have reviewed the talk page 331dot (talk) 10:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MaxBrowne reported by User:Keri (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Section describes how the term is used not the "characteristics" of every person aged 16-25"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 755935763 by Keri (talk) talk page details exactly why it is a poor source, and redundant also per WP:OVERCITE, WP:BOMBARD"
 * 3)  "poor source by non-notable writer, clearly derived from Fox et al"

Not given - user has instructed me not to use his talk page. See for eg and
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 217


 * Comments:

User has received previous warnings and block for edit warring at this article. Editing history at this article demonstrates that - post block - he is aware of edit warring policy but now self-reverts or allows time to elapse in order to game the system. Current edit warring relates to a RS - GQ Magazine. User has elevated this to RS Noticeboard where he was informed that it was, indeed, a RS. Now initiating a further edit war over source. Keri (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This represents only 3 reverts - 3 is the "bright line", but as the policy states, the user clearly intends to revert repeatedly, or game the system to ensure the reverts fall outside of the 24 hour period. Keri (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation but deleting the GQ reference from the article seems disruptive because MaxBrowne failed to get support for deleting this reference at RSN and he failed to get consensus to remove this reference on the article talk page. It appears he also quietly removed this reference from the section on trigger warnings at some point, I'm not sure when. MaxBrowne complained at RSN that the GQ source was referenced 3 times in the article, and now it's not in the article at all. I don't recall when this happened and I watch the page regularly. --DynaGirl (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Keri is once again acting with clear POV and trying to silence those who disagree with him. Obviously, the above user has simply not violated the rules and this report is completely ridiculous. MHP Huck (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Should be snow closed and filer warned against misuse of AN3. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Now any edit at all to the article is supposedly a "revert". Filer is clearly abusing process. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You were made aware of this the last time you had to be blocked. Keri (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Having been previously blocked he is now gaming the system to circumvent the spirit of the policy while remaining within the letter of it. Keri (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I love that you both are commenting here too - too funny! Such clear heads, such a neutral point of view. MHP Huck (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * by another admin. Multiple editors are engaged in this dispute. -- slakr \ talk / 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the editor who maliciously reported me for "edit warring" has done almost nothing but edit war on the article over the past month. A quick glance at the history of the article will show that every single one of this user's edits to the article was a revert. On the article talk page the editor has consistently used sarcasm, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I have done my best to ignore them by not replying to them on the talk page but the attacks have not stopped. An ANI thread was opened over 2 weeks ago but so far not even one admin has responded. It's high time this user had a wake-up call regarding their behaviour and abuse of the AN3 process. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that the 3RR is only enforced on the 4th revert. The diffs you provided don't meet that criteria. This noticeboard is for edit warring as a whole&mdash;not just 3RR. If the user felt there was edit warring going on, it's fine for them to raise the concern; it doesn't mean any action will necessarily be taken. Typically we only believe it to be abusive when it's repeatedly wrong (i.e., when, despite being told otherwise, someone starts using reports to harass someone else. Otherwise, their raising a report here is just as likely to boomerang back onto them if they're also (or moreso) in the wrong. I, for example, ignore the usernames and go straight to the page history to figure out what's going on. Regardless, I strongly recommend that everyone take a break and participate in the RFCs that have been spawned on the talk page, which is a good step toward dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 02:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware that 3RR is merely the bright line: a single revert can also be interpreted as edit warring and acted upon, however. In this instance, MaxBrowne has received a previous warning and a block for disruptively edit warring at this article. Since that block he has continued to edit war, accused everyone who reverts him of conspiring to tag team against him, and also taken the edit warring up to the bright line before reluctantly self-reverting. Meanwhile, I have initiated talk page discussions, I have asked people not to edit war, I have initiated RfCs and I have on two occasions asked for temporary full page protection (regardless of the version being protected) in order to protect editors from themselves as much as to slow down reversions. This noticeboard is to alert about edit warring - that is how I have used it; if other editors did not fall into the habit of aggressively reverting and then immediately re-reverting, they wouldn't find themselves being reported. As for harassment, this is a fine example of someone "intentionally target[ing] a specific person or persons... to make the target feel threatened or intimidated... to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." Keri (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:No violation )
Page:

also related:

User being reported:


 * 2016-12-15 ""Cross-platform" is a weasel word that tries to disguise the fact the writer doesn't know which OS"
 * 2016-12-16 "MOS:COMPUTING says don't use this term. WP:WEASEL says don't."
 * 2016-12-22 "Rv. malicious blanket revert. Also, the reverter is refusing to get the point. The discussion in the talk page of MOS:COMPUTING was rather comprehensive."
 * 2016-12-22 "Again, this is a malicious blanket revert. You discussed in Talk:MOS:COMPUTING and didn't earn a consensus."

Also see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Computing and User talk:Andy Dingley

Codename Lisa has a problem with use of the term "cross-platform" in computing articles. They claim that it is a WP:WEASEL word and must not be used. They have removed it from the articles here, citing the MOS:COMPUTING style guide. The problem is, the style guide doesn't even mention it.

Lisa's tone has, from the outset (see "About that very thin line", been combative and hectoring. Terms like "Those editors are called liars." Discussion [sic] at MOS TALK:COMPUTING ended with comments of "Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again." from.

I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. "cross-platform" is, like "user-friendly", a term that is so widely abused in computing ad copy that it's hard to see past the meaningless flannel. However there are cases, and this is such a case, where it preserves its original and essential meaning and is a necessary part of describing the topic (see fuller comments at MOS TALK:COMPUTING). Apache Ant exists to be cross-platform: people using it have tasks to do which need to be carried out equally across a range of platforms without manually changing the build scripts which control them: Ant gives them that ability. "Cross-platform" belongs in the Ant article, and other articles about similar build tools.

Lisa is simply lying here. They have been asked to clarify where the MOS covers cross-platform and they have failed to do so. I can't find it. Maybe some other ANEW reader can point me to it. But repeatedly edit-warring to force a content dispute, and lying to claim that such removal is supported by a style guide when it simply isn't - that's not acceptable editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I seek an outcome here which states that Lisa, as unable to actually show the MOS as supporting her claim, stops making that claim and stops reverting on the basis of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by the involved editor, . This whole affair started as a dispute, one that either of the sides could be blocked if they edit warred; it is now a simple matter of disruptive editing.


 * I became involved when Andy Dingley came to Talk:MOS:COMPUTING asking advice about a matter of dispute in List of build automation software article! (not Apache Ant)! I refused to visit the dispute itself, and concerned myself with answering Andy's direct question, giving advice to Andy. But the discussion didn't yield the consensus that empowered Andy to restore his version. So, the following happened:
 * Andy stopped listening and decided to pretend he didn't hear me. Above, Andy says "Discussion at MOS TALK:COMPUTING ended with comments of 'Whatever you do, don't come here weeping again.' from FleetCommand" which is obviously not the case: As you can see in Talk:MOS:COMPUTING, he started talking to Codename Lisa (which turned out to be the other side of dispute) from that point onward, repeated five times the question for which he had already received answer, and near the end of discussion, he is ignoring me entirely.
 * Andy suddenly turned on me and called my snarky. All I did was helping this guy.
 * Codename Lisa forfeited her contribution on "List of build automation software" article and told Andy he can revert it. You'd think that the object of edit warring is permanently eliminated. But no!
 * Andy started disruptive blanket reverting on Apache Ant article in a way that comes very close to WP:DICK: It was possible to avoid this by pressing the Edit button, typing 16 characters and possibly avoiding an edit war altogether. But Andy didn't take this course of action. IMHO, Andy did this to bait Codename Lisa into reverting him and thereby starting an edit war. In other words, he disrupted Wikipedia to get another editor to revert his disruption.


 * To summarize, Andy refused to get the point (the consensus against him, however weak), disrupted Wikipedia to bait someone else into reverting it, was uncivil to me, and responded to a token of compromise and goodwill with WP:DICK action. In addition, he never had any policy or consensus support for his very first revert to begin with. Checking Andy Dingley's block log reveals that he is a repeat offender. I believe he must receive a longer block this time.


