Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305

User:Peter K Burian reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: 3-day block for both)

Page: Canadian dollar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter K Burian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments: I have tried in vain to reason with the user. I have talked of the need to achieve consensus before making bold edits, and to stay away from making unsubstantiated claims based on the user's opinion. I have also attempted to caution the user about treating currency forecast opinions as fact. He has chosen to ignore my cautions and invitation to discuss meaningfully on the article's talk page. Please see my talk page and the relevant article's talk page for any other information needed. I don't want to revert the user's edits without first receiving guidance from a more experienced administrator. Thank you.

NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting of this report. SQL^{Query me!} 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Peter K. Burian: The edit war consists of this: I add content, with reliable citations, and he Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible. He Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible.

Note: Prior to this complaint of an Edit War, I had started a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution re: Canadian dollar ... Filed by Peter K Burian on 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC). But that has been Closed because the Edit War Administrators' process is handling the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Canadian_dollar_discussion

Here is a copy of that item, including my comments, which should also be suitable as my Comments re: the Edit War: Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Wikipedia article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency.

As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content)

I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time.

I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings: "This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user"

He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in [{Canadian Dollar]]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. by Peter K Burian ... My REVERTS this afternoon were all after NorthernFactoid had deleted content that I had added to Canadian Dollar. I was merely undoing his deletions of my content/edits. And he certainly deleted my content often, at least three times this afternoon.

• Deleting my content) 21:18, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,676 bytes) (-481)‎
• (Deleting my content) 21:10, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,316 bytes) (-1,360)‎
• (Deleting my content) 20:50, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,300 bytes) (-502)‎

Amd these are the Reverts that I did, undoing his deletion of my content. He stopped deleting my content after Dispute Resolution began.

• 21:22, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (I do not accept your deleting content that I had added, fully citated, that is essential to this topic. Undid revision 699687528 by NorthernFactoid

• 21:15, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+1,360)‎ . . (Deleting fully cited content that I had added is unacceptable to me. Undid revision 699686418 by NorthernFactoid

• 21:12, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian ‎ . . (39,797 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (This is essential information to this topic, with a highly reliable citation, and has been deleted twice by NorthernFactoid. I have inserted it again and will start the Dispute Resolution process today.)

Peter K Burian (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Added by Peter K Burian ... once again NorthernFactoid deleted ALL of the content I had added. Needless to say, I did an UNDO to get my content back into the article. He refuses to acknowledge in the article that the value of the Canadian Dollar has plummeted in the past 18 months. Why? Good question.

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,286 bytes) (+2,706)‎ . . (refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715900 by NorthernFactoid

• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,580 bytes) (+588)‎ . . (Refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715303 by NorthernFactoid

• 00:43, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,992 bytes) (-2,706)‎ . . (→‎Value: See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)

• 00:38, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,698 bytes) (-588)‎ . . (See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The user has continually made a number of unsubstantiated claims based on his opinion and the opinion of others (this is what I take great issue with). I have asked him numerous times to provide appropriate sourcing for his claims, and to try to work towards consensus before making bold edits that contradict relevant guidelines. He has either ignored or changes the subject. I apologize for the fractious nature of this debate, but the bulk of it can be seen on the user's talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page. NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Peter K Burian: Yes, we have been discussing it on my talk page. An example of a post by Nothern Factoid after we had discussed the topic extensively on the Canadian Dollar Talk page: Listen up, you twit! Achieve a consensus before making bold edits—I have asked you repeatedly! Understand this! See the talk page and engage there, amateur! NorthernFactoid 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

UDATE by Peter K Burian:: I have been adding fully substantiated, fully-cited factual information that is highly relevant to a discussion of the Canadian Dollar. I cannot understand how such content can be viewed as "opinions".

e.g. My current edit (if it has not been deleted by someone for the fourth time) includes the following: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid-2014 and was called “the perennial underperformer” by a Bank of America currency strategist in mid-January 2016. (Canadian dollar sinks below 70¢ as oil dips under $30 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/canadian-dollar-flirts-with-70-cent-mark/article28127395/ | Globe and Mail | Toronto)

AND Canada's economy is also based on manufacturing and a low dollar may help to stimulate exports to countries such as the U.S. with strong currencies, but there has not yet been much evidence of this potential benefit. An analysis in the Toronto Star indicates, "it’s unclear whether the low loonie will be able to stimulate the export sector as it has in the past. There has been a fundamental shift in the dynamics of that crucial industry due to the closure of 10,000 export-oriented businesses in the past decade alone." (The dollar closed at 69.71 cents U.S. Wednesday putting pressure on Ottawa to dig deep into its economic stimulus tool kit http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/13/loonie-closes-below-70-cents-us-for-first-time-in-nearly-13-years.html |Toronto Star)Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted (in vain, I fear) to restructure the thread of conversation. I apologize if it now misrepresents who replied to what; feel free to fix indentation as necessary. larryv (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it. larryv (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious WP:EDITWAR at Canadian dollar over the last four days. NorthernFactoid provided sufficient evidence against Peter K Burian but failed to mention their own transgressions:

1. 11 January, 13:06–21:27 UTC
2. 13 January, 10:43–11:32
3. 13 January, 20:50
4. 13 January, 21:10
5. 13 January, 21:18
6. 14 January, 00:38–00:43
7. 14 January, 01:36
8. 14 January, 01:42–01:43

From 13 January onwards, there are ${\binom {7}{3}}=35$ different ways to pick a WP:3RR violation out of this list.

WP:AN/3 isn't about who's right and who's wrong—it's about WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and you've both been extremely disruptive, despite having sufficient experience to know that reverting over and over and over and over is nearly always unacceptable. Both editors blocked – for a period of 3 days. Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked to, and when the block expires, go back to WP:DRN. larryv (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Truthtrue reported by User:Krystaleen (Result: blocked)

Page

Tekken 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Truthtrue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 15:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699420029 by Krystaleen (talk)"
2. 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699776577 by Krystaleen (talk) we don't need to argue"
3. 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699790537 by Krystaleen (talk) The last pronouncement from Harada is the proof. It was discussed one thousand times, you're the only one who have problems about it."
4. 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699953314 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk)"
5. 15:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699965937 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) You reverted without reason, not me"
6. 15:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699966293 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) This article has not changed (for 2 weeks) since you came back creating chaos and YOU are reverting it."
7. 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699967275 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) Yes, we can discuss it, but please, don't revert it again, till a consensus is reached, ok?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[7]

Comments:

Editor has agreed to the edits back in September 2015 on the article's talk page Talk:Tekken 7#Beta game. So this very same issue has been discussed before. In addition, he has done a logged out revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=699814608&oldid=699814524 Krystaleen 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts as well. Your case for a breach hinges on the "logged-out" edit actually being the same IP as User:Truthtrue, and for that you need a Checkuser. Have you made a request for this? And why not just take it to talk and find a consensus? There must be more than the two of you with an interest in the subject. Edit-warring to the brink of 3RR is lame. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I've done 3 reverts, that is not breaking any rule. He's done 4. I haven't made any checkuser request, it's pretty obvious it's him since he did it almost immediately, I mean if it quacks like a duck... and yes it does seem like we're the only 2 people interested in this, as evidenced by the talk page discussion. And that's the problem, we've reached consensus, back in September. Somehow between September and now he decided he didn't like the consensus.

Also, if you read the talk page discussion and his edit summaries, it's clear that this editor probably doesn't know how to read a diff, or if he does certainly he doesn't show it. For some reasons he always think I'm removing content, where the fact is I'm only moving it to the end of the paragraph (and making it more factual by putting "as of" instead of the ambiguous "currently"). This has happened over and over again it gets really old.--Krystaleen 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seconded: Truthtrue just reverted for a fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time, which I've added above. I strongly support that an administrator either fully protect the page or block Truthtrue until the current consensus is accepted. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've invited Truthtrue to self-revert and take the matter to the talk page. They've posted to the talk page, so far. If they self-revert and are willing to engage, they can continue full participation. If they revert beyond this point, then a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours User basically stated his intention to continue the edit war. I've blocked temporarily in the hopes that he'll return to constructive editing after the block. However, if the behaviour were to recur, then a longer-term or indefinite block would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: No action)

Page

Operation Hammer (1997) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Operation Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "This operation is sited as a stratigic turkish victory as they managed to kill many pkk members and also many of their camps/hide outs were destroyed. Not ling after this the pkk had beome less efective then they were before and declared later a ceas f..."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) to 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Once again, those operations are from the turkish perspective. They have been described as succesful operations by the TAF and thus has been resulted as a turkish victory."
   2. 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed decisive part of the victory. The operation had been done succesfully by the TAF and thus it is mentions as a turkish victory. The pkk on the other hand has not given any result about the attack/operation and thus it makes no sense to remove or..."

1. 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[8] [9] [10]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit-warring after previous blocks warnings on various subjects in this area (diffs to follow). Topic ban might be the solution here. Amortias (T)(C) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [11].

Diff of edit-warring / 3RR warning: Simply look at his talk page. It's full of old and recent ones. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded - User has edit-warred a bunch, and lead to PC protections of multiple articles, and might even be puppeting. This is definitely some kind of puppetry on Turkish battle-related articles since there was recently an army of editors on First Anglo-Afghan War. Probably should start a small-scale investigation into it if anybody finds proof connecting accounts except for that fact. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• The diffs provided here don't show a 3RR violation by User:Gala19000. If this is a complaint of long-term edit warring it's too vague. There've been a lot of IPs warring at First Anglo-Afghan War but I don't see a connection to Gala19000. In any case I've semiprotected that article. Unless more details can be given this report may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• I will, have already told the other editer of the article what the reason was for the edit (edit 'war'). Don't realy see how I violated Wiki with those edits as the other edit of the user was unsourced. By the way, I have nothing to do with that Anglo-Afghan war.Gala19000 (talk) 21:10, 13 January

• Result: No action. Some of the edits by User:Gala19000 do raise eyebrows, such as this and this one. They might appear to be POV pushing to make the Turkish side of these battles appear more successful. "For the Turkish side, it was a succesful operation (turkish claim)" appears to be saying that the operation should be reported as a Turkish victory just because the Turks considered it to be so. At the same time, he removes 'Citation needed.' Still, there isn't enough evidence here for an edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:173.217.184.74 reported by User:IronGargoyle (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lola Bunny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.217.184.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Comments:
Editor is making claims that they are removing POV material, otherwise I would simply block for vandalism. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:BethNaught. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:134.226.123.233 reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Normans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 134.226.123.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]; [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

We appear to have a member of the University of Dublin pushing a particular edit; they may be right, they may be wrong, but they're refusing to discuss the change. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for a period of 14 days by JzG (talk · contribs) – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. larryv (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Novoneiro reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 36 hours)

Page

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Novoneiro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information that is related to the topic of the page and therefore is properly sourced."
   2. 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "grammar"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Parapsychological experiments with random event generators */"
   2. 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information related to the topic that is properly sourced and backed by rigorous scientific studies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Repeated edits to three separate articles, in each case introducing poorly-sourced fringe material with multiple editors reverting. DS notice has been issued. At this point the choices are block or arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Swarm ♠ 02:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:192.121.113.96 reported by User:EnigmaLord515 (Result: 48h)

Page

Talk:Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

192.121.113.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700053336 by Beyond My Ken (talk)"
2. 02:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700040807 by Beyond My Ken (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700053872 by 192.121.113.96 (talk) edit warring"

Comments:

Dozens of edit warring violations; discrimination; bullying; multiple violations of Wikipedia; etc. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP editor is the Best known for IP LTA, and has been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidTParchem, User:71.90.71.141, and User:75.135.78.126 reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: Warned)

Page

TNA Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DavidTParchem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.90.71.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)
75.135.78.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016785 by 24.185.202.112"
2. 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016770 by 24.185.202.112"
3. 23:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682816419 by Wrestlinglover"
4. 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683103313 by Wrestlinglover"
5. 06:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684790608 by Wrestlinglover "
6. 23:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686230160 by Wrestlinglover"
7. 01:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575115 by Wrestlinglover"
8. 02:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687513683 by MONGO "
9. 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689196366 by Wrestlinglover"
10. 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691519652 by Wrestlinglover"
11. 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692503716 by Wrestlinglover"
12. 05:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696241216 by Wrestlinglover"
13. 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697395751 by Wrestlinglover"
14. 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by AngeloPerante to last revision by 71.90.71.141"
15. 08:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699104255 by AngeloPerante"
16. 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699116822 by World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[27]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted the article to include information on a non-existent 2015/2016 Genesis event without explanation or sources. When 2015 ended without such an event taking place, the user continued to revert the article to reflect an also non-existent 2016 Genesis event. The entire added "2015"/"2016" section had/has no sources because none exist. The user refuses to respond to several prompts to cite any of the unsourced additions [28]. Both of the IPs that had been adding the section for the non-existent event can also be traced to Saulk County, Wisconsin, likely the same user. After one IP stopped, the second began making the same revisions, followed by the second IP stopping and DavidTParchem continuing the revisions. The second IP user was also warned on its talk page [29]. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Warned on User talk:DavidTParchem, for constantly posting about an upcoming Genesis wrestling event for which no sources exist. If the behavior resumes, let us know. EdJohnston (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Ethnic pornography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36], see also the discussions at ANI and on Rebecca1990's talk page