 * Cheers.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 11:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a simple way to resolve this: just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says, "cross-platform is a weasel phrase and must not be used".
 * You have not done so: you can't, because it isn't in there. Yet Lisa has claimed this repeatedly in order to remove it against my clearly stated objections. I've given reasons why it's applicable to Ant, but no-one has responded to that, just cited the same falsehood. Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true.
 * I asked at the MOS for any other editor to quote it instead, in case I'd just missed it. You didn't do that, you turned to snark and "Don't come here weeping". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "just quote the section from MOS:COMPUTING which says [~snip~]" I have done so already:
 * "Citing a lie over and over doesn't make it true." Right back at you.  Fleet  Command ( Speak your mind! ) 11:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment by the accused, : I have already given Andy Dingley the right to revert my change in the main area of dispute fully and he hasn't done so as of yet. That's because when he says our dispute is a factor, he is lying. It is not a factor. Simply put: If someone go to an article and change "Unix" to "unix", we revert him as a vandal. Three out of Andy's four reverts constituted such vandalistic changes. I know he wanted to goad me into reverting his disruption. Yet the fact remains that a disruption is still forbidden and reverting it is an exemption to WP:3RR.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about unix, it's about your MOS claims for cross-platform.
 * For unix though, Unix and unix are different terms, owing to varying claims over trademarks. I still see the uncapitalised form as more generic, thus more appropriate. Equally Java vs JVM: Ant is open sourced, thus is distributed as Java language source code, not merely as JVM bytecode. The language is the platform, not the compiled bytecode.
 * I'm still waiting to see a real cite to the MOS prohibition on cross-platform, because you're repeatedly reverting on that specific basis, yet your claim is a false claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I still see the uncapitalised form as more generic". And I am officially calling you a liar.
 * "I'm still waiting to see a real cite to [~snip~]" Wow! Man, talk about WP:LISTEN! For the last time,   Fleet  Command  ( Speak your mind! ) 12:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no violation here. This is a content dispute and the answer is dispute resolution.  - GB fan 14:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Amanaparts reported by User:FkpCascais (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: [link]

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

Comment I did not violate 3RR rule and since I simply warned to stop distributive editing and reverted vandalism. Articles related to Kosovo are subject to article probation in the Kosovo arbitration case. If any editor makes disruptive edits, they may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. User,  and  started editing and reverting without consensus on talk page. I warned all three of them and asked for semi-protection since the source was not reliable. Take it to the talking page and reach consensus. Prove your sources. Easy as that.
 * – 31 hours. It is unclear why the book by Mincheval and Gurr would be questioned as a source. We have an article on one of the authors, Ted Robert Gurr, who is listed as a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland. Due to his objection to this supposedly bad source, User:Amanaparts has made four reverts at Kosovo Liberation Army without ever posting anything on the article talk page. Amanaparts' use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Fascinum reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756225869 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 756079483 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
 * 3)  "Putin's citation is official Russian stance on the subject by article 80 of Russian constitution"
 * 4)  "Putin's reply about violation of Budapest Memorandum as Russia's stance on the subject"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* December 2016 */ +1"
 * 3)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). (TW)"
 * 5)   "/* December 2016 */ r"
 * 6)   "/* December 2016 */"
 * 7)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring the lead */ new section"


 * Comments:

The user has not engaged in discussion, or followed WP:BRD as I have requested a couple of times. On the contrary, outside of having attempted to explain to the new editor why the content added is WP:UNDUE, s/he he reverted again without bothering with an ES 2 hours after I'd started a new thread on the relevant talk page, ignoring it completely. The user was warned about WP:PERSONAL attacks against me by another editor yesterday (attack diff here, plus warning issued here), but has continued their WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

I'm only reporting the ongoing edit warring despite the fact that the user began edit warring in the self-same content on the Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) article prior that, reverting other editors with no interest in discussing the content. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Tristippie reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756207105 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 756197309 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 756194983 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"


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


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

The user has engaged in limited discussion on my talk page.Inspite of the edit summaries of the reverts on the article by me and a request to go through the entire article talkpage(where a prev. user has vouched for the inclusion of almost similar style entries and the details of rejection was discussed in great detail by me and ), he/she seemed to be too stubborn to indulge in discussion or to bring out new arguments in support of his/her stance.. Light ❯❯❯ Saber 06:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * This edit-warring is not unlike what we dealt with from Truthitmatters. Some people apparently think trying to seduce a 14yr old isn't really pedophilia and their editing reflects that. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Both Chris and Wings clearly hold prejudices I experienced the same gang up as the have demonstrated here not allowing any of my edits. It is they who do not have NPOV. They both have been unhelpful and simply threw jargon at me rather than assist even where after researching was not appropiate. The cites on the page support the edits asked for no they are not pedophiles as per the Wikipedia definitionTruthitmatters (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. The mention of 'altered chat logs' in some of Tristippie's reverts suggests that this Wikipedia article could be making charges of criminal behavior against a group of people. If members of Creep Catcher choose to deceptively alter the logs of online conversations it might be viewed as libel or slander against the affected people. See WP:BLP for the degree of caution that is appropriate in such cases. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dealinglad23 reported by User:Robby.is.on (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: The editor is up to six now: This is six edits in just over 24 hours.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 1) the editor's first edit was missed in the first report 2016-12-22T23:16:01‎
 * 2) this is the edit I just reverted 2016-12-23T23:59:13‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The subject is a German citizen. He plays for the German national team. He is ethnically a Turk (and some claim that he may be ethnically Kurdish) as it states in WP:OPENPARA, "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." This is echoed at MOS:BIO. The subject is notable for playing association football, not for his nationality. The edit war was unnecessary and has been discussed on the subject's talk page. The archives are replete with discussions and reasons for not adding "Turkish" to the lede. The fact that he relinquished his Turkish passport doesn't help the editor's case either.
 * That the editor is now adding help me to the subject's talk page is becoming problematic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Constantly reverting to put this player's ethnic identity in the lead, in spite of talk discussion to the contrary at Talk:Mesut Özil, and the wording about nationality in WP:OPENPARA. The player's Turkish birth is sourced and discussed in the Personal life section, but whether it belongs in the lead is the issue in dispute. On a different article, when this editor tries to identify Father Christmas as Turkish it looks like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. EdJohnston (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:50.201.167.243 reported by User:Eperoton (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: [diff]

Comments:


 * This is sheer pov vandalism of the type that prompted me to suggest a change in our ARBPIA remedy so that we could deal with such edits under DS. I've reverted since the source clearly says Palestine and blocked the IP. Doug Weller  talk 15:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor makes a practice of changing Palestine to Israel (or vice versa) across a variety of articles I think it could be reported at WP:AE. In a case like that it's reasonable to make a guess about their motivation, and assume it is not a scholarly desire for correctness. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:66.87.132.197 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Once again this is false info!"
 * 2)  "I am not a human being To was recorded from 2011 to 2012!!!! Stop saying it was from 2008, that's not true!"
 * 1)  "Once again this is false info!"
 * 2)  "I am not a human being To was recorded from 2011 to 2012!!!! Stop saying it was from 2008, that's not true!"
 * 1)  "I am not a human being To was recorded from 2011 to 2012!!!! Stop saying it was from 2008, that's not true!"


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


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


 * Comments:

This is actually going on with multiple pages. Unsourced changes to dates and singles and etc. Kellymoat (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been warned on his talk page about unsourced content. As well as warned about edit warring on his talk page. I have used edit summaries to inform him to source it, as well as edit warring. Nothing seems to stop him.Kellymoat (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * SQL Query me! 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

User:76.179.198.201 reported by User:Perey (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_noise_musicians&type=revision&diff=734031708&oldid=731876192

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_noise_musicians&diff=prev&oldid=756498465
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_noise_musicians&diff=prev&oldid=755916118
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_noise_musicians&diff=prev&oldid=755720325

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.179.198.201&diff=755986053&oldid=755722985

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. This IP keeps restoring a red link to AstroMoot. That article was recently deleted per A7 and the creator, User:Astromoot, was blocked for uw-spamublock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Xpion reported by User:89.240.165.149 (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

[]

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

[]

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

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

Removing several sources material from the artical and changing content.89.240.165.149 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: No action taken. Both parties broke 3RR on 24 December but appear to have settled down for the moment. If this resumes, blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User 89.240.165.149 reported by User: Xpion (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

User is insistently reverting back to a information that is unreliably sourced with original research. I have attempted several times to enhance the quality of the information given, and to discuss on the talk page. This user is reverting back to a version that has original research, and sources that do not back up their claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpion (talk • contribs)


 * I would like to add, as a third party, Xpion himself seems to be mistaken about what is written in the article, i have checked this myself and the information which states that archive footage was used in the creation of this character is 100% sourced from several newspaper sites, I don't know why you are reverting it. The content doesn't say it's composed only of archive footage but that somewhere in the creation archive footage is used, which seems to be correct, 3 sources back this claim up. It's not original reasearch when it's sourced in this way. I agree with User 89.240.165.149 on this point. Emrabt (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also Xpion's talk page 'discussion' appears to be a long rant tacked onto in a completely unrelated section about how Peter Cushing should be credited, rather than an actual talk page discussion around the wording of "archive footage". 78.145.69.74 (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action taken. See conclusion of the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Harlowan reported by User:Kast-Meini (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user as seen has igonerd the warning I posted on his user talk page. He keept reverting back content by changing a lot in the article without any discussion on the talk page. He also follows all revert I do of his vandalism. He doesn't react on his own talk page either. He then revets back content by calling me a sock while I didn't have anything to do with him. He just doesn't want to talk and keeps reverting back and adding content without using the talk page despite being warned Kast-Meini (talk) 22:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected six months. There was no 3RR violation here, but there is a severe lack of talk page discussion. It appears that many blanket reverts are going on whose rationale can't be determined. (Can't even tell what you are fighting about). If registered editors continue this dispute without explaining their edits, blocks may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:ContraVentum reported by User:South Nashua (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_the_Danes&diff=756741240&oldid=756729536

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4), (two self-edits after this) ,
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I saw this when putting a welcome message on User talk:ContraVentum. Not involved otherwise. South Nashua (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring and POV pushing.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Dnm reported by User:ContraVentum (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: various

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Diff of user admitting own participation in edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the huge discussions at

Comments: Edit war as part of consensusless discussion and 3 Swedes uniting to fight against me. Reverting every single proposal I make. --ContraVentum (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This report appears to be retaliation. The latest revert is not the same as previous. Prime participant blocked for edit-warring and clear POV pushing. The article has already had to be semi-protected.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756661420 by Walter Görlitz (talk) - RV - There's currently a discussion on the tp so stop edit warring!."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Walter Görlitz (talk) to last revision by Davey2010. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Converted all to YMD - Someone had changed t back in Dec 2015  and prior to that dates were a mixture, There's no need for them ALL to be either DMY or MDY."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "new section: Date formats"
 * 2)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Christmas. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 756457328 by 41.60.179.251 (talk)"
 * 2)   "/* Date- Maccabean theory */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* Date format */ reply and 3RR warning"
 * 4)   "/* Date format */ reply"
 * 5)   "/* Date format */ reply"
 * 6)   "/* Date format */ reply"
 * 7)   "/* Date format */ reply"


 * Comments:

Silly thing to edit war over and not understand basic rules around date formats. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Long story short an editor had converted the Christmas article to MDY in 2015 without any discussion or consensus, Walter had used the MDY tool yesterday and so I originally converted to DMY (assuming the article was originally in DMY) however I was wrong and after being reverted I then converted the entire article into YMD to meet the editor halfway however they wasn't happy with that, Despite there being a discussion at Talk:Christmas the editor has continued to revert, I agree this is a dumb edit war however I'm sick half to death with American editors converting everything to American without any consensus or discussion, I had advised them to go to WP:30 and was in the process of going there myself until I got a notification here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (uninvolved user's comment) Silly indeed. If Davey2010 is edit warring, so is Walter Görlitz. By my count, neither has exceeded 3RR, but even if I'm miscounting, discussion is ongoing and it would be a shame—and, given the topic of article and today's date, sadly ironic—if this ended in a less than amicable way. Surely this can be resolved without threats and sanctions. There's no urgency. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   00:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Fully agree we could've picked a better day for this and personally would rather solve this in a better way than here, – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Right I have an idea - I would happily self revert now providing I have everyones blessing for me to restore the article back to December 2015 and then readd most of the edits back which I would do on the 27th - If I have everyones blessing for me to this and thus solve this pointless war then I'll happily self revert now and do the rest in a few days, But in short I disagree with someone coming along converting the entire date format to American despite the article being a worldwide article and despite the article prior to Dec '15 was in both DMY and MDY. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if you can easily identify unconstructive edits, that's a lot of diffs to sift through. But if you're sure you're up to it and you propose it at Talk:Christmas, I'll support. Getting consensus may be difficult, though. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   05:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Davey2010 did make four changes to the date. I only made three, all automated and all following MOS:DATE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (non-admin) Four changes does not mean four reverts. There is no bright-line violation, and Davey2010's call to continue discussion in an ongoing talk page topic does not make it look like he intends to continue reverting. This should be closed as no action in my opinion. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 07:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope I have no plans to continue this rather silly edit war, I have asked if they'd change it back and do the necessary work because in all fairness Walter was simply caught in the crossfire so to speak and as KTF had changed it without any discussion or consensus IMHO they should be made to change it back and IMHO it's unfair for myself or Walter to do this when neither of us had converted it in the first place but anyway doing it this way would hopefully resolve this edit war, Thanks, – Davey 2010  Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous edit-warring cases at the same class of articles involving SlitherioFan2016:
 * 1) Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive936 (warned)
 * 2) Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive331 (blocked for 1 week)

Previous version reverted to: (last edit before initial block)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

RFC to determine color scheme: Talk:Motion_picture_content_rating_system

Comments:

I am reporting the resumption of edit-warring by SlitherioFan2016 at content ratings articles. This is a SPA that has repeatedly edit-warred to install new color schemes in the comparison tables (violating an RFC consensus to use a color-blind accessible scheme). While he has not violated 3RR he has changed the color scheme six times since his last block in contravention of the RFC outcome. I honestly feel this editor has burned up all the good faith we are able to extend him. As noted when he blocked SlitherioFan2016 last time: "Each time it appears that SlitherioFan2016 is about to follow consensus we are disappointed yet again". It seems this editor has no real interests on Wikipedia outside of changing the color schemes at these articles, and he is unwilling to respect the community's decision in this regard. Betty Logan (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Tony Rodi reported by User:rkmepm (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong_Apartments&oldid=718177626
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong_Apartments&oldid=749077185
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong_Apartments&oldid=749364816
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bennelong_Apartments&oldid=754510936

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony_Rodi#Notice_of_Report

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

Comments:

I have attempted to give warnings to Tony Rodi through the edit comments. The user has continually edited this page to include personal biased information that appears to be for the purpose of self glorification and friend glorification. Not only is this user editing biased information into the article, the formatting is also consistently bad.--Rkmepm (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff at 04:46, 24 December 2016
 * 2) diff at 05:47, 24 December 2016
 * 3) diff at 07:14, 24 December 2016
 * 4) diff at  08:25, 24 December 2016
 * 5) diff at 05:14, 25 December 2016
 * 6) diff at 14:20, 26 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Influenza_vaccine and sections below it

Comments:

Bigbaby23 has again shown up at an article about health and added content that a) duplicates content already in the article (clearly didn't read before starting to edit), introduces UNDUE weight, introduces spelling and other errors, and edit wars to keep their off kilter version. Please check their block log - last time they were given two weeks for editing like this, on a topic like this.  Their edits have been reverted by four different editors. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:MHP Huck reported by User:Keri (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Diff
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756783922 by Arkon (talk) Seriously, you really think that POV lede is better? I must be out of my mind"
 * 2)  "Keri is extremely POV and has been a huge issue this entire time. There is no way the change he made is more NPOV."
 * 3)  "Improving the neutrality of the narrative here."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 3RR notification - note that a new notification was not issued as the editor has been made aware of 3RR and has stated that I should not post on his talk page; Twinkle automatically added the most recent AN3 noticeboard notification.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Generation Snowflake
 * 2) Talk:Generation Snowflake


 * Comments:
 * See also Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive333#User:MHP Huck reported by User:Keri (Result: Two editors warned) (Note that I have not and have never been warned about this article: neither of the "2 editors warned" were me.)
 * Ha, just because you didn't get warned doesn't mean you are not guilty of the same. Another ridiculous comment! MHP Huck (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

MHP Huck has a long history of edit warring and editing disruptively at this article. He has been warned "not to make any further revert that does not have a prior talk page consensus." RfCs have been opened on the talk page. The material that he is edit warring to insert is the subject of an open RfC, does not represent consensus, and he has been advised of this by multiple editors. He's had enough rope by now. Keri (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keri Dude, no offence but I only did it twice. Bugger off. Your reversions certainly didn't have consensus so you are guilty yourself. You are the most biased editor I have ever seen. I will stop donating to wikipedia because of you. MHP Huck (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You've made 3 reverts - to reinstate a previous version you were warned about edit warring over - in the last 18 hours. And this is after you were warned for 4 RR and explicitly instructed ""not to make any further revert that does not have a prior talk page consensus" RfCs were opened on the talk page of the article. The article was locked because of your edit warring. After you re-added the material today, editors raised this on the talk page again    . You were warned it had no consensus. And you still won't listen. I couldn't give a flying monkey's fuck about your donations to Wikipedia - I don't receive a cheque for constantly clearing up after you. You have edit warred, you have been given a chance, you have received a warning. You carried on regardless. Keri (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Complain all you want - I didn't revert 3 times. The administrators can count. MHP Huck (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Keri, you are harassing me. This has nothing to do with my edit - you and I both know it. Everything I have seen you do is in such bad faith that I find it remarkable. I am not going to use the apparatus of policy to punish you, however, because I am not a wussy baby. Why not simply show how the line is wrong rather than edit warring! Boy, too hard for you? You cannot pretend that you're innocent, there is a digital record. You are whats wrong with wikipedia. I am not going to edit anything on Wikipedia anymore, even on areas where I know a lot. I will defend myself here, because you are so full of it, but otherwise screw it. If that is what you wanted, fine you win. But screw off otherwise. MHP Huck (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)\
 * Administrators, feel free to delete my account in its entirety. All I can say is that I acted in good faith and I believe sincerely that my edits improved NPOV but honestly, what is the point anymore. No one cares about truth. MHP Huck (talk) 23:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC) I should add that administrators should check out some of the issues with the above user (Keri) on the talk page. He is not only trying to manipulate the article but he is also trying to manipulate discussion of his continued assertion of WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. MHP Huck (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Per a previous complaint at this board (21 December) I warned User:MHP Huck not to make further reverts of this article without a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. In spite of this advice, they have continued to war on the mention of 'alt-right' in the lead, even though that's the subject of an open RfC on the talk page. All three diffs provided in this report show Huck re-adding 'alt-right' to the lead. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:71.171.117.145 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Fixed typo"
 * 5)  "Fixed typo"
 * 6)  "Fixed typo"
 * 7)  "Fixed typo"
 * 8)  "Fixed typo"
 * 9)  "Fixed typo"
 * 10)  "Fixed typo"
 * 11)  "Fixed typo"
 * 12)  "Fixed typo"
 * 13)  "Fixed typo"
 * 14)  "Fixed typo"
 * 15)  "Fixed typo"
 * 16)  "Fixed typo"
 * 17)  "Fixed typo"
 * 18)  "Fixed typo"
 * 19)  "Fixed typo"
 * 20)  "Fixed typo"
 * 21)  "Fixed typo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP edit warring over the nationality of the word "imagesize". KGirlTrucker81huh? what I've been doing 02:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - not to be difficult, but why is this here? That's vandalism,  not edit warring. And it's all one IP. Propose unprotection and a block if it starts up again. It is winter break. Kids will be kids. John from Idegon (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Sleyece reported by User:CFCF (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756935851 by CFCF (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 756935704 by CFCF (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 756905502 by CFCF (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 756834157 by Pillsberrydoo7 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 756783737 by Plastikspork (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 756765027 by SporkBot (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 756740783 by TDMfan23! (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 756740658 by TDMfan23! (talk)"
 * 9)  "Disruptive Edits Reverted (Please Discuss) *Fixed* (You're Welcome) :)"
 * 1)  "Disruptive Edits Reverted (Please Discuss) *Fixed* (You're Welcome) :)"