Comments:Rebecca1990 altered the contents of the Ethnic pornography article in an attempt to gain an advantage in related content disputes involving BLPs. When I reversed her change, pointing out its contradiction of widely accepted usage, use in the specific context of pornography, and the plain meaning of the term "interracial", she blindly reverted multiple times without any substantive discussion. This violates BRD principles, and general guidelines and practice concerning controversial and sensitive matters. Put simply, Rebecca1990 wants Wikipedia's editorial voice to endorse a marketers' misuse of a term with a plain and otherwise uncontroversial meaning, a misusage that has been characterized by her own sources as dishonest and racist, and which has LGBT-phobic elements. I've raised extensive contrary evidence at ANI, but they have continued to blindly revert without substantively addressing the issues. This dispute involves the meaning of statements in various BLPs, and I think my reverts should be protected as BLP enforcement, but that may be controversial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Note Rebecca1990 also reported by the same user for similar behaviour at the Incident noticeboard. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I posted this report because, after I posted to ANI, Rebecca began this series of blind reverts rather than participating in discussion at any appropriate forum. YMMV, but I view this as related to, but separate from, the ANI complaint. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Removal of reliably sourced material is vandalism and that is exactly what you did. Here is what you removed from the article: "Interracial pornography refers to sex scenes featuring a white woman and a black man. Sex scenes featuring performers of different races, none of them being a black male, aren't referred to as interracial. Scenes featuring a black man with a woman who is neither black nor white are also labeled as interracial if the woman has light skin. Pornography featuring black women is categorized as "ebony" instead of interracial." Here are quotes from the cited sources: "If interracial means black guy and white girl in the world of porn, what about scenes between Asians, Latinas, and the rest of the racial rainbow? “In porn, they don’t count it as interracial unless a black man is in it,” says Asian porn star Cindy Starfall. “So, even though for me everyone I work with is interracial because I’ve never had an Asian co-star, it’s not labeled as interracial.”" and "Just as “Creampie” and “MILF” mean something very definite, so too does “IR” porn: it’s invariably a black man and a white woman—or a white enough woman.“When it comes to shooting women performers of color, it depends on what color you are. How racist is that?” Griffith asks. “It doesn’t matter if you’re Asian, or Latina, or Native American, or indigenous to anywhere as long as you’re not dark,” Griffith says, suggesting that porn makes whiteness a capacious term. While Latina, Asian or meso-Caribbean women may be performing in a scene, “inter-racial” never refers to anything but black men and “white” women. Black women, dark skinned or light skinned, as always relegated to the “ebony” category. As elastic as it is toward whiteness, the adult industry can only see one shade of IR." Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your bad faith is evident, Rebecca. Those sources are opinion pieces, and they do not represent the prevailing view in either general or scholarly discussions. Claiming that people who disagree with you in bona fide content disputes is dishonest. And you know, from the responses at ANI, that your position is hardly generally accepted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The one that needs to be blocked here is you, for edit warring and vandalism ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). You can't just go around removing information/sources you just don't like from articles. I've justified all my edits in detail at User talk:Rebecca1990#January 2016. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously two people are editwarring here. But Rebecca1990 needs to read up on the definition of what is and isn't vandalism and when that can be used to justify editwarring.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, REMOVAL, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, ILLEGITIMATELY BLANKING PAGES, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I know what the definition of what is and isn't vandalism. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You very clearly do not. "In a deliberate attempt to damage wikipedia", "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ... "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." IN fact wrongfully accusing someone of vandalism is considered a personal attack and is a sanctionable offense, so stop doing that right now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidents like these two (there's many more I can't specifically remember right now) make it difficult to assume he's doing all this in good-faith. He has a habit of obsessing over something in porn star biography articles, whether it's mentions of webcam modelling as a distinct occupation from pornographic film performing, mentions of being placed on CNBC's list of the year's top 12 porn stars, or mentions of debuts in a porn genre, and illogically objecting to its inclusion in articles. I have remained WP:Civil throughout all of our disputes. He, on the other hand, has told me to "Shut up and go away" and accused me of being a publicist, which I've said a billion times that I'm not. Who you should be scolding for making personal attacks is him, not me. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just another example of the flagrant dishonesty that Rebecca1990 has been allowed to engage in. For example, there is no "CNBC list of the year's top 12 porn stars". There is a nonemployee of CNBC (named Chris Morris, who explicitly says he is a freelance writer, not a CNBC employee[43]) whose posts are hosted (likely as clickbait) on CNBC, but it is grossly inaccurate at best to ascribe those opinions to CNBC. In no other case does Wikipedia say that the opinions of a blogger, stringer, columnist, or even employee belong to their publisher unless the publisher expressly adopts them. The New York Times movie critics publish individual ten best lists each year, we neither Wikipedia nor any honest observer credits those lists to the Times itself. As for Rebecca's self-proclaimed civility, she has been cited by more than one admin for "appalling" bad faith in making groundless accusations of racism in deletion discussions and repeated accusations of dishonesty, without evidence, in other discussions. I believe "Rebecca" is a dishonest editor, but when I make that statement I back it up with credible evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

WHether or not he is treating you with good faith is irrelevant. As long as he is not deliberately trying to damage wikipedia it is not vandalism. And a disagreement over content is never vandalism. Accusing someone of vandalism who is acting with the encyclopedias best interest in mind is not civil. Clearly you are both at fault and are both editwarring, and hence protecting the page was the right choice by the administrator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. Regards, Swarm ♠ 02:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment It's going to start up all over again on Keisha Grey isn't it User talk:Rebecca1990 / User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:77.57.145.121 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: blocked x 2)

Page: Duke University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.57.145.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
Yes, I know there are only three reverts listed above but the trajectory of these events is clear with the editor in question not engaging in any Talk discussions and edit warring with multiple (two) editors despite warnings, pleas, and a Talk page discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor in question recently reverted for the 4th time (which I added to the list above). Contributor321 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Four reverts in 28 hours is practically WP:3RR. larryv (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

After returning from the block, he or she has continued the edit war with the edit summary "You'll get tired before me." Can someone please block this editor for a much, much longer time since it's clear that he or she plans to persist? ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I doubt he'll get tired before me. :-) Katie^talk 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Musdan77 (Result: Page protected)

Page

List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Partial revert of unexplained major removal of sourced content. Find consensus on talk page (WP:BLP)"
3. 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "restoring all removed referenced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson. (TW)"
2. 04:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"
3. 18:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice. (TW)"
4. 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ Heed the warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have tried to reason and work with this editor, but have not received any response or cooperation. Musdan77 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why I should discuss about adding references to the content and sorting out the tables. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected Katie^talk 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:166.77.103.133 reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Tweek x Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

166.77.103.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "(As before, "written by Stephin Merritt" and "performed by Peter Gabriel" - this is an unassailable, proven fact. A user's personal formatting preferences do not trump factual accuracy on Wikipedia. Under no definition is this vandalism.)"
3. 22:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Per other user's edit, song credit goes to Stephin Merritt, performance goes to Peter Gabriel. Expurgating Merritt is misattribution."
4. 23:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 16:08, 29 December 2015. (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Tweek x Craig. (TW)"
2. 17:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC) "December 2015 (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP only user insists on continuously adding writer to a song credit into an infobox, which is not per style. Multiple warnings have been given as well as other reverts without warnings. SanAnMan (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Warned Warning for vandalism (and this isn't vandalism by a long shot) is not the same as warning for 3RR, particularly for a dynamic IP address. Katie^talk 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:189.40.65.135; User:189.40.67.109; User:179.215.244.23; User:191.138.82.238; User:189.40.66.202; User:189.40.64.56; User:189.40.66.106... reported by User:HombreDHojalata (Result: Warning, protection)

Page: Taurino Araujo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ... ... ... 189.40.66.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(cur | prev) 10:25, 16 January 2016‎ 189.40.65.135 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700087709 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:29, 16 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700036484 by 189.40.67.109 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:10, 16 January 2016‎ 189.40.67.109 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700036064 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:06, 16 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700011822 by 179.215.244.23 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:56, 15 January 2016‎ 179.215.244.23 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700008265 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:30, 15 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699883324 by 191.138.82.238 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:46, 15 January 2016‎ 191.138.82.238 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699879208 by HombreDHojalata (talk) WHat you do in pt.wiki is entirely your job, it doent concern other languages wikipdias. As can read in the article, he is honoured) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:12, 15 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699836626 by 189.40.66.202 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:42, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.66.202 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699833004 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:19, 14 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699781371 by 189.40.64.56 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:32, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.64.56 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699780361 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:20, 14 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699775699 by 189.40.66.106 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:35, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.66.106 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699693469 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:58, 13 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (undo)

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

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

Comments:

• Result: Warring about this note isn't covered by any 3RR exception, so both HombreDHoilata and the IPs could have been blocked. I've put a week of protection on the article. Anyone who thinks this article is spam and shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia can follow the steps of WP:AFD. The Portuguese deletion per pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Taurino Araújo isn't binding here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:decline)

Page

Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   2. 02:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* India */"
   3. 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957 */"
   4. 03:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Missing Persons */"
   5. 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Missing Persons */"
   6. 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
   7. 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
   8. 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   2. 13:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   3. 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* India */"
   4. 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   5. 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment - I think this user reverted once (at least in one round of edits), not serious enough to warrant sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Declined, clearly a content dispute which involves several users. The talk page discussion is underway, the user seems to have stopped reverting Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:declined)

Page

Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ rm WP:POV."
   2. 19:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ RM WP:POV"
   3. 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ attribution to source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ again removing POV. Follow WP:BRD, Your all contribution to this article need to be verified."
   2. 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ rv pov"
3. 13:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 700083164 by Human3015: Unexplained changes, again POV pushing. People left India to get better employment opportunity and better education in Pakistan? what next? (TW)"
4. 15:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Kautilya3 (talk): Talk page discussion is going on, this is newly added info, as per BRD other editor is discussing on talk page. (TW)"
5. 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ removed recently added unverified info, seems POV."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• I accept that I broke 3RR. But I tried to resolve matter on talk page. Talk page discussion was started by me. I also gave talkback message on involved editor's talk page if in case he did not get ping. Anyway, I will not do any revert to that article anymore. Rather I will not edit that article at least for next 15 days. Today is 16th January, I will not edit that article for rest of this month. But I will edit talk page of that article if necessary. Thats all I have to say. Thank you. --Human3015 ^{I just called to say I love you}  15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Self-regulation is to be welcomed. However Human3015 doesn't show any recognition of the larger issues. When his revert is reverted, the obligation to discuss as per WP:BRD falls on him. Redoing his revert within seconds without even bothering to check why it has been undone doesn't bode well. He hasn't responded to my comment on the article talk page [52]. He has deleted my 3RR notice posted on his talk page [53]. All this suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

First lets see I get blocked or not, then I will reply on talk page. If I reply on talk page now and then if I get blocked then discussion will remain incomplete. So let this edit warring matter resolves. As far as removing 3rr notice from my talk page is concerned then as per WP:BLANKING I can do that, it is not big issue. I think BRD was applicable on TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs) because his edits were got reverted. Anyway, I have already cleared my stand. I will not edit that article for 15 days or maybe for more period if required. As far as punitive block is concerned, there will not be much use of punitive block. I am participating in WikiCup. My several DYKs are pending, working for one GA and I am close to get my first GA after some more work on article. My block will hamper all this process, thats why I said I will not edit that article for 15 days or more period to avoid my block, I will only focus on my DYKs and GAs for Wikicup, I will not do any edit war anywhere.--Human3015 ^{I just called to say I love you}  17:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

We (the community) have no interest in seeing you blocked. Rather, we are interested to see whether you have learnt from the experience and are willing to alter your behaviour from now onwards. I believe that my revert requires you to look at your own revert critically and discuss the issues on the talk page. The 3RR notice doubly requires you to do that. You seem to be still denying that you have an obligation to do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not denying any discussion, you can see talk page discussion was started by me. I myself invited other editor to discuss his edits. You should have taken part in discussion instead of reverting me. But anyway, as of now I am removing that page from my watchlist. I will be busy next month so I can't tell if I will edit that page next month also. You can discuss those changes with that editor. I believe in your neutrality, I think you can handle those edits. --Human3015 ^{It will rain}  18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Declined, same as the request below Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

User:218.186.55.164 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Semi)

Page

Chou Tzu-yu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

218.186.55.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 12:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
   3. 12:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
   4. 12:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 12:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 12:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   7. 12:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 12:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "controversy"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "music video appearance"
   2. 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 13:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
5. 13:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
6. 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
7. 13:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Music"
   2. 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   4. 13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   5. 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
9. Consecutive edits made from 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   2. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   3. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   4. 13:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music videos */"
   5. 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music Video Appearances */"
   6. 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music Video Appearances */"
10. 13:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Chou Tzu-yu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Think the number of edits probably speak for themselves. But the editwarring has continued even after TP advice, and has turned into outright vandalism now (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chou_Tzu-yu&diff=prev&oldid=700110795). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

As one of the editors who edited against the IP (I noticed this report while seeing if other articles linked to the page in question), I would like to defend the IP. The article was being heavily edited by multiple editors at the same time so there were many edit conflicts. Hence, I do not believe any perceived editwarring was done out of malice, rather, the IP was probably trying to press his/her changes through the edit conflicts. _dk (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

So what you're saying then, is that actually, everyone involved in the article at that time should be dragged here, because of course you should all know that that's not the way to resolve editing disputes, is it...? :D _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, with all due respect, as I said, the fact that this particular editor almost went into a meltdown over it, had vandalizing consequences. Which is a shame. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I mean edit conflict as in what happens when two or more editors try to edit the page at the same time. _dk (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. The 218.* IP who is the target of this complaint has changed the Chou Tzu-Yu article over 40 times and has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Both warned)

Page

Criticism of Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Code16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Drmies said to condense it. You Undid revision 700233905 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
2. 07:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "No consensus was established on you taking out important sections of Hallaq, as far as I remember. Cite where? Undid revision 700230374 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) to 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Undoing some unexplained/unwarranted removal of sourced content by Freeatlastchitchat, from back in Nov 25. Content adds significant details to the subject matter, and we did not approve its removal in that discussion."
   2. 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Authenticity */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is trying to change text which was established through consensus after a very very lengthy TP debate on two separate pages during november. Editor has been told to voice his concerns on TP yet ignores it. He has been told that an uninvolved admin endorsed these changes back in NOvember and consensus was established in which this editor was one of the contributing parties, yet he still wishes to change a version established through consensus. User is already aware that 3PR usually leads to blocks and has been blocked before. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Greetings Dear Admins, I've stated my case on the TP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#Hallaq.27s_condensing), and pinged editors (including a well recognized expert editor) to arbitrate this content dispute. I do not think I went against consensus. I think the other editor overstepped the scope of consensus: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hadith). Also, please notice that user FreeatlastChitchat stopped just short of 3RR and quickly opened this case afterwards, which is a case of gaming the system. This shouldn't be surprising, considering he's been blocked many times before and is constantly involved in edit wars. I request/propose the status-quo remain until other editors can analyze the content dispute and arrive at a decision. cӨde1+6^TP 07:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:FreeatlastChitchat and User:Code16 are warned. Each of you has been blocked plenty of times for edit warring in 2015. If either of you reverts this article again before February 1 without getting a previous explicit consensus for the change (within the last seven days) on the talk page, you may be blocked. Feel free to start RfCs or use other methods of WP:DR to involve more people in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, Understood sir. cӨde1+6^TP 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User:GoalsGalore reported by User:SWASTIK 25 (Result: Both editors blocked on another forum)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: List of top international association football goal scorers by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GoalsGalore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_top_international_association_football_goal_scorers_by_country&action=history Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

The user is continuously reverting my edits without proper reason. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment This can be closed as it ran parallel to the OP's AN/I thread about the same issue and the same editor. They are both now blocked by User:GiantSnowman here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BjörnBergman reported by User:Legacypac (Result:Being dealt with at AE)

Page: Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BjörnBergman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[59] by User:Dolphins1925 and more specifically this section [60] This is the position I have tried to maintain without going past 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts in order:

1. [61] at 13:09, 16 January 2016
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64] at 11:44, 17 January 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification on his 1st revert [65] and on his 2nd revert [66] and Notified of DS [67], then filed a DS Enforcement Request [68], and Notified of that [69]. The user calls these notifications "spam" [70] [71], and spam [72], .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] and at Talk:Zhou_Youguang

Comments:
Each time removing Zhou Youguang from the Oldest people article which is astonishing given he noted Zhou turned 110 here in Zhou's article [74]. I'm placing this here because the edit warring report is best done in the standard format but is related to [75] where I'll put a link back to here. I wish the user would engage in discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Being dealt with at AE Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Indef)

Page

Kensington Runestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gunn Sinclair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed some of the opening comments to better reflect the bias built into the KRS discussion by Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors are right now claiming too much of what needs to be included as fringe, when all it really represents is balance."
2. 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I added Holand's sentiments about what Breda said and did, to add a voice which wholehearted disagreed with Breda's fast and sloppy findings. Holand thought Breda was a fool, so why should Breda's comments stand out as representing academic credibility?"
3. 03:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed the inflammatory and prejudicial term "purported" twice. One definition of "purported" is to "make a pretense," and the Wikipedia entry should not insinuate make-believe, as bias. Also, there is no scholarly consensus as an editor claims."
4. 19:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed the unsourced information about how much was given for the KRS, to a first-person accounting of the person receiving the KRS getting it for nothing. This is direct information from one of the two persons involved in the transaction."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing to edit war after blocked for editwarring, inserting personal commentary into articles, pretty much not there. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – For making legal threats, per this edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ferret reported by User:Kvally (Result:Declined )

Page: Rise of the Tomb Raider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ferret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:49, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Adding second publisher) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   This appears to be the first addition of "Microsoft" as a game publisher or developer, and it's as a developer, by Kvally (apparently Crystal Dynamics helped). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

2. 19:00, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,539 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (→‎Sales: add digital sales note) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
3. 19:03, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-60)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Kvally (talk): Microsoft not a developer. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   First revert by Ferret. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

4. 19:05, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Microsoft is a publisher) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   Kvally adds Microsoft, as a publisher, this time (apparently Square Enix helped). Other than where Microsoft is credited, it's the exact same page as at 18:49. Score one revert for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

5. 19:06, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Kvally (talk): Yes, and that is already noted in the foot note. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   Second revert by Ferret. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

6. 19:07, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Undid revision 700477225 by Ferret (talk) expose, not sub) (undo)

   Kvally adds Microsoft as publisher. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). Score two reverts for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

7. 19:09, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   Footnote added that Microsoft published the Xbone versions of the game. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

8. 19:10, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Kvally (talk): Please stop, use the talk page if you disagree. Microsoft is not a primary publisher and the footnote is enough, per template guidelines. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   Third revert by Ferret. Ferret replaces Square Enix as publisher but leaves the footnote in place. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

9. 19:11, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Undid revision 700477724 by Ferret (talk) Please stop, use the talk page if you disagree.) (undo)

   Microsoft is publisher again. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). Score three reverts for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

10. 19:13, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    Square Enix is now the primary publisher. (Microsoft helped). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:
I haven't done any good research yet, but it really looks to me like Kvally is throwing a boomerang here. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Having done some good research, it looks like my first impression was basically right. I'm throwing a warning on Ferret, but I'm not an admin, so if someone wants to throw blocks around, don't let me stop you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

1. 20:29, 18 January 2016 m (Made changes in error)

Based on this final edit, I'd say it's pretty likely that Kvally is going to stop this disruptive editing. I've thanked him for it and welcomed him to Wikipedia. I think we're done here. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Declined Neither party broke 3RR, discussions were not started. Both editors have been notified what they need to do. Please just hash out on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Page protected)

Page

Riley Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699974888 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) photo is guideline-compliant"
2. 22:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "As I said at User_talk:Rebecca1990#January_2016, an IP/SPA is not a "user" and another user commenting on the formatting is not an endorsement of the image. You've also failed to explain what sources contradict her debut being "Brand New Faces 36"."
3. 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700032875 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
4. 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Her first actual performance should be distinguished from her non-sex work as an extra. These are the type of edits that make it difficult to believe your doing it in good-faith. It is totally unreasonable to oppose mentioning her first scene."
5. 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700156362 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) No, it isn't. Show me where it says she had sexual intercourse prior to "Brand New Faces 36"?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ quit edit warring with each other"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Lead images */ new section"

Comments:

• Reported the both of them. It's strange that the two continue to change the photo while edit warring over other matters. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Rebecca attempted discussion over the photo issue on her talk page.[76] Seems like this is an edit war over several articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It would have been appropriate for you to note, either here or in the section directed at me, that I had also engaged in that discussion. To cite only party's participation in discussion when both actually did is not consistent with an even-handed presentation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then let me note that you engaged in the discussion with histrionic accusations of dishonesty, racism, homophobia,[77][78][79] and maybe pedophilia[80]. You're welcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe I made accurate comments, which are reflected in the sources Rebecca1990 cited. The sources, and related commentary, rather expressly describe the marketing strategy as racist and dishonest. The same strategy dismisses LGBT sex as inconsequential or nonexistent. Those are not positions that Wikipedia's editorisl voice should endorse. As for just what appeal this picture of a 24-year-old woman dressed up as a sexualized middle school girl has, I think that's evident from the image itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours, per a request at WP:RFPP. That was just to stop the warring; I had not seen this report and I have no opinion on any other action that might be taken here. I pinged both editors to the talk page, since I saw that there has so far been no attempt to discuss the issues. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Page protected, will not take further action unless problems persist. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:UuuuuuUV reported by User:Semitransgenic (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Vaporwave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

UuuuuuUV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700315501 by Semitransgenic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Vaporwave. (TW)"
2. 19:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

not a dispute, SPA adding non-WP:RS content, has received multiple warnings.

Comments:

repeat of editing behaviour this user was previously blocked for Semitransgenic _talk. 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:73.178.187.55 reported by User:Glossologist (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Alexander Archipenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.178.187.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]

Persistently making controversial (sometimes outright vandal) edits to Ukraine-related articles without attempting any meaningful discussion. --glossologist (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 22:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Daan0001 reported by User:Vensatry (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Filmfare Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daan0001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:24, January 16, 2016 "Undid revision 700115637 by Vensatry (talk) list them on a talk page or add if he has 5 or more to the list rather removing !"
2. 06:35, January 17, 2016 "Undid revision 700150176 by Vensatry (talk) when did AB received a best negative role award ? Shut your face !"
3. 06:35, January 17, 2016 "Undid revision 700150176 by Vensatry (talk) when did AB received a best negative role award ? Shut your face !"
4. 13:58, January 17, 2016 "happy ?"
5. 19:41, January 17, 2016 "Reverted edits by 172.56.21.40 (talk) to last version by ColRad85" (misuse of rollback)
6. 00:18, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by Vensatry (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)
7. 03:45, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by 208.54.90.228 (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)
8. 12:52, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by 63.143.230.98 (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Daan0001 (issued one in the past, although not specifically connected to this dispute. But his talk page suggests he has conveniently ignored those warnings.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried this technique in the past (per above), but proved to be of no use.

Comments:
The user seems to have some problem with me. It's evident from his talk page warnings, which were issued by multiple uers. Firstly, a user came up with this edit. Since the claim wasn't an exceptional one and was not backed up by reliable sources, I was against the addition. For no reason, Daan0001 came up with a personal attack on my talk page. When Kailash29792 warned him for his behaviour on his talk page, this was his response. Further, he justified his own actions saying that it shall not be deemed as a personal attack. Since his edits were challenging the status quo, I believe he had the responsibility to initiate a talk page discussion. He has made eight reverts (including four unwarranted rollbacks). He has clearly misused his rollback privileges. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was bought here by a user as result of some opinion on page Filmfare Awards. I still stand by my opinion that Priyanka Chopra deserve to be on the Records for winning 5 filmfare awards in 5 different categories as a female actor for her versatility, where as the users point was Bachchan has more Filmfare awards yes that might be right but most of them awards are for his fame rather the award has been awarded to him to appreciate his acting skills e.g. Filmfare Power award - given for fame in Bollywood. - Correct me if I'm wrong?

And I have asked the user to start a talk before reverting but no kept on edit warring with me. Am i the only one to blame here? Why couldn't the user talk before removing content with reliable source? Me having a problem with the user? Please I hardly know it. The user has a problem and it's its duty to deal with it when I said happy to talk?? Daan0001 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Swarm ♠ 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Skyring reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page1: Emma-Jayne Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 14 January 2016‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:35, 17 January 2016‎
2. 08:52, 18 January 2016‎

Page2: Clark Shaughnessy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: 15:36, 14 January 2016‎

1. 09:11, 18 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute:

1. 22:32, 14 January 2016 Notification of discussion at WT:MOS
2. 04:57, 17 January 2016 Discussion of their resumed reverts

Comments:
Skring has been mass-removing the word winningest from articles without consensus. They were notified of a discussion on the use of the word at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (see notification above at 22:32 14 January 14). When asked by Cbl62 if they would stop the reverts while the MOS discussion was outstanding, Skring responded at 22:47, 14 January that they "haven't made any such edits since reading the formal notice of the discussion"[86]. However, edits since 14 January (above) demonstrate that they were disingenuous, and have resumed the mass-removal without consensus.