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


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

Ongoing at Dick Cheney, two reverts of since this report was filed, and one revert of this report on this page:. Carl Fredrik  💌 📧 19:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Make that 3 reverts of Pillsberrydoo7. Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 19:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping properly:  Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is downright comical. The editor reverted the AN3 report of him, not to mention the 3RR warning and AN3 notice. He's up to like 10 reverts on that page. Alex Eng <small style="font-size:80%;">( TALK ) 20:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See Special:Diff/756936887 --Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Methinks it'd be a shame to block him indefinitely, but I also don't think a classic 48-hour block is enough in this case... Carl Fredrik   💌 📧 20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I certainly considered it. Kuru   (talk)  20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . Obvious and simple edit warring. Kuru   (talk)  20:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Bulldog123 reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: indef )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor has been blocked twice already for essentially the same edit war over and over again - his goal is to remove the words "white supremacist" from the lead of Richard Spencer's page, despite many reliable sources using that term to directly describe him, and previous discussions on the talk page which resulted in consensus that the description reflects what reliable sources say. After being dormant for 3 weeks, editor re-appeared to attempt the same removal of the same term again, and this time, when another editor tried to warn him against continuing the edit war, he threatened that he would "revert to a more accurate version twice a day on a daily basis", apparently to avoid WP:3RR. As he's already been blocked twice for essentially the same edit war, and is openly threatening to continue it, I felt it was appropriate to go ahead and report him now. Rockypedia (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * . Resumed edit warring after two previous blocks. I've extended to indef due to the two explicit promises to continue edit warring for "the truth". Kuru   (talk)  03:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Calibrador reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756954327 by Winkelvi (talk) obtain consensus to change longstanding photo"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 756945545 by Winkelvi (talk) undo horrible photoshop job"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* One time only */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

WP:HOUNDING and WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:POINT through senseless edit warring. Not 3RR, but definitely edit warring behavior. This has been a problem before with this editor toward me. It's personal, likely a vendetta, it's borderline harassment and it needs to stop. See and  for a bit of history. Pinging as being familiar with why this is happening. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone's feelings were hurt when their sudden upload of a bad attempt at Photoshopping a longstanding photo was challenged. I am not the one with the problem, you on the other hand seem to let anger and personal vendetta guide your edits. Seems to me you are looking to get back at me for your 60 day ban due to actual battleground mentality, which you are falsely trying to pin on me. Calibrador (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks from you are unwarranted. The fact is, you are hounding me and your actions there are harassment.  Other than add your own photo to the article on 12/24/16, you've never edited that article in any substantial way.  You went out of your way to revert the image change I made the first time.  That is the epitome of a vendetta, battleground behavior, trying to make a point, and an attempt to goad into a fight (obvious by your edit summary, "undo horrible photoshop job").  You went back and did it again.  I told you at your talk page that if you needlessly reverted the photo again, I would report you.  I've done so.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  22:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty usual to edit an article regarding a high profile person that recently died, that's why you changed the photo, in addition to getting attention and recognition for being the person to upload the photo. Forcing your edits by saying it's your way or the highway, and if you don't agree then I'm going to report you for it does not make for a good editing environment. Calibrador (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging, , as well as  - they are all familiar with the history behind this behavior today as well as Calibrador's past edit warring over images.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * WTF? One of your links is to your own block for stalking and harrassing Calibrador! Are you TRYING to get boomeranged? As for the other link, to the ANI discussion about Calibrador: I initiated that discussion, because he had been very aggressive in promoting his own photographs. As I recall, the issue was resolved without action, because he agreed to limit his arguments in favor of his own photos to one comment per discussion. As far as I know he has followed that agreement. It looks to me like the photo you are arguing over isn't even Calibrador's photo, it is someone else's - and he is simply restoring the longstanding image. Your proper course would have been to go to the talk page and explain why you think your altered photo should be used. Instead you get into a battle over it and immediately bring the battle here? Really? --MelanieN (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * , please calm down and try to understand where I'm coming from and why. Note that I didn't seek out Calibrador, Calibrador sought me out and reverted needlessly.  Twice.  With a personal attack in the edit summary.  He's done this before: claimed the photoshopping I did wasn't good enough, when it clearly was better than what was there before, and edit wars over it.  The point is that he is hounding me - something he was chastised for previously by  for the same kind of thing.  I am NOT battling over anything.  I reverted that photo back in once.  One revert on that photo does not equate WP:BATTLE.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:MelanieN. User:Calibrador has been discussed at ANI in the past due to concern he could be promoting his own photographs. The dispute here is not an example of that, and only two reverts are listed. Don't see any reason for admin action, though the parties will be in trouble if they continue to revert the image. So far, neither person has used the article talk page to explain their image preference. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * and : I just noticed something while I was gathering information on the image at Commons to start an informal RfC at the article talk page. It's not Skidmore's photo - he didn't take it - but he did recently upload a newer version of it to replace the original on 12/25/16 (he is "Gage" at Commons).  And note that the person he was warring against at Commons over the photo is one of his old nemesis' at Commons: .  So, I can see now why he is pissed about this and edit warring.  Technically, not his photo so he's not violating the previous agreement, but - he is violating it, now that I see what the real story is.  Thought you should know as this sheds new light on things.  Here's a link to the photo at Commons . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your characterisation of his edits on Commons is lacking. In May 2015 Stemoc uploaded the image as a crop of a photo by a third party. On 24 December 2016, more than 1 year later, Stemoc adjusted the colours, which Gage reverted. This in itself seems a reasonable action and (again viewed in isolation) can't be called warring. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Beth, that's not the point. Commons isn't the problem, the targeted edit warring behavior and harassment is.  Over something he has been told to not do anymore.  That it's a photo he recently re-edited makes this even more of a problem, since he was told to stop edit warring over photos he had a personal interest in.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And then,, there's also this encouragement by Calibrador to someone (who came to his talk page to list what is perceived as a list of "wrongs" I've committed) so they will comment at this report. Obviously, Calibrador is not wanting them to comment favorably about me, otherwise they wouldn't have canvassed (even if it's without the actual going-to-their-talkpage canvassing behavior).  Now, please tell me: who is trying to get someone into hot water here?  Me or the person I'm reporting:  I brought Calibrador here to get him to stop with the edit warring and hounding behavior.  I've done nothing to seek them out or bother them since I was unblocked in November.  Nothing.  This report is me saying, "Please tell him to stop and leave me alone".  That's it.  Other than going to his talk page and warning him, what have I done that's equal to WP:BATTLE?  Please tell me, because if that's what I've done, I don't see it and am ignorant of it.  I didn't start this today, Calibrador did.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to the mudslinging, I'd just like to say that I did not seek out Winkelvi specifically in my reversion to the longstanding photo. I just looked for whoever it was that made the change that I thought was unacceptable. I'd have reverted if it were anyone else, as well. Calibrador (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This will be my only comment here cause I don't like getting into petty fights but i was pinged so i have to comment here. I personally do not like Winkelvi's 'retouched' version. Its too dark and 'red/orangey' I tried to change the original picture myself, took me about an hour and I could not get the balance right either without degrading the quality of the image, my version was reverted by Gage, I did not revert him because he gave a valid reason for the revert. If someone can fix the colors to the original image, please do so on the original image, don't start creating your own versions of the images. No one will revert it if its done right.-- Stemoc 23:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Stemoc: Your suggestion is something I've done before, and then have been told at Commons I shouldn't do that because it's altering the original image and I should be doing my own upload. Can't win for losing.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I wrote on Calibrador's talk page the 3 talk pages where Winkelvi has been edit warring over three different articles with a couple of editors. I was afraid to post here because winkelvi has been threatening me, harassing me, being generally rude to me, and questioning every edit I make. He refers to me as the new account over and over when he reported me to the drn board. link  He has a real battleground behavior toward me and others in the last several days. He accused me of following him to edit Laura Ingalls Wilder. When I explained I was editing from the clean up list for the children's lit project, he certainly never said sorry. I asked for help from two admins at one of these three talk pages I will leave a link for. No one ever helped me though., ,  Now I guess my punishment from winkelvi is he has reported me another noticeboard and is accusing me of being someone else. I think some people should understand that although I am new, I did go to far too much college and am a librarian. I just wanted Calibrador to know the pattern of how winkelvi has been edit warring over the last week or so. I guess I should feel better since I am not his only victim. I can understand why some people do not want to edit wikipedia at all when a new editor is treated the way I have been. Pauciloquence (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Striking comments from sock of indeffed user and sockmaster WordSeventeen . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from someone uninvolved: I have had the Carrie Fisher page on my watchlist since the cardiac incident before Christmas. I noticed the changes to the image. I was expecting a discussion to be opened on the talk page. As per WP:BRD, that's what should have happened - then other editors could have commented, should they wish. Personally I prefer the original image, not by a lot, but the new one looks a little too orange. So when Winkelvi states that the new image "clearly was better than what was there before", this is an opinion, not a factual basis for an argument. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At any rate,, I did start an informal RfC at the article talk page , and that was before I read your comments here (just for the record). -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . Use the discussion; move on. Kuru   (talk)  03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:50.109.159.27 reported by User:208.110.210.81 (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/756966679 vs Special:PermaLink/756955684

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:PermaLink/756952631 vs Special:PermaLink/756952612 User:ClueBot NG reverted User:50.159.159.27's edit
 * 2) Special:PermaLink/756954340 vs Special:PermaLink/756954183 User:FoCuSandLeArN reverted User:50.159.159.27's edit
 * 3) Special:PermaLink/756955361 vs Special:PermaLink/756955291 User:FoCuSandLeArN reverted User:50.159.159.27's edit
 * 4) Special:PermaLink/756966679 vs Special:PermaLink/756955684 I reverted User:50.159.159.27's edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:PermaLink/756966812. I warned him because he reverted it 4 times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:

@EdJohnston On the revision history, I saw that violated the violated the three-revert rule he made 4 reversions. I think he should stop reverting it.

208.110.210.81 (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have genuinely never seen the contraction "but're" before (but are). Kuru   (talk)  03:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . This is a serial disruptive editor with many previous warnings and blocks. See Illinois IPs 104.235.49.165, 50.109.149.158, 104.235.82.80. Same unsourced and sometimes imaginary additions, same odd grammar when s/he tries. Kuru   (talk)  04:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Motbag12 reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 756753478 by RegentsPark (talk) VANDALISM REVERTED; Lead Expanded - economic projections"
 * 2)  "VANDALISM REVERTED. There is no such Wikipedia or encyclopedia rules and regulations such like that. As long as legitimate sources are provided, those sources can be listed for verification only."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 756848092 by Joshua Jonathan (talk)You are simply a white trash European who hates India. You cant deal with India and China becoming great powers, is it?  Sources give"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 756856312 by Softlavender (talk)When references have been sourced, why are the supporting statemenst being deleted. Sources less than few years cannot be reason for deletion."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 756862234 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) Vandalism by Americans Reverted"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 756862857 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) VANDALISM REMOVED"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Additional: false accusations of vandalism; racism ("You are simply a white trash European who hates India"; "Vandalism by Americans"). Enough to block indef per WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLE. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * NOTE: The last two diffs above are IP edits from the editor logged out, and the article has now been semi-protected for 2 days (and the IP address has been blocked for 31 hours). Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Editor's registered account has currently been blocked (by ) for 31 hours for the offensive comments. Since they finally started a seemingly rational discussion on the article's talkpage (prior to that block), it might be sufficient simply to warn the editor that neither further reversion without consensus nor editing logged out will be permitted and will result in a much longer block. Softlavender (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours by User:Hoary for personal attacks. For example: "You are simply a white trash European who hates India". The article has been semiprotected 48 hours by User:Airplaneman. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Alerts)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: editor's talk page: ; edit summary:

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

Comments:

Don't try to mislead the administrators! The second revert in your list is done by yourself. I made only 3 reverts in 24 h. You made 2 reverts. 123Steller (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. Yes the second edit (not revert!) was made by myself. Sorry for my mistake. (Should I assume that you wanted to mislead the administrators when writing of my "revert". I think, I should not - we both are a human beings.) Yes you made only 3 reverts, including the one made after I asked you to avoid edit warring ([]; []). Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation of WP:3RR, but I've alerted both parties to the WP:ARBEE sanctions since the origin of the Romanians is a topic that invites nationalist warring. Disputes about this article have been reported at admin boards six times in the past, including one time at WP:AE. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson reported by User:124.148.103.22 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: first edit (tagged as minor though clearly not)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not done – was blocked before I could issue a formal warning, but BedrockPerson was already warned for edit-warring a few months ago, when Ian.thomson said "If you had received a prior warning about it, I'd've blocked you as well"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none at all, BedrockPerson made no attempts to start a talkpage discussion but rather kept edit-warring

Comments: BedrockPerson has been pushing a pro-Jewish POV on numerous articles and per his talkpage has already received warnings for edit-warring and other poor editing practices. Examples on other pages include: this edit to Mandatory Palestine, where he falsely claim Judaism was the largest religion, multiple edits to Jericho where he falsely claimed it was the oldest city in the world (and was reverted for edit-warring), and this edit to Abraham similar to the ones to Isaac and Jacob. Note: I am and have already been blocked by Oshwah for edit-warring. I am not trying to evade the block, I am only using this new IP to make this report and to make a comment on my talkpage. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He has also tried to disguise his POV-pushing with false edit summaries such as this so other editors don't notice. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Three times is not more than three times. If you did not know that edit warring was wrong before this block, then you're just filing this in revenge.  If you did know, then your edit warring would appear to be a bad faith attempt to get the other person to violate 3RR.  Either way, you seem to be aiming for a vendetta here.  Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:Edit warring makes no sense – if that's the case, then I can put whatever bullshit I want into an article with no consensus and the person who reverts will be blocked, because they've reverted four times and my initial edit didn't count as a revert. WP:EW states 3RR "is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". Could you please explain how BedrockPerson's actions are totally acceptable and mine are block-worthy, when he is the one inserting blatantly false content into an article without consensus? By the way, I don't know how I can have a "vendetta" against someone I've never interacted with before. 124.148.103.22 (talk) 08:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 3 < 4, 3 =/= 4. Three is not equal to or higher than the "more than three" specified by WP:3RR.  Your hypothetical forgets that if something is against consensus, there will be more than one editor to remove the material, and that inserting outright bullshit would be vandalism (which is exempt from 3RR).  I'm not commenting one way or another on the content of his edits, just that he has not violated 3RR.  If you were going to report him before you were blocked, then you are a hypocrite because you reverted more than he did.  If you decided to report him because you were blocked, then you are operating out of a bad-faith vendetta.  Either way, you are evading your block by carrying this on and reverting again at those articles.  Ian.thomson (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:x4n6 (Result: No violation)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has warred for several days over removal of RS content. This user has also been engaged in other disputes here just recently. In this case, the user has been asked to obtain consensus before removing this content and refuses. User was also directed to policy which explicitly states the material "belongs in the article." But the user steadfastly ignores that policy and just responded with personal attacks. User has also attacked another editor who disagreed with him, accusing them of "hounding". User has also left a notice threat on a userpage, in an obvious attempt to further intimidate any editor who disagrees with his unilateral removal of sourced and relevant content. X4n6 (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure why I'm being reported. I did leave an edit warning notice on the filer's talk page, but the last individual to revert out the trivia and irrelevant content the filing editor insists should be in the article was .  Not to mention that the editor I pointed out was hounding is now indeffed and actually was hounding me as they are a serial sockmaster (who was blocked originally last year for hounding and harassment behavior).  I think the filing editor may be confused as to what's really happening here.  And just for the record, in regard to the content dispute, there's no policy which would support retaining that content.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  13:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This seems like a frivolous report. The edit warring happened long back and incidentally, the user accused of hounding turned out to be a sockpuppet. And I see no attempt by X4n6 to discuss the issue on the talk page (except for one comment). Is the dispute even important enough to merit this AN3 report? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not a 3RR violation, and hardly even edit warring. Technically, you are edit warring by the same standard that you're applying to Winkelvi. This is a simple content dispute and should be resolved by calm discussion and dispute resolution. - MrX 14:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What Lemongirl942 and MrX said.  <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Govindaharihari (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Admin User:Peacemaker67 has warned all user on the article talkpage diff and I notified them and requested they self revert on their userpage

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

Gaming the system, three reverts and straight back into it immediately when returning to editing, a fourth revert that restarted a revert war on the WP:BLP after ten hours of stability. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) There's no 3RR violation here.
 * 2) What the hell is "ten hours of stability"??? Govinda just made that up.
 * 3) The explanation for the three reverts by INeverCry,, ,  was... a bunch of insults and personal attacks: , , . How exactly am I suppose to discuss something with a user who discusses editors rather than content and only speaks in personal attacks?
 * 4) The revert by 92slim was a straight up revenge revert. See here. Basically 92slim was going through my edits and blind reverting them. They reverted my edit at SOHR, but I pointed out to them that was a 1RR violation (in retrospect I should've just reported him right there and then) so he had to self revert. He then tried to  revert me at another article. But this was reverted by User:Iryna Harpy . So he made his way over to the Julian Assange and reverted me there. User:92slim was basically going around looking for a fight. Note how all three of these reverts are all in a span of 2 hours. Instead of reverting 3 times on one article, he's just making sure to revert me 3 times at 3 different articles.
 * 5) Had it been another user I would've left it alone. But 92slim was just engaging in WP:HARASSMENT and WP:STALKING.
 * 6) I've discussed the issue at talk extensively. I've tried compromise . I've proposed more compromise . But all I got back in response is personal attack and a bunch of people trying to claim that The Guardian is not a reliable source.
 * 7) The hell does Govindaharihari have to do with this article? This is also just opportunistic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

(btw, the matter is now at BLPN)Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's pretty rich that you say you've tried compromise, Marek. You've been edit warring to include undue material from one source, in line with your long-standing POV slant against Russia. I'd call your tactics across Wikipedia "scorched earth," not "compromise." Your interaction at Julian Assange is just another example of this. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Take your personal attacks somewhere else. I have indeed tried to compromise. I've changed the section title more to your liking, and proposed to limit the text to what should be non-controversial parts . But hey, even that got reverted and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEITed on the talk page. It seems to some people "compromise" means "I get everything I want and you thank me for it". Perhaps some are not clear on the meaning of that word? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly reverting a number of different editors who disagree with your edit is not a sign of compromise. That's the definition of edit warring. Before you re-insert the contentious material, you need to gain consensus. And for the record, what you call "personal attacks" are directly relevant here - your long history of edit warring on Russia-related topics, going back all the way to when you were part of a cabal that organized off-wiki to fight out Eastern-Europe-related edit wars. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already advised you of WP:ATONED on your talk page under this thread. Your WP:PERSONAL opinions are based on thin air. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Check your timestamps, Iryna Harpy. You told me to let bygones be bygones after I posted the above message. But I have to respectfully disagree with you on this issue - blocks are meant to prevent bad behavior, and history of edit-warring is certainly relevant when considering present and possible future edit-warring. This is a discussion about edit warring, and any decisions on remedies will presumably take into account the possibility of such behavior repeating itself, so I fail to see how a history of edit warring is irrelevant here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that I haven't made any further edits to the article. However, User:Guccisamsclub has now joined the edit war, reverting three times, ,. And note that at least one of these reverts involves reverting another attempt at compromise. Which just illustrates that when some editors say "you need to compromise" what they really mean is "Do exactly as I say".