For additional examples of the mass removal of winningest before the MOS discussion, see many of their contributions—marked as minor without an edit summary—before 16:07, 14 January 2016[87]

Looking at their lengthy block log, they have a troubling history of warring and general disruptive editing, which can only serve to drive away productive editors.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• After looking everything over I agree with that assessment of the situation. It's a topic for discussion and it's being discussed; regardless of how you feel about the matter it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus. Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Swarm ♠ 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Page protected)

Page

Riley Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "consensus and guideline-compliant version"
   2. 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "remove purposely inserted falsehood from BLP"
2. 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "as before, BLP violation, contradicted by other sources, overriding majority of users who expressed view on image"
3. 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "as before, and IP opinions are no less valid that likely paid editors; Undid revision 700028379 by Rebecca1990 (talk)"
4. 14:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "BLP violation, deliberate insertion of false statement, expressly contradicted by prior reference; Undid revision 700033178 by Rebecca1990 (talk)"
5. 19:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "It's still false and contracted by multiple sources, even if we accept your Bill Clintonesque definitions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Riley Reid */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Lead images */ new section"

Comments:

• It's bizarre that they continue to change the photo while edit warring over other matters that may be covered by BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

1)I've explicitly claimed this is a BLP violation (purposeful insertion of false/promotional content into a BLP) and therefore claim exemption from 3RR limits; and

2)I did not breach 3RR, but halted after my third revert within 24 hours, even though the fourth revert would have fallen within the exemption No, I screwed up. I simply miscounted. I did not intend to formally breach 3RR, despite claiming the BLP exemption, and apologize for my good faith error. I've been editing regularly since since 2008 and haven't made that mistake before.(more to follow) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot hide behind a BLP exemption with the photo edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not hiding behind anything. You've been an admin for years; you know perfectly well that there's no rule that, when reverting a complex edit involving a clear BLP violation, a simple revert isn't OK. I've been involved in disputes over that exact point before, and the consensus has been that, as long as the BLP claim wasn't a pretext, the exemption is legit. If we change that rule, the change shouldn't be retroactive. I've never seen a case where an otherwise legitimate BLP exemption claim was disallowed on this basis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You're an experienced editor. It's not that complex to separate the two issues and remove the BLP problem rather than hit the undo button to revert. You two have been edit warring over the image since at least November 7.[88]. That's enough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours, per a request at WP:RFPP. That was just to stop the warring; I had not seen this report and I have no opinion on any other action that might be taken here. I pinged both editors to the talk page, since I saw that there has so far been no attempt to discuss the issues. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• OK. The basic issue here is straightforward. I have repeatedly removed a demonstrably, indisputably false statement from the BLP of a porn performer. Rebecca1990 has repeatedly reinstated it. Rebecca1990 was familiar with sources demonstrating the falsity of the statement, and has removed sources documenting the falsity of the statement from the article.

The statement at issue: That article subject Riley Reid made her first porn performance/on-screen sexual intercourse in a video called "Brand New Faces 36: Natural Newbies Edition". The claim is sourced to a piece posted on avn.com, which includes substantial text cobbled from a press release from the video's producer, including the statement that the performers in the video "girls as they are about to have sex on camera for the very first time".

Why the statement is false: Because the article subject, under her original stage name, Paige Riley, had been performing in porn videos for six months to a year before she performed in "Brand New Faces". Riley said so, both in a source remaining in the article [89] and the source Rebecca1990 removed from the article in September [90] (a page on the subject's official website). (Warning: these links, like most of those I need to mention in this discussion, are very, very NSFW and often quite sexually explicit.) Because of what are usually referred to as 2257 regulations, it is often possible to identify the exact date of production in each scene in a pornographic release. Riley Reid's scene in "Brand New Faces" was recorded/produced on August 8, 2011.([91], extremely NSFW) Based on Riley's account of her career, it is rather easy to find earlier performances. Two examples will suffice. These links go to online trailers for porn videos, and are extremely sexually explicit. Good Golly Molly, placed online April 12, 2011; production date February 8, 2011. Perfect Mix!, placed online March 22, 2011; production date March 19, 2011. There's also a release called "Real Slut Party" released June 14, 2011; while I don't have a production date, it was obviously produced before it was released. Reid said her first appearance in a lead role was in a web series called "College Rules" which doesn't seem to be online right now, but which showed up on a porn message board in March 2011, so it was obviously released by then. There are nearly 20 2011 releases listed for Riley at IAFD, which doesn't provide production dates, but some of those are also likely to predate her faux "debut". (more info coming) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent article history. As of September 1, 2015[92], the article incorrectly stated that Reid's first video was "Brand New Faces". On September 7, an IP made a series of edits which 1) stated that Riley's initial stage name was in fact her birth name, as widely reported on the Internet, but not verified by any reliable source; and 2) accurately identified Riley's first scene as occurring in "College Rules", with reliable sourcing (although it did confuse the (related) web and film series). Five minutes later, without any explanation, edit summary, or talk page comment, Rebecca1990 removed both the accurate statements about Riley's first scene and the unverified statement about her real name. And, since then, Rebecca, having removed the relevant sourcing, has vigorously opposed/reverted efforts to correct the article's inaccurate claims. (yet more coming)

Why this is a significant matter. Because the validity of industry PR sources, under WP:BLP and WP:RS, has been extensively debated. In no other field are biographies predominantly sourced to arguably promotional content in trade publications that are components of promotional/PR businesses. The extent to which these sources actually meet WP:RS, especially in the BLP context, is seriously doubted by a significant number of experienced users. This case presents a paradigmatic example of why AVN.com sourcing is unreliable: the source is predominantly based on PR material, it contains objectively false statements, and it undermines the essential claim that AVN.com satisfies the requirement that sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (Note that AVN.com is substantially different from the print magazine: the great majority of its "editorial"/"news" content amounts to press releases and PR copy posted on behalf of the site's advertisers/clients, or transparently retouched PR copy dressed up as articles without even minimal factchecking. That is not journalism.

And, therefore, this is a substantial BLP issue. While the most common BLP issues involve poorly sourced, unfavorable content, the WMF resolution which our BLP policy implements cites first in its lists of problematic editing practices "articles that are overly promotional". What was going on here was the use of Wikipedia to further dishonest marketing of a porn performer. "Paige Riley" was a not-overly-successful performer in low-rent, low-prestige web pornography. She got a new agent, who changed her stage name and fictionalized her biography in order to obscure the fact her early performances were widely available, making her more marketable. Who created the "Riley Reid" article? Rebecca 1990 [93]. Who added the false claim to this BLP? Rebecca1990.[94] Who has edit warred extensively to remove accurate content and preserve false, promotional statements. As shown below, Rebecca1990. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How BLP has operated, and should operate. WP:BLP, which is, of course, policy, states that "Contentious material about living persons . . . that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). The content involved was clearly contentious; it had been reasonably challenged in good faith by two different editors, and it contradicted statements by the article subject herself in sources that were (or had been) included in the article. It was poorly sourced, based only on a source that was clearly promotional in tone and incorporated PR copy; the use of similar sources from adult industry trade publicationss has been challenged repeatedly for failing RS/BLP standards, and even WP:Wikiproject Pornography cautions that AVN.com "does not indicate when an article is a press release".

BLP policy (specifically linked at WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE), provides that material removed "on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." And "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material". Arbcom declared by motion in 2010 that "the policy on biographies of living people, and this Committee's ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case, call for the removal of poorly sourced and controversial content, and places the burden of demonstrating compliance on those who wish to see the content included". Practice has been that when material has been removed from articles due to reasonable, good faith BLP objections, the material is not to be restored absent discussion and appropriate consensus. While part of the community prefers to apply the WP:BRD essay's approach, BLP policy remains unchanged, and its principles, particularly those cited above, remain in effect and govern disputes like this.

I have made comprehensive, reasonable, good faith efforts to comply with and to enforce applicable BLP policy. In contrast, Rebecca1990 simply defies it. She has repeatedly restored contentious content to BLPs, both in this and in other cases, without even the pretense of an attempt to achieve consensus. Their final edit summary before this report was filed, "Show me where it says . . ." rejects the policy requirement that the burden of proof rests on the editor(s) wishing to retain disputed material. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected; I'm fine with this solution and according to a previously uninvolved, third party editor, this was a misunderstanding over sources. If you are still contesting this information, please resort to discussion as you cannot simply disrupt an article while shouting "BLP". The information was sourced and apparently added in good faith therefore the BLP defense is not a given, if you're contesting the reliability of the sources you need to make your case in the proper dispute resolution forums, not here. This is still fundamentally a collaborative project and you're responsible for communicating with people you're in disputes with. Ping me if there are further issues. Swarm ♠ 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course there's a problem. You're unilaterally rewriting BLP to place the burden of proof on the editor who challenges material, giving the editor who unquestionably violated 3RR without providing any explanation or justification a free pass, and lecturing the editor who fully participated in discussion. And you've justified this by citing some unexplained "misunderstanding over sources" claim from an anonymous editor you won't even provide the courtesy of pointing to. "Good faith is not a justification for reusing to comply with BLP policy. Whyh don't you explain which policies justify your "solution" instead of just wagging your finger. Siding against the editor who criticizes admins more frequently is not the behavior that should be expected of admins here, although it's often a good predictor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dawnseeker2000 reported by User:Wykx (Result: Warnings, protection)

Page: List of earthquakes in 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:53, 18 January 2016 - (I know we didn't go over how to use the different USGS products in any detail, but use the value that is the most appropriate. Selecting DYFI on this one makes little sense. Shakemap aligns better – see talk for more on this specific case)
2. 16:17, 18 January 2016 - (Reverted 1 edit by Wykx (talk) to last revision by Dawnseeker2000. (TW))
3. 22:45, 18 January 2016 - (Undid revision 700508042 by Wykx (talk) – No)
4. 23:04, 18 January 2016 - m (Reverted edits by Wykx (talk) to last version by Dawnseeker2000)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:29, 18 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_2016#DYFI_for_the_Northeast_India_event
2. Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_2016#Mercalli_intensity_relevance
3. Talk:List_of_earthquakes_in_2016#RfC:_Should_Mercalli_intensity_be_indicated.3F

Comments: Although starting two discussions and one RfC, the user has recurring personal attacks as well as edit warrings. Attacks were done also on my user page User_talk:Wykx#Good_morning_Wykx.21

Wykx 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've been typing for the last few hours, defending WP against Wykx, who is not cut out for creating an encyclopedia. For my take on the issue, please see the talk page at List of earthquakes in 2016. There are a few paragraphs there under the RfC section that support my position. A couple things that I wanted to say here though: 1) I understand that all this back-and-forth is not productive and is discouraged and 2) There is another editor that works on the 2016 list that has a better understanding and is helping in fine style [96] Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 23:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment from uninvolved non-admin. @Wykx:, you should be aware that a "Notice of AN3 discussion" isn't the "warning" that they're looking for. A warning is ineffective if you've already fired the missiles. This page isn't about punishing people who have done it wrong, it's about getting people to stop who won't listen without being blocked. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. The correct link is there: [97] in the accompanying text of the diff Please wait for the RfC result before inputing information that are not aligned with USGS maximum Mercalli intensity information. Wykx 14:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Wykx: If the worst "personal attack" you can come up with is this:

"I seriously have to consider that you really should not be editing WP at all. That's how bad you are, and you're really not helping here."

then I'd have to agree with him. If you edit Wikipedia for any length of time, you should expect to get much more serious personal attacks. It's not okay, but it does happen, and you'll need thicker skin. Also, it really doesn't qualify as a "personal attack" when you post unintelligible blocks of text, refuse to answer queries, and insist on reinventing the wheel when this is not exactly the first time this has been done here. If you had good reasons to reinvent the wheel then I'd look at it, but it really seems to me like you don't. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 00:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The second example is on User_talk:Wykx#Good_morning_Wykx.21 Yeah, that's the problem. You don't understand. Your work here is not good and your English is lacking to the point that it would probably help the English Wikipedia if you'd just stay away. Finally, I'm sorry but I have not understood your claim You refuse to answer queries, and insist on reinventing the wheel. I have answered to all queries and I don't know on which point I reinvent the wheel. I'm open to improve and recognize any example provided. Wykx 14:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

However, @Dawnseeker2000:, when cases like this come up, it can be better to go to RfC or even Third Opinion to get additional feedback. Or the WikiProject page for the article in question. All of these are better than reverting edits made in good faith, even if they are plain wrong. We'll get the errors fixed before deadline. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 01:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I understand. I'm very active with WP:Earthquakes & initiated a discussion there in late November. Dawnseeker2000 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe this report should be Declined. (statement from uninvolved non-admin) J^♯m (talk | contribs) 00:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Dawnseeker2000 and User:Wykx are warned against further reverts about the Mercalli intensity of earthquakes, unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. The article is fully protected for five days. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledged and understood. Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 19:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User:50.185.134.48 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

Page

Constantine XI Palaiologos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

50.185.134.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) to 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I'm accused of fabricating this claim, so I removed it. Why add it back?"
   2. 22:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "if Leonard and Barbaro had biases, then their bias can be stated"
2. 20:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "a different wording for Leonard's account of his death"
3. 22:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "you wanted a citation and I added one. now get off my case"
4. 10:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700240297 by Dr.K. (talk) sources are quite clearly given"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Constantine XI Palaiologos. (TW★TW)"
2. 16:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Constantine XI Palaiologos. (TW★TW)"
3. 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Constantine XI Palaiologos. (TW★TW)"
4. 23:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Constantine XI Palaiologos. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring by IP adding original research from primary sources */ce"

Comments:

Disruptive editing by IP adding original research from primary sources. Will not stop. Dr. K. 23:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty slick that Dr.K. lists two edits where I'm either removing the disputed text or rewording it in response to criticism ("a different wording" and "I'm accused") as evidence of my "warring." Pretty slick. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:156.12.250.224 reported by User:Ilovechristianmusic (Result: )

Page

List of 2016 albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

156.12.250.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Unscheduled and TBA */Let me be more clear: if you cannot find a reference that states the album will be released in 2916, you cannot add it. All of those references say it will "most likely" be out by this year. But people also said Rihanna's album..."
2. 02:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Unscheduled and TBA */That reference does not say that the album will be released this year. It says it probably will, but that's not good enough. Please do not add it again."
3. 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Unscheduled and TBA */Neither of those have been confirmed to be released this year."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of 2016 albums. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) */ new section"