Two other things are note worthy. First, the user who originally reverted me in a revenge revert, User:92slim, just got blocked for incivility and personal attacks on a related matter. So there ya go. Second, another user brought this up at WP:BLPN and the two uninvolved users there, User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris and User:Alexbrn (all other comments there so far are by involved users) that there is no BLP issue, there is no UNDUE issue (which is sort of ridiculous) and that the source is perfectly reliable. So it's basically a couple users edit warring for POV reasons to try and enforce their own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What has become abundantly clear over the last few days is that the WP:HUNT is on. How many times is that this year? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a witch hunt here. I see a bunch of accusations arising from the edit war over Julian Assange, including an attempted arbitration enforcement raised by Marek against another editor, so this is hardly one-sided. I think this particular ANI complaint arose because of repeated reverts (during an ongoing talk-page dispute) of Julian Assange by Marek, rather than from sort of organized witch hunt. This is a legitimate complaint. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But not from repeated reverts by INeverCry, done with insulting edit summaries and marked as "minor" even though they weren't? But not from repeated reverts by 92Slim who jumped into the dispute to make revenge reverts? But not by Gucciwhateverclub who picked up the edit warring after 92Slim got blocked? But not by YOU personally who have made three reverts and who have continued the edit war even after I ceased editing the page: ? I mean, seriously, who's edit warring here? Who's tag teaming? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're free to open ANI about all the editors you mentioned. There's a general pattern one's supposed to follow, however: be bold, then if your work is reverted, discuss on the talk page to resolve the issues before reinserting the material. People are genuinely working towards a solution on the talk page of Julian Assange, and putting the controversial text back in while that process is ongoing is not helpful. I think that separates different classes of reverts. A lot of people on the page, including those who removed the disputed text, are willing to see the subject matter covered in some form, but they don't appreciate it being reinserted while text is being formulated on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh you sure were bold, continuing to edit war after others have stopped reverting.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that was the "R" in WP:BRD. Since we are still on "D" and are still making progress, it's inappropriate for users to go back to the "B" phase, much less to reinsert the same contentious material verbatim. Once we have consensus on the talk page, which I think we will arrive at fairly soon, we can cover the alleged Russian connection in some form (i.e., in whatever form was agreed on). -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by the number of reverts that was more like the "R" in BRRRRRRRRRD. (And BRD is suppose to be a cycle, with compromise edits resetting the "B", which is what I did (and to his credit that Esn guy) - you just practiced the R).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem was that users were reverting to return the contentious material, when there was ongoing discussion on the talk page. That's inappropriate, and I and other users removed it while the discussion continued. WP:BRD is not supposed to involve editors re-inserting the contentious text over and over again while discussion continues on the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can spin how you want it, but the fact remains that you edit warred after others (like me) stopped making reverts. You prolonged the edit war. See also WP:WRONGVERSION, which is more or less related. You're basically saying "I only reverted because it was the WRONGVERSION". But it's still edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're free to report me if you'd like. But the fact remains that only one of us has attempted to force through contentious text without a consensus. I'm working with other editors on the talk page to include the relevant material in some way in the article. You've repeatedly reverted to re-include material that obviously has no consensus. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon reported by User:Tiggerjay (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Guy Macon is a respected, experienced volunteer on WP, and it is frustrating that I feel like this requires assistance from AN, especially given his personal experience with WP:DR volunteering from a few years back. I have attempted to work with him on multiple fronts for this article, and he appears to believe there is an WP:EDIT WAR going on, of which we are on opposing sides. Unfortunately, multiple attempts at discussion hasn't resulted in any progress. My attempts at discussing this in a civil tone with him has eroded as he continues to WP:POVPUSH and fails to WP:LISTEN by not actually "discussing" the points being brought up, and he continues to act unilaterally.

Timeline:
 * Guy asks for assistance at this HELPDESK request when the page Reid Technique was moved from Reid technique without discussion by User:Iazyges.
 * A conversation takes place on the HELPDESK between myself and User:BronHiggs regarding the merits and applicability of WP:NCCAPS, but Guy was noticeably absent from this discussion.
 * The discussion basically concluded that a WP:RM would be appropriate, so without specific bias, I open the RM to propose a target of The Reid Technique. (diff) While the target name was available, I decided an RM was best, as well as to gain a wider consensus from others for the appropraite titling. The proposed new title added the article "the" which was based on my "discovery" that the trademarked name included the article was incorrect (stating the TM was without the word 'the'), and that fact should have bearing on the discussion about titling.
 * Guy's initial !vote was to revert the undiscussed page move, but started citing unrelated guidelines regarding WP:NCCAPS, examples citing REALTOR. (diff)
 * There was a lengthy MOVE discussion that coincided with a 'trademark discussion' which is the heart of this AN. However, the RM discussion is also illustrative of the concerning behavior.
 * During my additional research I discovered that the inline content stating that was errant, and the more correct trademarked term is  which is factual, supported by reliable primary sources (The US Patent Office, should be the only reference and authority we need for this statement). However Guy felt this was inappropriate, so he reverted the edit at this diff, stating "Please don't make disputed changes while they are being discussed on the article talk page."
 * Presuming in good faith that he had made the revert in error thinking I was changing the lead and overlooking that this is indisputable, I placed a friendly note on his talk page. (diff) And then reverted his revert (yeah, probably shouldn't have done that), but made the revert using "AGF" notice.
 * Guy was apparently upset at this, deleted my talk page post on his page and suggested that the article talk would be more appropriate, but then never created the discussion there. And then undid the article edit again, simply citing policy at this edit. (diff). Making this effectively the third revert on this page, two by Guy and one my me - reverts shouldn't continue to take place in lieu of discussion.
 * I started a new section on the article talk page to "discuss" the correction of the trademark reference: Talk:Reid_Technique
 * I also placed a more stern message on his talk page about discussing instead of 'talking at me' (essentially WP:SHOUTING guidelines). (diff)
 * Before any discussion took place, he changed course on the inclusion of the article "The" in reference to the trademark, and unilaterally, without discussion made the change to the article diff. This is effectively a third revert from the origional (1) (2) (3). He knew full well that the change he was making was different than the one proposed. (diff) It is difficult for someone to espouse WP:BRD, and then fail to Discuss. I brought this up on his talk page. (diff) Which again he deleted without discussion. So again I moved it to the talk page where I address his inclusion which he claims his edit was done as a 'compromise'. I'm not sure what was being compromised here, or who was party to this discussion. My perspective was this was a unilateral action.
 * Even after 24-hours, when cooler heads might have prevailed there is still combative language. Suggests he is steeped in a battleground of uncivility. Perhaps its just me, but after several reviews of my posts and comments, I "believe" I only begin to touch uncivility after his third-revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: (a consolidation of those listed above)
 * Initial discussion on user talk
 * Discussion moved to aritlce talk
 * Warning about not discussing
 * Final notice about disruptive editing without discussing
 * Lengthy discussion on primary edit war is shown at: Talk:Reid_Technique
 * Although it stems from a discussion at: Talk:Reid_Technique

Diff of edit warring:
 * 1) (diff)
 * 2) (diff)
 * 3) (diff)

Specific conerns:
 * WP:POVPUSHing by:
 * Failing to follow WP:BRD by not actually discussing (ironic since he brings BRD up)
 * Failing to WP:LISTEN as part of discussions
 * Shouting guidelines instead of consensus finding
 * Abuse of CYCLE by editing with a reasonable expectation that the matter is contentious.
 * False claims of WP:CIVILITY and WP:BATTLEGROUND to sidestep actual discussion
 * Violation of WP:RRR

Desired outcome: An unbiased review of this situation and the escalation thereof. My believe is that I'm showing an abundance of Good Faith and remaining reasonably civil dispite disruptive editing. However, even if that is all true, I think a simple WP:TROUT is all that is required here. Of course, I'm open to being corrected if necessary here as well trout me.