Comments:

IP is showing ownership over article, and is making WP:NOEDIT orders. They've been explained to why it should be the album should remain in Unscheduled and TBA, but they continue reverting, saying "There is no confirmed release date", even though the artist herself said she hopes for it to be released in February or March 2016. ilovechristianmusic ^{(Tell Me Something!)} 22:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

User:79.167.164.4 reported by User:Gtrbolivar (Result: Semi)

Page

Olympiacos B.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.167.164.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [98]
2. [99] "/*2001-02, 2002-03 in Euroleague & 1979-80 in Korac Cup, Olympiacos B.C. reached the top 16 not the quarterfinal stage."
3. [100] "/*the personal assessments do not have any value. Officialy in accordance with FIBA and ULEB, these seasons, Olympiacos B.C. reached the top 16)."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [101]"Unexplained removal of content (HG) (3.1.18)" by Jim1138
2. [102]"This matter has already been discussed extensively(...)" by Gtrbolivar

Comments:

This IP (and in the past the same person under different ips) has a fixation with this particular matter. The matter has been discussed and explained extensively in the past, but every now and then (when the article protection expires) this ip user returns with the same old edit. I've already asked for article protection, which expired on 25 December 2015. After the 25th of December all sorts of vandalism takes place in this article, from numerous ip users. Thank you for your attention. Gtrbolivar (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected indef due to long-term disruption. The latest warrior is an IP-hopper. For the problems over the years, see the protection log. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:70.51.44.60 reported by User:91.223.82.42 (Result: Malformed report)

Page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject iOS (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.51.44.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: Although starting two discussions and one RfC, the user has recurring personal attacks as well as edit warrings. Attacks were done also on my user page. 91.223.82.42 (talk) 09:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Malformed report. See the instructions at the top of this page. Supply diffs to show what you consider to be examples of edit warring. I don't see any personal attacks. You don't even *have* a user page or user talk page. Your edit summary for this move closure is "70.51.44.60 Sucks". Are you sure this complaint is about the right person? EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700826863 by JDC808 (talk)if you can cite OWN, then you can read WP:BRD. stop edit warring and discuss your edit on the talk page"
2. 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700825944 by Muboshgu (talk)um yeah... per WP:BRD, it does."
3. 21:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700824998 by JDC808 (talk)per WP:BRD, take it to the talk page"
4. 21:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700824389 by Favre1fan93 (talk)per WP:BRD (another guideline), I reverted and started a talk page discussion. Now stop edit warring and go discuss"
5. 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700822222 by Favre1fan93 (talk)again... see talk"
6. 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700817674 by KungAvSand (talk)you sure? dec 15, 2019 is a sunday..."
7. 19:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700779245 by JDC808 (talk)unexplained and unneeded chnage"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Editor warned here[103] and here[104], deleted, so read them. - deleted well after I responded to both here and the talk page - ^theWOLFchild 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply" - "attempted to resolve" only mere minutes before posting here at an:ew. no time for me to even respond, let alone "resolve". - ^theWOLFchild 22:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and reverting multiple editors.

Scr★pIronIV 21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, edits #4 & #5, as well as #6 are for separate edits/issues with different editors and are not in dispute. (I have to question why Scrapiron feels the need to add extra padding here.) As for the main issue, as soon as it was pointed out that I might be at 4RR, I immediately stopped. I went to the talk page and stated I would make no further reverts to the edit in question. At this point, I am still the only involved editor that has gone to the talk page to discuss this.- ^theWOLFchild 21:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No. #4, #5 AND, #6 are for another issue... That's one 3RR and another 4RR. Editor is very dismissive of other editors' opinions on the talk page. Suggest perhaps limit editor to 1RR for a limited period.

Edit: Also Suggest banning the user from deleting other peoples posts from his talk page, as Thewolfchlild seems to be doing so routinely as an effort to hide his/her antagonistic behaviour.

I mean the arrogance of someone that routinely deletes warnings from other users that they are breaking the 3RR and edit warring while saying "Stay off my talk page", and "go away. do not post to my talk again" seriously... wtf man? [[105]], [[106]] [[107]] [[108]] i mean, you do know what a talk page is for, right?  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  00:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Surprising to see WolfChild here. Next week's inevitable breaking news is that there will be at least one day next week that has a "y" in its spelling! Cassianto^Talk 00:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

LOL! This is like, my 2nd time here at 3RR, ever. But, it's always good to hear from you Cass. When I see the countless times you've been reported here, it really puts things in perspective. I feel better now. Thanks! - ^theWOLFchild 02:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be 4RR for one issue, and 3RR on another issue on the same page in the same time frame. That's not "padding" - it is indicative of the mindset, and intention of preventing others from contributing. For all the time this editors edit summaries said to take it to the talk page, they did not show up there until after being reported. Scr★pIron^IV 13:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There look to be seven reverts by User:Thewolfchild on January 20, which breaks WP:3RR. In my opinion, Thewolfchild can avoid a block if they will agree to take a two-week break from all Star Wars-related editing on Wikipedia, both articles and talk pages. They've been blocked many times in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring and other issues. I suggest a week's block. The proposal above seems unduly lenient, but I won't outright oppose it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

A further look convinces me you may be correct. The discussion at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens#Edit warring doesn't reflect well on this editor. Thewolfchild thinks that the people who disagree with him are 'destroying the very fabric of Wikipedia as we know it.' No objection to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not edited there since yesterday. After the 4RR was brought to my attention, I immediately committed to stop reverting, both here and the talk page, and have reverted anything there since. Any block now would only be punitive and unnecessary. Considering my recent criticisms of MSGJ, his suggestion is highly involved. EdJohnstong, you completely misconstrue my "fabric" comment. Should I have reverted that many times? No... but I don't habitually edit-war on this project. If you look at all the edits that took place, I was addressing multiple issues with multiple editors. This second 3RR isn't technically so, but I take the point. I was addressing an issue with the lead, I found a solution that both conforms to policy and appears to have been accepted by the community. There were no complaints filed by the other editors there. As for this issue, please remember the saying, it takes two to tango. Other editors were in breach of policy, and made multiple reverts to the same edit as well. The only reason they didn't hit 4RR is they had the benefit of tag-teaming. To be fair, they started it. An editor made a bold change, I reverted. It should have gone to the talk page. It didn't, and you can see from there edit summaries that they refused to go to the talk page. After this report was filed, they finally started posting to talk, but even then continued to complain about the revets (even they were doing the same thing) instead of discussing the edit. Any comment I made was met with constant accusations of OWN and IDLI. For the admins looking in on this now, I suggest everyone involved, JDC808, Muboshgu and Scrapiron, be reminded to adhere to the policies of the project. For my part, while I don't think a 2-week page ban is necessary, I will commit to 1RR for that time and to be more collegial in my interactions. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Given your history of edit warring I don't think it would be punitive. The blocking policy includes to encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms among the list of preventative uses of blocking. I think that you knew full well not to edit war when you did it and you have only stopped to avoid a block. I think you will edit war again in the future if you think you can get away with it. A block now would help prevent you from thinking you can get away with it. I support a block at least as long as their longest prior edit warring block which I believe was 48 hours. I will however leave this to MSGJ to decide. HighInBC 19:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've already committed to be more collegial (or "congenial and productive" as you put it). acknowledged that 4RR was wrong and to even go 1RR for the next couple weeks. I still haven't edited the TFA article or talk page, and have removed it from my watchlist. There is no disruption to prevent here, so a block this much later after the incident and all this communication would be punitive and certainly unnecessary. - ^theWOLFchild 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My only edit to that article was on 16 January, and entirely unrelated. Don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS - you are just clouding the issue. The article was on my watchpage, and I saw the trouble being caused. Hence the report. Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• This was a clear and outright 3RR vio. There is strong support for a block from the administrators who have commented here. The user has attempted to promise to control their behavior and has proposed a compromise to avoid a block. While normally good faith efforts such as these may be viewed positively by administrators as mitigating factors, doubt has been raised as to whether these are actually good faith amends or whether this user's word should be even be trusted. When looking at the context, Thewolfchild surely must have known they surpassed 3RR. If they didn't, they received multiple messages warning them or encouraging them to self-revert. The messages were perfectly legitimate, but rather than self-reverting or making good faith efforts to rectify the problem then, they responded by deleting the messages and banning the posters from their talk page. "Banning" users who merely issue legitimate warnings is unacceptable behavior and casts major doubts as to their good faith here. Given the context of their previous lack of good faith and their significant history of disruptive and belligerent behavior (that is clearly still being displayed), I think it's too late for them to play the "reasonable" card and their defense here seems like more of an attempt to talk their way out of a clearly-justified block, rather than a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Based on that and the input above, Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Regards, Swarm ♠ 21:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Barthateslisa reported by User:Sitush (Result: Page protected)

Page: Chitpavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barthateslisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110] (obviously the same conbributor, given the timing vis-a-vis the opening of the talk page discussion - someone may want to revdel)
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113] (not a full revert but in defiance of the ongoing discussion and designed to achieve the same effect on content)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Chitpavan#Jewish_origin_fringe_theories

Comments:

• No 3RR violation but Page protected for one week. Please pursue dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 21:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Eurocentral reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Page protected)

Page: Battle of Kerlés (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eurocentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] (The infobox is the subject of the debate)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120]
7. [121] (as an IP editor)
8. [122]
9. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit summary: [124]; talk page: [125], [126], [127], [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134]

The subject of the debate is only a piece of information in the infobox, because this version ([135]) seems to be accepted for the lead and the body of the article. However, I think that OR cannot be presented in the infobox and the third opinion ([136]) seems to strengthen my view. Borsoka (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Clearly a content dispute hinging on the sources available so I see no downside to giving you both a couple of weeks to seek clarification and, if necessary, form a consensus through dispute resolution. Page protected for two weeks. Regards, Swarm ♠ 21:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Eurocentral (Result: Page protected)

Page: Battle of Kerlés (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borsoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The infobox is the subject of the debate

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&diff=699328477&oldid=699327131
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&diff=700778119&oldid=699328477
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&diff=700778119&oldid=699622950
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&diff=700778119&oldid=700003569
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&diff=700778119&oldid=700771492

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and especially in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Kerl%C3%A9s&action=edit&section=3 User Borsoka denies the existence of a reference of Spinei starting an original research. The necessary references were presented but were ignored and partially denied. An old medieval chronicle cited by Spinei was totally ignored. Eurocentral (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Eurocentral (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not deny it and the medieval chronicle was not ignored - it is explicitly mentioned in the article (under the subtitle "Battle"). You obviously do not remember this edit ([137]). Furthermore, you have been unable to cite a simple text substantiating your own claim ([138], [139]). Borsoka (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This shows Borsoka deliberated actions against Romanian historians.

Eurocentral (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected--see above. Swarm ♠ 21:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:Sammy1339 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Taharrush gamea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "/* top */ Source does not even reference the term "Taharrush gamea". Removed per WP:SYNTH"
2. 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Sammy1339 (talk): Undo blanket revert. (TW)"
3. 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Sammy1339 (talk): Blanket revert without explanation. (TW)"
4. 20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Europe */ remove false statement. "Taharrush gamea" is not a single word, and it exists in English as "mass sexual assaults""
5. 23:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 700995531 by Al-Andalusi (talk): Undo blanket revert that removed multiple tags. Issues not resolved on talk page. (TW)"
6. 23:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by SlimVirgin (talk): There are sections on the talk page that you are yet to address. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Taharrush gamea. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Revisions to lede by Al-Andalusi */ new section"
2. 21:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Revisions to lede by Al-Andalusi */"

Comments:

This user has the attitude that Taharrush as defined in this article is not really "a thing". He is trying to remove references that discuss it by claiming that since they do not use exactly the same terminology, they are not about the same subject. The sources are very clear that "Taharrush" and "Taharrush gamea", in context, refer to the same phenomenon. Sammy1339 (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your report here is as misleading as the article you are defending. On one hand, you claim that the 1:18pm edit is a revert (it's not), and on the other, completely hide the fact that there were 4 edits made by me earlier to the 1:18pm edit where I tagged certain sentences for citing an unreliable reference, failed verification, OR/synthesis, and a by whom tag. The fact that you went ahead and reverted all 5 changes together (1:18pm edit + the 4 earlier tag edits) in a single blanket revert (here and then here and here), without addressing the tag issues was provocative. Per WP:NPOV dispute: "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." Furthermore, I did reply to your comment on the talk page, and went ahead and created new sections for each concern behind the tags: Talk:Taharrush gamea#"gender group harassment", Talk:Taharrush gamea#Jadaliyya reference, Talk:Taharrush gamea#Often known simply as taharrush, Talk:Taharrush gamea#Quilliam's quote. However, neither you or user SlimVirgin have made an effort to discuss before blanket reverting. What is the purpose of the tags if both of you are taking things personally? If the term "Taharrush gamea" is "thoroughly established" by the sources as you wishfully claim, then you wouldn't have been so personally threatened about some editor tagging the article in questionable places.