 Comments: 


 * Submitting AN report. Tigger Jay&thinsp; (talk)  20:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am purposely ignoring the multiple accusations of misbehavior on my part listed above, as I have ignored multiple previous attempts by Tiggerjay to start a WP:BATTLE. They have nothing to do with the question of edit warring. Tiggerjay has shown two diffs that show 2RR, but the third diff is a non-revert edit (no edit by anyone else between diff 2 and diff 3) that follows the "Cycle" advice in WP:BRD ("To avoid bogging down in discussion, when you have a better understanding of opposing editors' concerns, you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't violate the WP:3RR rule."). Basically, I edited my revert in a good-faith attempt to resolve the dispute about what the trademark is by looking up the actual trademark registration and then using the exact, unmodified wording from the trademark registration and adding a citation to that same trademark registration. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * – There are not enough reverts by either party to break WP:3RR. The intensity of this dispute seems out of proportion to whatever is at stake. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:E434:D491:46B:3A40 reported by User:88.105.187.38 (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: [link]

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

Comments: Vandal who keeps vandalising that talk page. Needs full protection in addition. 88.105.187.38 (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked 31 hours by User:Oshwah. (There was a string of over thirty reverts on the talk page in the last few hours). Per a previous ANI thread (from October 2016) it looks like there is a long term pattern of IPs disrupting both the article and the talk page. If the guy comes back with a new IP, it is likely that talk page semiprotection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:194.144.126.211 reported by User:Rob984 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Rob984 (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2001:569:78B4:6900:B1C9:421:A768:8746 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Revision as of 21:35, 29 December 2016
 * 2)  - Revision as of 00:51, 30 December 2016
 * 3)  - Revision as of 00:54, 30 December 2016
 * 4)  - Revision as of 00:59, 30 December 2016
 * 5)  - Revision as of 01:18, 30 December 2016
 * 6)  - Revision as of 01:23, 30 December 2016
 * 7)  - Revision as of 01:25, 30 December 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The anon IP is edit-warring to add a serious WP:BLP vio, making claims about someone's supposed "real name" yet without any citing whatsoever. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:ForzaKiller reported by User:BjörnBergman (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

This user keeps writing unsourced numbers of vehicle production which are incorrect according to the referred source oica.net, despite a block warning on his talk page. Would you please block this user or at least edit protect the article Automotive industry. BjörnBergman 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Unclear if they will get the message. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:14.202.107.12 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Defending British culture and identity from foreigners determined to appropriate our identity before I'm blocked.  We won't be silenced.  They can't impose their ideas about who we are upon us."
 * 2)  "Reverting Indian vandalism of a British page."
 * 3)  "As an American, it is perhaps best you focus on your own national problems and leave us British to our own."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ewan McGregor. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Ewan McGregor. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP on a mission and insistent about removing sourced content after numerous warnings. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing/nationalist soapboxing.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Boxing Fan reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (changed name of weight class)
 * 2) (same)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (neither; just disruptive edit warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Boxing Fan has made many edits to weight classes across boxing articles, which goes against the WP:SNOW consensus achieved at WikiProject Boxing in November 2015, and the resultant MOS:BOXING which became effective earlier this year. No response at User:Boxing Fan's talk page, and always the same edits: that is, unnecessarily changing the names of weight classes when it was established that, in sections where they apply, only the sanctioning body-specific name should be used (e.g., "WBO junior lightweight" instead of "WBO super featherweight").

Furthermore, they have gone around changing a few result types to read incorrectly, which has long been a vandalism problem on boxing articles:, , ,. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Jimbo.jones reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsubstantiated statement. See talk page and provide some evidence to support unlikely claim. Unless reliable evidence/argument can be provided, default should be to NOT include a claim of influence from specific subpopulation."
 * 2)  "Poster needs to provide reliable evidence. 1 sentence statement in Encyclopedia of Jewish Food (essentially a cookbook) claiming origin without supportive evidence does not meet reliability. Poster can take to talk to provide convincing evidence."
 * 3)  "Gil Marks Encyclopedia of Jewish Food not reliable (also will be biased) source and does not provide supportive evidence. Burden on poster to provide evidence supporting unlikely statement."
 * 4)  "Baseless statement. Many N African muslim dishes are vegetarian. Source cited (M Gil) not primary, provides no evidence.  Need supportive evidence for claim that dish in current form popular in region with 99% muslim pop is of J origin"
 * 5)  "Unclear specific origin, but compelling evidence it is North African (berber word, common last name in Tunisia, name sounds closer to NA than levantine dialects, staple food in NA)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Shakshouka. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User:MusikAnimal requested that I make this report, using this edit. MPS1992 (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree not to change the Shakshouka page anymore. I've said my peace multiple times. Please take a look at the article talk page, there is already a consensus that the statement that I deleted is unsubstantiated. My opinion is that the statement should be supported by a RELIABLE citation since it is logically unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo.jones (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Result: No action taken. Editors on Talk don't appear to be convinced this is originally a Jewish dish. Consider looking for more sources. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Factsonly245 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added the missing songwriter"
 * 2)  "Yes I corrected a writer of the song is Andre Merritt please review the link below showing the legal owners and writers of the song"
 * 3)  "http://repertoire.bmi.com/TitleSearch.asp?querytype=WorkName&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=Turn%20up%20the%20music&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=False&blnAltTitles=False"
 * 4)  "I made this credit completely accurate there was a songwriter missing which was the main writer of the song Andre Merritt http://www.allmusic.com/artist/andre-merritt-mn0001047657
 * 1)  "http://repertoire.bmi.com/TitleSearch.asp?querytype=WorkName&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=Turn%20up%20the%20music&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=False&blnAltTitles=False"
 * 2)  "I made this credit completely accurate there was a songwriter missing which was the main writer of the song Andre Merritt http://www.allmusic.com/artist/andre-merritt-mn0001047657

https://www.discogs.com/artist/824150-Andre-Merritt"


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been reverted by more than 1 editor. User has been warned by more than 1 editor. User is also a possible sock puppet of User:Globalmusic because they made the same edits 3 days prior. Kellymoat (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have provided the legal documentation showing all of the legal writers of this Chris Brown song turn up the music. You have wrongfully left out the main song writer of this song which is Andre Merritt. The link below is from BMI the performance rights agency that owns the registration to this song and if you read it it will state every single person's name that wrote this song please review now. http://repertoire.bmi.com/TitleSearch.asp?querytype=WorkName&page=1&fromrow=1&torow=25&keyname=Turn%20up%20the%20music&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=False&blnAltTitles=False — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsonly245 (talk • contribs)


 * . I've protected the page for a day and started a discussion on the article's talk page.  Kuru   (talk)  22:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Meenmore reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: various versions

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and for a different article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom and Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom

Comments: This is based on general edit warring rather than 3RR. The editor's issue seems to be a belief that Scotland is not being given proper consideration in various articles. This and this  are examples of his belief that non-Scots cannot properly edit the article. Other articles in which his agenda has been pursued include List of former national capitals, British Army, Timeline of the British Army,Royal Navy,Template:English law, and Great Seal of the Realm.

In the case now being referred, Meenmore rejects an existing source while failing to provide alternative sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 reported by User:Karunamon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 757639191 by 106.67.6.134 (talk) then why don't you respond?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 757638774 by 106.67.6.134 (talk) you are not responding and reverting"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 757637357 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) we already discussed"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 757636970 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) please see talk page. You provided no reason for your opposition"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 757636684 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) you undid my edit without telling me why"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 757635981 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) see talk page before you revert"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 757635766 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) please use talk page"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 757635572 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) reverse vandalism"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 757635352 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) stop this!"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 757634445 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) stop vandalizing. Please see your talk page."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 757634114 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) I changed it to better pic, you are changing it with giving me a reason. Please see talk page."
 * 12)  "Undid revision 757633389 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) you have been warned; please do not change it"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 757632700 by 1.186.211.166 (talk) stop your vandalism!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Talk page modifications */ new section"


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


 * Comments:


 * (Uninvolved editor) See also 106.67.6.134 <i style="font-size:10pt; color: #6600FF">K<i style="font-size:8pt">arunamon</i></i><sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉ 20:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Users involved appear to have agreed to an RFC on the matter under dispute. See Template talk: Culture of India. No further action may be necessary.

User:1.186.211.166 reported by User:Karunamon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Don't change it till the discussion is over, that is the rule, build consensus first. You have not provided the reason, what was wrong with the ORIGINAL pic."
 * 2)  "Restoring the original version before vandalism on 26th December. Build consensus first."
 * 3)  "Don't change it till the discussion is over, that is the rule, build consensus first"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism by 2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid vandalism by 2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Please use talk page to discuss your POV"
 * 7)  "Undid stubborn vandalism by 2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Revertring to to the original version, before POV pushing by IP before 26th December"
 * 9)  "Stop vandalizing by changing IPs, since 26th December you have been changing the pic. Its edit history is evident, that no edit war was there before 26th December."
 * 10)  "Restoring to the original as on 13th October"
 * 11)  "Undid revision vandalism by 67.81.108.138 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * (uninvolved editor) Warnings removed by user at this diff. The other editor involved is directly above. <i style="font-size:10pt; color: #6600FF">K<i style="font-size:8pt">arunamon</i></i><sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉ 21:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Users involved appear to have agreed to an RFC on the matter under dispute. See Template talk: Culture of India. No further action may be necessary.

User:106.67.6.134 reported by User:Karunamon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 757640747 by 2600:1001:B01F:57AA:88C9:9E38:F39D:74A1 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Don't change the ORIGINAL pic, till we reach on a consensus"
 * 3)  "Please use talk page and engage in discussion"
 * 4)  "See talk page. Discuss and build consensus"
 * 5)  "See talk page"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * Appears to be the same person as, reported above. <i style="font-size:10pt; color: #6600FF">K<i style="font-size:8pt">arunamon</i></i><sup style="color:#FF0000; font-size: 110%; vertical-align: top;"> ✉ 21:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Users involved appear to have agreed to an RFC on the matter under dispute. See Template talk: Culture of India. No further action may be necessary.

User:Johny5000 reported by User:Exemplo347 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 757607067 by Exemplo347 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 757606804 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 757604333 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 757604333 by JJMC89 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Personal attack on another editor was posted. It was removed, and this editor then reverted this removal 4 times (including one reversion after a 3RR warning was posted on their talk page). Exemplo347 (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what it is in this edit you find to be a personal attack, as I don't personally see it as one. That aside, I would like to hear from - the edit warring over that comment (regardless of if it's a personal attack or not) isn't okay. How can we resolve this? --  samtar talk or stalk 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The editor is accusing of orchestrating some sort of Edit War, with multiple other persons, against him when all JJMC89 did was correctly strike a duplicate !vote from an AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd still like to hear from Johny5000 but given an SPI has been opened I'll await those results before furthering this -- samtar talk or stalk 18:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I have tried to be civil about the matter, apologizing to each editor multiple times, even asking for help. I get replies with no facts to support their consensus and as a newer member of Wikipedia I feel like I'm being attacked. User JJMC89 does not reply to any of my posts civil and have even left him multiple messages on his page and warning template about warring on the pages but he just deleted them with no consensus or reply to even fix this matter. How is clear consensus or understanding suppose to come about when you're being bullied or ignored??Johny5000 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Johny5000
 * I don't think you understand what consensus is, as you've misused that word several times. Competence is required. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 20:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus meaning "Agreement among judges" how can something be judged if there is not enough clarification or facts to support the disputers. Anyone can have an opinion on creation and what's factual but without proof to dispute the facts given how can others judge it. Simply putting Delete and no facts shows no way for consensus to be decided. I have asked multiple times to show me how you can sign up for these websites, which are located in different states and become a contributor yourself, but get no reply or facts. I am simply trying to handle this in a civil matter but no responses and communication make it hard to come to agreement. Johny5000 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Johny5000
 * – Indef as a sock per Sockpuppet investigations/Johny5000 by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

User:GORI 40 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Awards and nominations */"
 * 2)  "/* Premios People en Español */"
 * 3)  "The sources are clear. I invite you to look at Premios Tu Mundo in Wikipedia."
 * 4)  "/* Premios Tu Mundo */"
 * 5)  "/* Premios Tu Mundo */"
 * 6)  "/* Miami Life Awards */"
 * 7)  "is just come I did, go check the website if you do not believe me."
 * 1)  "/* Premios Tu Mundo */"
 * 2)  "/* Miami Life Awards */"
 * 3)  "is just come I did, go check the website if you do not believe me."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* List of awards and nominations received by El Señor de los Cielos] */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* List of awards and nominations received by El Señor de los Cielos] */"
 * 3)   "/* List of awards and nominations received by El Señor de los Cielos */"
 * 4)   "/* List of awards and nominations received by El Señor de los Cielos */"


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


 * Comments:

The user edits through IPs to impose their editions at all costs. Insists on inventing nominations that do not exist at the awards. He does not use any reliable references, and his only excuse for everything is that he sees the page of Telemundo to confirm everything he is doing, I did, but I only realized that the user is only vandalizing the article and creating false nominations. Although I asked him several times to stop he ignored and used different Ips to impose his point of view.  Philip J Fry   Talk    21:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Now try to do the same in the article by Sabrina Seara, making changes without consulting and removing references and adding prizes without reliable sources.--  Philip J Fry   Talk    22:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comments:

User:Philip J Fry

It is not true, I just want to help improve Wikipedia as all of you. Instead of insulting on me, informed dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GORI 40 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tjdrum2000 reported by User:Rezonansowy (Result: )
User being reported:

I don't know if this is the right place, but I give up. I posted several warnings on his talkpage, but there's no change. He continuously makes lots of edits without leaving an appropriate edit summary. I can't determine what he does exactly in his edits.

Some diffs:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

--RezonansowyakaRezy (talk &#124; contribs) 02:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While it may be possible that there is a case for blocking 4 edits on 4 completely different article is at the very least not a case of edit waring. If edit earring has in fact occurred the best choice of action would be to link to repeated istences of reverting content on a single page in a short period of time (please see WP:3RR for more info) If the problem is bad or at least questionable edits of several unrelated articles WP:ANI is the proper avenue.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Towns Hill reported by User:Son of ATM (Result: Both advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Comment - I don't see more then 3 reverts in 24 hours, in fact not even more than one. Towns Hill's reasons for reverts are clearly stated, e.g., source for liaquat ali khan is unreliable. The sources linked for Jinnah actually say he became Sunni, so he cannot be included. But there is no response to the objection by the filer, either in their edit summaries or on the talk page. If anything, it seems the fault of edit-warring here is on the filer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Resullt: Both editors are advised not to keep reverting without use of the article talk page. The problem has occurred both at List of Pakistani Shia Muslims and Pakistan. User:Son of ATM should also be careful about their incorrect use of the term 'vandalism' in edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

User:DantODB reported by User:Vjmlhds (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Immediately resumed edit warring on the article in question after coming off of a block, and quickly violated WP:3RR. He himself has gone on record as admitting he doesn't care about getting blocked, and is just really looking for a fight. Please look into this. Vjmlhds (talk) Vjmlhds 01:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully state that the user that reported this incident is also guilty of the same exact issue. I would also like to ask for a dispute resolution to try to resolve the conflict, if possible. DantODB (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * While it is true I came off a block as well, the point is that DantODB immediately violated 3RR right out of the shoot - even after warning him after his 2nd revert that doing a 3rd revert would be playing with fire...didn't listen. I did not violate 3RR, as I have not made a 3rd revision. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe not after the block, but do also check the history of the page the day before we both were blocked. DantODB (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter about before - I paid the penalty for the past sins, you on the other hand just committed a fresh violation. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We both "paid the penalty for the past sins" with the 24-hour blocks. Please don't glamorize the punishment that actually was decided on both of us. Also, with all due respect, you're only one edit away from being in my position. There's absolutely no foundation in you antagonizing me. DantODB (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What antagonization...you committed a violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR), I reported you on it...I have not committed a violation, therefore we are not in the same position. That's like saying I'm only a trip to the bank away from robbing it...weak argument. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I would like to point out that Vjmlhds is probably waiting 24 hours to revert the article again. I guess getting around the revert rule is better than trying to maintain the integrity of the article in real time. DantODB (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would also like to implore the administrator, who is going to be reviewing this, to look at the List of WWE personnel talk page for reference to what I constantly try to prove. DantODB (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's not what this is for. And I guess you're now a mind reader about my future moves (defelction).  And "integrity" is in the eye of the beholder...just because you see something as such, doesn't mean the rest of the world does as well. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know what defelction is. Not a mind reader. Just looking at past patterns. Also, speaking of integrity, check out the three opposing views of your edits on the talk page. Do keep trying to convince others of your ways. DantODB (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Deflection is trying to distract people from your troubles and to concentrate on others. I said if consensus goes against me, I'll accept it, but that doesn't change the fact that you violated 3RR almost immediately after coming off a block. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm putting this in bold because I want to say that I'm going to stop edit warring because it sounds like a consensus has been reached on the article in question. I'm fully aware that I broke the rule, I'm simply stating that the edit war will not be an issue anymore. Either way, thank you for your review. DantODB (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Easy to say you'll lock the hen house after they all ran out already...you violated 3RR right after coming off a block...no amount of deflection can take that away. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm going to stop engaging in this conversation because my point has been made and the article's integrity has been maintained. Thank you again. DantODB (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Result
 * Both editors here went straight back to the same edit war as soon as their 24-hour blocks expired, and I have now blocked the two of them for a week (in an action I took before I was aware of this report). If they carry on the same way once this block expires, I will block them both for a lot longer. I should point out that there is no 24-hour revert allowance and you don't have to exceed three reverts to get yourself blocked - Vjmlhds certainly should know that, having now racked up eight blocks for edit warring. Frankly, I'm getting sick of their confrontational approach to each other - fighting should be left for inside the ring, and editing Wikipedia should be an altogether more cooperative approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I really need to get in this too, this guy keeps and keeps reverting editions already revised and continues adding information that doesn't even makes sense it is already known you block him for 1 week, however, he keeps creating accounts not registered to kkep his vandalism just check this ones out, User:2602:304:cd91:68a0:1929:488:c41b:da4d and User:2602:304:cd91:68a0:fcf6:c489:8a79:48d6, he continues he disprutive editing on the pages Mandy Rose, Peyton Royce, Billie Kay and Alexa Bliss. This guy keeps and keeps trying to add information that has been already told is not right and he is such a rude person so I really want a real punishment for him. Thanks. TheBellaTwins1445(talk) 15:45, January 2, 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't do punishment. If you believe you have evidence of the misuse of multiple accounts, please make a report at WP:SPI and provide your evidence including diffs of disruptive edits. This is not the place for it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Aryan121 reported by User:Galatz (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

Comments:

User was just blocked for a string of issues resulting from edit warring on this page. As soon as his block expires he returns and begins to edit war again rather than going through the proper channels for comments. -  Galatz Talk  01:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 1 month--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)