As for the claim that I have an attitude towards the article's claim. Believe it or not, I do not consider translating "mass sexual assaults" into Arabic, and creating an article out of it makes it an "Arab" phenomenon. The fact that the article relies heavily on recent reports from the German media for insights on Arab/Muslim countries should have been questionable to you. I don't consider myself to be that gullible to fall for it. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

As you indicate, your objections are rooted in the perception that Taharrush, Taharrush gamea, and other variations do not really describe a single phenomenon. The AfD established that they do. You raised a lot of specific questions about words with dizzying rapidity but didn't really address this main point; moreover, you refused to follow BRD and leave the stable version while discussing. Littering the page with dispute tags does not help. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite false. I wrote on the talk page in response: "All I see in the sources are instances and discussions on sexual assaults that have been misused in an effort to characterize this as a "cultural" problem." While I agree that taharrush means sexual assaults, extending that Arabic term however to claim that it describes a uniquely an Arab "phenomenon" is not something backed by the cited references. You insist that, the mere presence of the word taharrush (i.e. sexual assaults) in a reference gives you the green light to make all sorts of claims of a "cultural phenomenon", and one that is unique to Egypt/Arab countries. This is where I tag the cited reference for WP:SYNTH. AfD did not establish anything, unless you believe that the majority is always right. In any case, there is no excuse for removing the tags. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. The editor has responded but seems unaware that breaking 3RR is frowned upon, regardless of the quality of your arguments. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ghost of hugh glass reported by User:96.253.53.16 (Result: )

Page: Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ghost of hugh glass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]
5. [144]Not a self revert, as they decided to revert more than before and after the page was protected

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]First notice

[146]2nd notice after 5th revert

Comments:

From edit summaries and comments, clear POV pushing driven edit warring.96.253.53.16 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• My edit summary on the last revert explains the situation: "this is effectively a self revert. i did not understand how 3rr worked. sorry". when i made the 4th revert i didn't understand the rule (i thought it was per edit, not per article). it was explained to me on my talk page and before i had a chance to revert myself, the IP here started engaging in an edit war and the page was protected. the last edit was him reverting to how it was on my last revert. so, in good faith i effectively reverted myself and publicly apologized for my mistake. it was a near certainty he was getting reverted anyway. in any event, i wont be reverting again. i understand the rule now. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Apologized" by accusing the editor that warned you of being a POV pusher along with the fact that a basic review of your contributions involves calling multiple editors POV pushers and trolls. [147][148][149] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.53.16 (talk) 06:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Also this trolling in response to the report: [150][151]"The most specialist kind of special" 96.253.53.16 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that the fifth diff is effectively a self-revert (an attempt to undo the fourth revert), this isn't a violation of 3RR at all. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The 4th revert was long passed and the page protected. I considered it a revert of my edit and asked them to self revert and they did not. I must also ask if harassment is considered here or must I file another complaint given their behavior. Using special ed as an insult is egregious 96.253.53.16 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a violation. Should close with no action. --DHeyward (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• 5 reverts is not a violation? 96.253.53.16 (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nope [152] shows the self-revert and that he added the tags back in. He indicated he didn't know how 3RR worked and when he learned he undid all the edits. He now has only 3 reverts. However,I must say that when the page was semi-protected, the edit warring stopped. Coincidence IP? --DHeyward (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• He reverted me not himself. Also pretty much, since I actually care about 3RR. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• The IP is the disruptive force, and the semi-protection I placed has stopped the disruption. If the IP keeps agitating to block good-faith editors they may find themselves blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Please tell me how they were acting in good faith while they continue to use personal attacks and accuse anyone who decides to argue with them as being a POV pusher. 96.253.53.16 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jobas reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Xtremedood warned)

Page

Mia Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of converts to Christianity from Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and comment about the diffs

For the first article, we had this dispute a long time ago and it was agreed upon to include her religious affiliation on the infobox, the discussion may be seen here [158]. The article remained like this for several months, however, the same user user:Jobas has made significant changes to it and I informed him here [159] that he needs consensus to make such a significant change, when I said "Read the consensus on the discussion page. You need consensus to change this. She identifies as such, as indicated from twitter. Non-practicing is already mentioned in the description.", however, he still reverted it after this.

For the second article, we have a discussion going on over here [160], however, he made the reverts before ever engaging in any discussion here, even when I explained it to him over here [161] when I said "Unexplained revision, we have a discussion going on, feel free to join in". He made a revision after this, without properly explaining it again. Several minutes later, however, he made a small message on the discussion, but made the changes before consensus. Xtremedood (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

As explained above, I have tried to reach out to him to properly get consensus before making such radical changes on the first article, as well as for the second article to try and resolve this by discussing it, however, I have not seen such an attempt as of now. Xtremedood (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the user:Xtremedood is sock puppet of User:Calm321 a user who tried befor for several times to push his edit as here here.

For the other list you removed the edit while the discussion still on.--Jobas (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion as of 15:10 on Jan 23 when you made your most recent revision had concluded with 2 in favour of the removal and none clearly objecting to the removal. The other user UnequivocalAmbivalence, removed most of it here [162] and I removed what was left. As stated, your revision was on 15:10 and you posted a comment several minutes after at 15:17, while not trying to engage in any discussion before making your revisions. Xtremedood (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It seems the reporter (Xtremedood) has been edit warring just as extensively as the reportee (Jobas). There is no clear bright 3RR violation by either user, but both of them have definitely been edit warring. (For the record, Xtremedood is an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs). Jeppiz (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. I did not break the 3rr, however, Jobas did, over here [163]. I also, did not use multiple ips, I used one extra account for safety purposes, as I was being threatened, my rationale may be seen here [164]. Also, don't divert the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. To violate 3RR, Jobas would have to repeat the same edit 4 times in less than 24 hours. You both edit warred. And the "excuse" that you need to use socks "for safety purposes" does not speak in your favour. I suggest you both leave the article alone. Jeppiz (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

He repeated the same edit 3 times, which is sufficient. In my edits, I tried to engage with the user by providing useful edit summaries to try and bolster dialogue, however, his edit summaries did not contain any information. This is the edit warring noticeboard, there is another noticeboard for sock puppet investigations, if you want to bring it up so bad. Xtremedood (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not too much to ask that you read the big guidelines on the top of the page, but let me cite them "Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." Reverting the way you both did is edit warring, but none of you violated 3RR. Furthermore, I see no evidence of either of you behaving better or worse than the other. I leave it for the closing admin to evaluate. Jeppiz (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Its open to interpretation. According to what I have personally encountered on this site, an initial edit is considered as a part of the three. However, I too shall leave it for the admin to decide. I also disagree with your assertions that neither of us were behaving better or worse. I tried to engage the user on several occassions through my edit summaries, however, he refused to even write anything in most cases and all except one of his comments so far have been aimed at my alleged sock puppetry and not on the topic. I have started a discussion on the talk page for "Mia Khalifa" [165] to address this issue and he as of yet has only rehashed the same argument, while not staying on topic. I am acting very civil and I am working to try and bolster discussion in the matters. Xtremedood (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sock puppetry account already try to push the religion information in every place in the article - remember the article is about porn star not a religious figure - and some user's removed as here an example here, since it's it's overmentioned and the source was a primary source. With the BBC she said she is no longer practicing, and her religous background is already mentioned in the article. So the article already mention her religous background and that she is not longer practicing, her religious background is toatally irrelevnt with her work, so why you need to overmention her religious backgorund. --Jobas (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And yes i want to bring up the sock puppetry, You accuse me in violation of rules while your account is s an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs, as far as i know having sock-puppeteer account's is violation of rules.--Jobas (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved IP-Editor (I was registered user in the past "very long time ago"): Bringing accusations of sockpuppetry to this report by User:Jobas, whom I knew very well on other projects of Wikipedia, encouraged me to post this comment here in order to spotlight his astonishing history in deceptive sockpuppetry. This male User:Jobas is the proud sockmaster of 9 (nine) female sockpuppets on Wikimedia commons (check): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_Jobas

All his sockpuppets bear "female names". This shows clearly that this User:Jobas belongs to a very special class of sockpuppeteers. I encountered this male Jobas and his female sockpuppets on the Arabic Wikipedia for the first time (later, I encountered him on other Wikipedia projects). On the Arabic Wikipedia, where we met for the first time, I was trolled by one of his female sockpuppets (he named her Tinaliza as I remember) which was used by him as a strawman sockpuppet in order to get me blocked (he used it in a way that made it look as if I am the one socking with it). There is a video on YT that I created myself in 09/02/2015 in order to expose this deceptive troll (check): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_J2vvcQOQ . All his sockpuppets (as you can see on Wikimedia commons) bear female names. This a characteristic feature of his pervert behavior.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Xtremedood . I think he needs to see this.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Guss who back here :) .. User:ENT70. This User did not leave me in peace with his insults and harassment. and it's funny when he talk abou tmultiple of accounts since you been blocked form this project as show here: blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. and here for exmaple, and the one who has been blocked in the Arabic wikipeida.with more than 53 sockpuppeteers, every one can ask the user and the admains in the Arabic Wikipeida about me and about this user as the user:باسم and @Meno25:. Don't tell lies the account Tinaliza was yours so throw lies. Admains in the arabic wikiepdia can tell that about your lies and harassment so enough with that.--Jobas (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just information about this Ip user which it's interesting how he appears now. User:ENT 70 was blocked in English wikipeida and in the arabic wikipeida we found by Sockpuppet investigations in the arabic wikipedia that he has Sockpuppet account which is user:ربيع الغد. User:ربيع الغد or as his Former name user:anti cross is active here. The user:ENT 70 or user:ربيع الغد has cause many problems, vandalism and insults, besides racism and disruptive comments relating in particular to the Christian articles in Arabic Wikipedia. We also suffer for days of harassment by this user in the Arabic Wikipedia. and we concern he will make the same kind of vandalism as he did in the arabic wikipeida espacially that the contributions of this user is controversial and subversive even here. and if there any more Sockpuppet of this user please add it. since he created more than 55 Sockpuppet in the arabic wikipedia. keep your abusing in other places, This video expose whos the troll and your harassment, and remember you been blocked form English and the Arabic wikiepdia.--Jobas (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

See here how the male sockpuppeteer Jobas corrupted the link I provided in my comment to the page of of his "female" sockpuppets. This tells a lot indeed.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Xtremedood is warned for long-term edit warring. The language that she is a 'non-practicing Catholic' has been in the infobox from time to time, and is properly sourced to an interview with the actress reported on the BBC. People revert that occasionally without proper discussion. There was a discussion on Talk last July that seemed to endorse the 'non-practicing catholic' solution. If you want to change that, as in this revert, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Otherwise you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There is absolutely no evidence and no history to show that consensus was to indicate that she was a non-practicing Catholic in the infobox. I can not think of a single celebrity on Wikipedia that contains on the infobox her level of religiosity. Does it state for Salman Khan that he is a "nominally practicing Hindu and Muslim" or does it state for Mel Gibson how many times a year he goes to church in the infobox? Or for any such celebrity. It is already mentioned in the article and has remained that way for a long time. I think Wikipedia should stop being a place of such unimpartial editing, in which I am sure if the situations are reversed (a woman from a Muslim background referring to Christian symbols as gross and problematic and doing other sacrilegious stuff intended to offend Christians in an adult film that received world wide notoriety) editors would probably not hesitate to point out that she identifies as a Muslim. The fact that Mia identifies as a Catholic is proven and officially stated in her official twitter account. Trying to give Christians special standards of allowing irrelevant details in the infobox not given to others in my view violates WP:NPOV. You are free to warn me as much as you want, but the facts are the facts. Xtremedood (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Broadmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "(Undid revision 701426201 by Thomas.W (talk) no each article does not stand on it's own and it does matter. each race article has the same template and removing indicator violates that)"
2. 14:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701327572 by Thomas.W (talk) there's your opinion, and if it's not intended for that use why do other pages have it"
3. 22:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701323944 by MShabazz (talk) like i stated, if the indicator is wrong why are you're not fixing the other race pages with the same indicator. it will stay"
4. 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701275273 by MShabazz (talk) all other racial groups have the growth indicator, why not this one?"
5. 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR-warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:African Americans#Growth template .28little_green_arrow.29

Comments:

I'm glad to be reported so that editing community can clearly see the error of User Talk:Thomas.W and others who support him. They need to stop being biased in their editing (which is a violation) and reporting me or me reporting them is the only way. I gave several examples how they are being biased in editing and it of course was ignored and I was given vapid excuses as to why. Please see the African American Talk page for further explanation. This isn't really up for much debate, they are just are being completely unreasonable and unfair.Broadmoor (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright line that you crossed, and trying to argue that you're right in a content dispute isn't a valid defense. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you (MShabazz) read Wikipedia:ESDONTS. Personal insults and vulgarity is a bright line you crossed, and trying to argue that you're right in a content dispute isn't a valid defense. Repeatedly (more than once) calling me a "dick" because I'm committed to promoting fair editing was unnecessary and made for a very hostile environment.Broadmoor (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Broadmoor, when you're in a hole, stop digging. You violated 3RR. You also edit warred for your change though it was clear there was no consensus. And now you try to turn this into a forum. Whatever some other user said or didn't is irrelevant. The question here is whether you violated 3RR. The answer is that you did. Even if someone else did this or that, it gave you no right for violating 3RR. Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• To the closing admin As an uninvolved user who only restored African Americans after seeing this report, I think this latest edit by Broadmoor [166] crosses into purely disruptive editing, and I propose the user's behavior after this report was filed is taken into consideration when determining the length of the block. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus because no one provided a valid reason why it should be moved, therefore it's fine where it is. The best response I got is that it is not in compliance with the template and I proved that it was. Hence, the indicator is fine because there's a precedent for it in the template in question. So Jeppiz the only people in the hole are those who can't back up what they're saying and can't be found guilty of biased editing which isn't me.Broadmoor (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W has multiple user accounts and is using them all to make me look like the bad guy and him the good guy. Not one of the people who posted here reprimanded MShabazz (who's really Thomas.W) for making derogatory comments and creating a hostile environment. Nor did anyone talk about the content in dispute, everything is simply block Broadmoor. This guy is playing games and should be blocked.Broadmoor (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: If you have valid reasons to believe that MShabazz is a WP:SOCK of Thomas.W, then you should take it to WP:SPI and provide evidence; otherwise, do not make any such accusations here, as they clearly fall under WP:NPA. LjL (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting totally ridiculous. Malik Shabazz/MShabazz being sock accounts of mine? Jeeez... Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that it seemed in any way likely, just that he better have evidence to present in the appropriate place if he wants to proceed with that accusation. LjL (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Broadmoor , you've convinced you should be blocked indefinitely. Don't you understand that this is not the place for a content dispute? Moreover, you have vandalized this report twice by now [167], [168]. I've tried to assume good faith, but I can only conclude that you're not here for the right reasons. I have nothing more to add to this discussion, except for saying that the ridiculous accusation of socking against Thomas.W and MShabazz as the same account is a flagrant WP:NPA violation. Jeppiz (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I was (and still am) in support of Broadmoor's change, and like him, I was not impressed by MShabazz calling him a "dick" and me "lying" (see Talk:African American). MShabazz also talks, above, about bright-line rules, yet he came very close to violating WP:3RR himself by reverting 3 times, and he was previously blocked for less-than-civil behavior, which is arguably being repeated here; for this reason, I ask any closing admins to also look at this editor's behavior. That said, the way Broadmoor has been defending his edits by edit warring and the things he's been claiming in this report are quite reproachable, and I will in no way endorse them. LjL (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally vandalizing Jeppiz, I just wanted to notify those in leadership of the multiple users involved in this edit warring (I'm clearly not the only one, I can't go to war with myself). I haven't committed to memory the hundreds of rules of Wikipedia yet and know how to report people or prevent an edit warring so I did the best I can in such short notice. You, Thomas.W, and MShabazz should be block if I'm blocked. Again none of you are addressing the content dispute and the flagrant disrespect (the main things), it's all I should be blocked for a lesser offense at that. That's not a fair exchange and is in fact bullying. I've been open to dialogue but no one has brought anything to the table worth accepting.Broadmoor (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: this particular page is not about content disputes or disrespect, but edit warring, and in particular (but not solely), breaking of the WP:3RR rule. You've broken that rule; others have not. That's a simple fact that you need to accept, and you need to understand that it's not okay to do that, no matter what others do. Showing that you've understood that is, I reckon, the only way you've got to avoid being blocked. LjL (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on African Americans, ditto on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and ridiculous accusations.[169]Bishonen | talk 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:98.90.88.137 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: 1 week)

Page

Heroes (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

98.90.88.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701251138 by Onel5969 (talk)"
2. 13:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701253856 by Onel5969 (talk)"
3. 13:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701254189 by Onel5969 (talk)"
4. 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701256685 by Onel5969 (talk)"
5. 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701259443 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Heroes (TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly violating WP:3RR. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User has already been blocked, as they have also been vandalizing various articles, and I reported them to AIV as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by Acroterion. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bajirao Mastani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701270240 by Carl Waxman (talk)yeah in your dreams"
2. 09:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid all revision by Human3015 (talk) Padukone's performance has received criticism, mentioned in article body, check reviews and names are formatted according to films credits TW"
3. 09:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701400461 by Human3015 (talk)It has nothing to do with being Chopra's fan I have not written Reviews for Bajirao Mastani, who have criticised her: Another revert and I will report"
4. 10:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "first talk then add"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Hi */ new section"
2. 10:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Talkback (Talk:Bajirao Mastani) (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */ new section"
2. 10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */ cmt"

Comments:

Excuse me, I was writing a reply on the article's talk page and you reported me. Now let's see who was wrong. You have reverted me 4 times and I have only reverted you three times. So It's not a violation.Krish | Talk 11:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My third edit came because you didnt reach a concensus on the talk page. You added your text without discussing with anyone. While I was busy collecting evidences of my claim, you were busy manipulating?

NOTE: After my second revert, this user said lets talk and when I said not interested on my talk page, the user himself added the text with any discussion, while I was busy writing his replay which took 40 minutes to complete on the talk page of that article.Krish | Talk 11:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is actually an ideal edit war report, he reverted 2 users 4 times. He said in his edit summary that he is not interested in talk. But just now he posted a reply on talk page after this report is filed. He is blaming me for 4 reverts but I did not make 4 reverts, I used talk page. That was very pointless edit war. I request Krish! to self-revert yourself and continue discussion on talk page.--Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

When I said Im not interested I said it not on my talk page and then rverted without seeing that you have opened a talk page discussion. You should have waited more as we have our real lives also. The rule is to wait for sometime to get a reply for discussion, but you made your mind and reached a concensus in just 10 minutes. While I was writing you re-added those text without \waiting for other users or me. I was writing, collecting and searching evidences for my claims. While I was writing you did this.Krish | Talk 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: But in any case you don't have to revert anyone 4 times. Anyway, keeping good faith with editor, I withdraw this report from my side. Thank you. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  11:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the editor in question has been clearly involved in edit-wars across many pages for quite sometime. This includes a few personal attacks as well. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crystal clear that he has made four reverts (in a span of three hours) inspite of being aware of the 3RR. I see no reason to assume good faith in this case. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My fourth revert was indeed in good faith, because I didn't count that other persons revert. If had that in mind, I wouldn't have done that. My Last revert says "Talk on talk page first", when he added without consulting others. That means I saw my fourth revert as third (didnt realize the first one) only to tell the editor that we should talk first and then It should be added. My last revert was not for causing war but for telling the other editor about discussion.Krish | Talk 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way? As far as I can see, none of your reverts qualify WP:3RRNO. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My last edit says talk before re-adding. I said that in a good faith that please talk before adding anythong. By the way he added it without gaining concensus, read his summary "according to talk page". However, that talk page discussion only had his comments.Krish | Talk 12:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All my reverts were based on well-soucred and unbiased, which I have proved on the article's talk page. That user reverted me without looking at article's bosy which is perfectly sourced, I also explained him. But he was the one who added the text on an assuption best known to himself. He said Padukone's performance was praised more without giving any citations. While that thing was already there in the article's body that her performance was criticised. So now its clear my revert were correct and in good faith, sourced and not biased. While his was unsourced, biased and with an agenda.Krish | Talk 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: It should be noted that befor that user reported this. The user himself had violated 3RR SEE first, second, third, and fourth. User:Human3015 broke the rule himself First and despite breaking the rule first he reported about me.Krish | Talk 12:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Krish!: This is pure bad faith by you, I have withdrawn this report still instead of saying me "thank you" or at least keeping calm, you are still blaming me? What you have shown as my 2nd revert is unrelated to our edit war, it was routine revert of misplaced edit. If anyone want to add local name then local name should be on top of the infobox below English name. That is nothing to do with our edit war. I made 3 reverts, not 4. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In the same way, my first revert was not related to you. But you did mentioned it. And. that was also in good faith as everything was sourced in the article. It was you who kept insisting that I am biased and all. I also made 3 reverts and not 4. And, the fourth came becasue you re-added without gaining any concensus on the talk page. You added those thing which should have been decided on the talk page. But you added without asking any one out. Your summary was "as per talk page" but no one really discussed on talk page anything. It was you who started the discussion and witthout waiting for others respone you yourelf decided the result and went on to add into the article, to which I reverted saying "talk first then add". Was that a wrong revert? I don't think so. By the way You cannot withdraw a report. You need to remove the whole text for that.Krish | Talk 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: Your first revert was related to our edit war, it was central point of our edit war. It doesn't matter you reverted me or someone else as long as you are reverting same content.--Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  14:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Krish!: We are interacting first time. You have promoted 10 articles to GA status, 8 lists to FL and one article to FA. This really you can proud of and good thing for Wikipedia overall, still why you behave so irresponsible way? You are very good editor but you should act more maturely so that you will get more respect. I don't want to discourage good contributors of Wikipedia thats why I am withdrawing this report. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  14:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. If the user recognized his mistake and was willing to back off, then no block should be necessary. But he continued to fan the flames in his response here. A revert with an edit summary "first talk, then add" is still a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

WorldWideNut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701455199 by Winkelvi (talk) There is obviously no talking to you people about this! You insist on having the wrong version! Other people have already brought this issue up!"
2. 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701428655 by Sjones23 (talk)"
3. 11:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701183488 by Sjones23 (talk)"
4. 10:33, January 24, 2016: "I have not done anything wrong. You insist on continuing this issue instead of leaving it alone! Williams' is CORRECT! I guess you RETARDS don't get it!"
5. 11:53, January 24, 2016 Undid revision 701468305 by Sjones23
6. 16:09, January 24, 2016 Undid revision 701505417 by Meters

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robin Williams. (TW)"
2. 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"
3. 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[170] The talk page thread was started after this 3RR, but WorldWideNut has continued to revert to his preferred version without participating in the talk page discussion. He's now at 8RR today including 1 with the same time stamp as the talk page post, and 3 after it. He self reverted the final one, but too little too late as far as I am concerned. Meters (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems hell-bent on getting his way at the article in spite of other editors telling him, "Take it to the talk page" and placing warnings on his talk page. His continual reverts are merely disruptive at this point and he seems to have no intention to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I said above, has no intention of stopping: latest revert here. Edit summary states: "I have not done anything wrong. You insist on continuing this issue instead of leaving it alone! Williams' is CORRECT! I guess you RETARDS don't get it!". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Still no intention of stopping the disruption/edit warring: [171]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Another revert here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, continuing to edit war after warning, with a personal attack in the edit summary, but on the other hand, there has been no attempt by anyone to actually discuss this trivial grammar issue on the talk page, and WorldWideNut is actually correct in his grammar analysis. "William's" is clearly incorrect and should be replaced by either "Williams'" or Williams's" (See Apostrophe and note that MOS:PUNCT does not specify a preference for which style to use in Wikipedia.). Once this is settled I'll make the change if it has not already been restored. Meters (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. The edit war is between "Williams's" and "Williams' ". Both are correct and the MOS does not specify one over the other. Meters (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the edit warring user is correct regarding punctuation is not the point of this report and should never be used as a reason to edit war. Especially after being warned numerous times (mind you, the warnings he has received state that being 'right' isn't the point and doesn't excuse edit warring behavior). The user is being disruptive and has been told as much by more than one editor at the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all about this being disruptive edit warring. I wouldn't have made any comment at all had I not made the initial mistake of thinking that WorldWideNut was actually correcting a mistake. Sorry. Meters (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at 8RR today (one self-reverted) with 1 of them coming at the same time as the talk page thread and 3 afterwards. Has also made the identical edit twice on 8 January 2016 [172] [173], once on 14 December 2015 [174], and part of the same edit on 11 June 2015 [175]. Meters (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Joseph Prasad (Result: Semi)

Page

Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): The discussion was started by me, AFTER I made the appropriate changes - take part in the discussion, don't edit war. (TW)"
2. 21:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "(Reverted 1 edit by 107.107.58.183: Never was the "Status quo" - take part in the talk page discussion, please - revert again and we will be taking a trip to AN/I since it's obvious you are targeting my edits for quite some time now, New York IP. ([[WP..."
3. 22:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 107.107.58.183: Disruptive editing - putting back in content not supported by reliable sources, readding unreliable sources - reporting for disruptive editing at AN/I. (TW)"
4. 22:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 166.172.61.144 (talk): Yes, you are disruptive - see the ANI report for my comments on the disruption. (TW))"
5. 23:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 166.172.61.144 (talk) to last revision by Winkelvi. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1

Comments:

Made five reverts of the Drake Bell article in the past 24 hours, easily violating the three-revert rule. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see this AN/I and RPP regarding the situation and reconsider this inappropriate filing, Joseph Prasad. The situation is about intentional disruption by the IPs, not edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, interesting. I did not know about this past history. But it is still a 3RR violation. You know I would have reverted their edits myself if you just waited? Edit: Note the editor decided to no longer discuss edits on the page after this report was filed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Context, however, is important. My reasons for doing so are spelled out at the article talk page here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I guess here is as good as any place to note that the filer of this report has, in response to my comments above, reverted back his preferred version (even though it appeared at the article talk page he had agreed to points made at the article talk page here). When I questioned him about it at the article talk page, he admitted to doing it in order to spite me (see here). Swarm recently blocked this editor for 72 hours for edit warring [176]. The filer was, until a little over a month ago, on a 6-month block for edit warring and block evasion. Thirty minutes after his most recent block expired, his first edit was to completely revert the changes I had made at the article [177] (where I had, after making those changes, started another discussion in regard to the changes with specific point-by-point notation about each edit [178]). I had hoped the filer would respond to the comments I made at the article talk page on 1/21/16, however, after several hours had passed, I found out he had been blocked 72 hours for edit warring. After I saw today he had reverted wholesale, rather than getting angry, I reverted back, and invited him by name to the article talk page. After IPs started edit warring and disruptively reverting back to the filer's preferred version of the article, the filer ended up here. Was it a way to game the system further by getting me blocked so he could edit the article in the manner he wanted? I don't know the answer to that question - however - after his most recent reversion back to his preferred version (in spite of the discussion we had been having) it would seem so. But maybe I'm not looking at this objectively.

My apologies for the wall of text, but I think this report, the history behind it and the behavior exhibited by Joseph Prasad after the filing of it need to be looked at in depth. I have no suggestion for what any administrator should do here. To be honest, I'm still stunned that he admitted to reverting out of spite considering his most recent edit warring block expiring only today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. It seems that the IPs causing disruption by edit warring at the Drake Bell article are likely the same individuals who have been banned from editing (see here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverting was not in spite of you and you alone. It was in spite of you refusing the discuss on the talk page any longer. Since no other editor challenged the info, and you dropped out, I readded the information. Along with that, you should know using better source needed templates, or something similar, is better than removing information that can be sourced. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: I'm indefinitely semiprotecting the Drake Bell article. See the gigantic protection log. Joseph Prasad and Winkelvi should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to resolve their disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the weird thing is we were resolving it on the article talk page. Then he filed this without asking what was going on, reverted back to his preferred version in spite of the seeming agreement we had on the talk page, and we are now back at the same place we were a few days ago. Every one of the edits I made at the article were valid and backed by BLP policy. Prasad, however, keeps re-adding bad sources and content that violates BLP. DRN could be the answer. But then, it could just be another exercise in total frustration and stonewalling with the editor in question. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Altenmann reported by User:Evrik (Result: Page protected)

Page: And you are lynching Negroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altenmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:30, 21 January 2016‎
2. 11:29, 21 January 2016‎
3. 11:14, 21 January 2016
4. 03:32, 21 January 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

• I tried asking for page protection.
• Altenmann is trolling on the commons. Nominating the main image on the article for deletion and now expanding it to other images. Check out:

• • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.jpg
  • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka - 35 million unemployed in the capitalistic world, 1931, n.8.jpg
  • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik - Forward to the complete collectivization, November 1, 1930.jpg

--evrik ^(talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Block me. Let unreferenced shit in wikipedia and blatant copyright violations in commons live. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of one week. Content dispute, full protection. Work it out on talk, please. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring And you are lynching Negroes (Result: Page protected)

Page: And you are lynching Negroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some time a couple of users keep restoring deleted unreferenced text and original research while refusing to discuss the objections in article talk page. Latest example: [182] . Please intervene. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected, see below. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:73.40.108.10 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Command Prompt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Command Prompt Revert 1
2. Command Prompt Revert 2
3. Command Prompt Revert 3
4. Command Prompt Revert 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Codename Lisa 3rr warning

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

Comments:

Codename Lisa feels that I should not be permitted to make constructive edits despite my attempts to participate in a constructive manner after a previous block has expired.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.40.108.10 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 January 2016‎

Hi.

There are couple of points here:

• The first diff is not a revert. It is the original edit.
• 73.40.108.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a harassment-only IP and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. He was previously blocked for doing the exact same thing. I do not for a single moment believe he is engaged in constructive edit this time because he clearly failed to achieve consensus in Talk:Command Prompt despite a third party joining in. He did exactly what has done before: an "I hate Codename Lisa" edit. See this conversation: Revisions 701556987 through 701563295 in Talk:Command Prompt
• There are evidences that he is one of the many known sockpuppets and is connected to several other IPs; however, the last time I reported him to SPI, he was already blocked, so my report was misfiled. (I will notify the attending admin again.) If this is correct, per WP:EVADE and WP:NOT3RR, anyone can revert him indiscriminately.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note @73.40.108.10: You're edit-warring as well, so you are not beyond reproach here. Also, your recent edit history hints of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which is against Wikipedia policy. @Codename Lisa: Please let Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Codename_MeatCommand run its course before unilaterally determining a user is a sock and claiming the exemption on EW reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The investigation to which you are pointing concerns MrEWhite, not 73.40.108.10. That SPI case ends with WP:ROPE: He is to be assumed an unrelated editor who chose a very bad editing model. But I have enough evidence pilled up to say that 73.40.108.10 is definitely a sock puppet and definitely a hound. I can show you; but this is not the proper venue.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by JzG. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of wikipedia astounds me. At first I thought it was just Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand, but I see it extends to many others. Not surprising considering the founder's behavior. You might as well indefinitely block me because I have nothing but contempt for wikipedia and its editors and as such see no reason to contribute. 73.40.108.10 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:83.93.114.80 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Star Wars Rebels episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

83.93.114.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701633340 by DatGuy (talk)"
2. 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701632931 by DatGuy (talk)"
3. 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701632412 by Oknazevad (talk)"
4. 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701627374 by Oknazevad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Clearly a sock of Johannesgotha who was indeffed precisely for edit warring to make these same edits. The exact same IP previously attempted to return to force through these edits (which had been rejected in a discussion on the talk page), only to be stopped when I requested page semi-protection. Now that it has expired, the edit warring resumes. Already reported the IP to WP:AIV, but either way, being that it obviously a static IP, it needs to be blocked as well, as it's a clear sock. oknazevad (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: Started SPI so other users will know that the master has assorted to socking. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of 1 month by NativeForeigner. 198.108.244.62 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bruskom reported by User:90.2.252.75 (Result: No result.)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bruskom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR twice:

• Edit 1 ("Malikia" from "yellow" to "lime-yellow-anim")
• Revert 1 (reverts "Malikia" from "lime-yellow-anim" to "yellow") 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 ("Faysal Mill Factory" from "yellow" to "lime")
• Revert 2 (reverts "Faysal Mill Factory" from "lime" to "yellow") 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 3 ("Faysal Mill Factory" from "yellow" to "lime")
• Revert 3 (reverts "Faysal Mill Factory" from "lime" to "yellow") 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Turkmen/Opposition Offensive - January

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 6 days before he engaged in 1RR violation. Also, he had been lectured on edit warring by a bureaucrat on his talk page. The user is a POV pusher who makes edits in support of the same party. Although he started editing only in December, you can notice from this user's talk page that he has a large number of users complaining about his edits. Here is a clear example of his bad faith edits where he is caught making up fake information from a foreign language source. Also, there is a complaint about him (among others) on the talk page of the map creator from a frustrated user. In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over a long period of time. 90.2.252.75 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is ancient history already given the activity on that map; it's a thousand edits ago, and that's a good reason for why we have NOT:NEWS, violated every single day in articles on that and other conflicts. Sure, we could apply sanctions for edits to that article, but I don't have time or inclination to figure out who all has and has not violated the rules. If Bruskom is a POV editor or falsifier or whatever, this noticeboard is not the place to report it. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Chris388 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warned)

Page

Pierre Trudeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chris388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ This section has been reverted without explanation for many times."
2. 18:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Added a subsection regarding Pierre's disastrous economic policies"
3. 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "How could somebody revert my edits without my consent?"
4. 18:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Economics/NEP */"
5. 18:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Adding a criticism on multiculturalism with reference."
6. 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Prime Minister, 1974–79 */"
7. 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Multiculturalism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Trudeau */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring about multiculturalism, economics etc */ new section"

Comments:

Editor has been warned, and a talk page discussion has been attempted, to no avail. As well, edit summaries have been given when his/her edits have been reverted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor is now engaging on talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

However, he/she is still re adding info that has been reverted a number of times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Chris388 is warned for adding material to the Pierre Trudeau article that seems to be his own personal point of view. The edit war is too stale to take action on. Chris388 has agreed to stop. But if this resumes, file a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:108.96.118.198 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Moot, article sprotected and at AfD)

Page: Mike Filsaime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.96.118.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this will do but it still contains links that violate copyright

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff (restores links to copyright-violating links)
4. diff (restores links to copyright-violating links)
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

My attention was called to this article by this posting at COIN by Brianhe.public aka Brianhe.

See this note on Talk about copyvio issues. No response.

Please block the IP and semi-protect the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Mike Filsaime article has been coming under constant vandalism/ mass removal. several editors undid vandalisms. Some include: [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190]

User:Jytdog started editing the article by giving fake edit summaries and summarily making mass removals. Something fishy here.--108.96.118.198 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

obviously conflicted IP editor who has no interest in WP policies. none of my edit summaries were fake. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by Guy in this dif Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Tr19ss reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Warned)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tr19ss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 ("Hirbnafsah" from "red" to "red-lime-anim")
• Revert 1 (reverts "Hirbnafsah" from "red-lime-anim" to "red") 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 ("Ateera" from "red" to "lime")
• Revert 2 (reverts "Ateera" from "lime" to "red") 16:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See my comment below.

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. The user is a POV pusher who has made every single of his edits on the module in support of the same party. You can notice from this user's talk page that he has a history of uncooperative behavior with many users complaining about his lack of edit summaries (including a warning from an admin about it), his lack of sources, or lack of reliable sources. Also, I have personally received a complaint about him (among others) on my talk page from a frustrated user. In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over a long period of time. Tradedia^talk 08:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tr19ss is warned they may be blocked if they make any more unsourced changes to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. If you need advice, ask on the map's talk page. Under the sanctions, Tr19ss can be banned from editing the map. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Skyring (Result: no blocks, I'm afraid)

Page: Harley-Davidson XR-750 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:21, 24 January 2016 [192]
2. 02:25, 24 January 2016 [193]
3. 02:29, 24 January 2016‎ [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196] (also on the article talk page, which includes discussion on the photographs, which Bratland apparently WP:OWNs.)

Comments:

Three reverts in eight minutes on the exact word with this editor has been discussing on MoS and elsewhere for weeks. Discussion continues and consensus seems to be forming, albeit slowly. --Pete (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see 3 reverts from @Dennis Bratland:, so I will warn the editor to cool it. I also see @Zachlita: has passed 3rr on this article today. SQL^{Query me!} 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ten reverts on this article this month alone, mostly on one word: "winningest". A slow-moving edit war, stopping in this case just short of four reverts, with occasional flashes of passion. I also note over a hundred reverts on similar articles involving this word in the past week. Reverting to an editor's preferred version during ongoing discussions is a serious matter, especially when the offence is so wide-ranging and no notice has been taken of other warning blocks imposed on other editors in the same dispute. An indefinite block might be the way forward here, at least until the seriousness is acknowledged and an undertaking made not to re-offend.

I also note the other party in the edit-war, though fewer reverts were made overall. --Pete (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading through some of the old debates by the last notorious sock puppeteer we had in this same articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy/Archive. I didn't want to believe that Bridge Boy was back, but it's obvious. The same obsessiveness. The same hounding. The same incredible Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You get told again and again how wrong you are, and it never sinks in. Hound others and then post laughable complaints about their incivility. And always the reverts, endless reverts. And over what? Fine points of wording. British Isles terms, parallel-twin engine, now winningest. You hate American English, and you are only here to fight battles. Technically Bridge Boy is one of Skyring's many, many sockpuppets, not the other way around, since Skyring edited first. As Flyer22 Reborn said, once your latest set of socks is blocked, you'll be back with more. There's no point in repeating SPI investigations over stale socks. Your current puppets, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita, are disposable. They'll get blocked and you'll make more.

You're never going to learn. No matter how many times you fail in your grudge matches against other people, you will never stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that's the case, WP:SSI is the way to go. I would advise you to use restraint in reverting further today. SQL^{Query me!} 20:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in more sock investigations. He'll just make new accounts. I really would ask that Harley-Davidson XR-750 be put back to the stable version, just like the other ~140 US sports articles, until the discussion at the MOS talk page is closed. It's what WP:NOCONSENSUS says we should to. Revert to the stable version, lock it from edit warring, and let the process run. But I hear you: I won't revert this group of puppets any more. I'd appreciate help in dealing with him/them, though. Skyring has been disrupting Wikipedia for 12+ years and he's very good at it. More than one person can handle alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Note for admins: Note that Skyring is fresh off of a 60-hour block for edit-warring on this very issue on different pages. The term "boomerang" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. An edit-warring block for an article I've never ever edited.

On that note, may I add in the following revert during ongoing discussion:

19:17, 24 January 2016 [197]

Could I get User:Swarm or User:Ohnoitsjamie or User:GB_fan[198] or User:KrakatoaKatie[199] who are familiar with this "winningest" debacle to look at the situation please? Calton's edit changed "The XR-750 went on to win the most races in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." to "The XR-750 went on to become the winningest race bike in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, to be sure! --Pete (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's so lame, then just drop it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Dennis! I shall follow the inspiring exmple you set for us all to follow. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Skyring citing WP:LAME is as good an example of psychological projection as I can imagine. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, friend Calton, you have joined a long-running edit-war on an article with discussion ongoing on the article's talk page and two different threads on the Manual of Style.[200][201] Can you not wait for discussion to conclude? It is not as if you are unaware of the background, as you demonstrated above. WP:BOOMERANG is something you might usefully consider. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the edit warring report, result and comment that was made against Skyring. [202] A 60 hour block, for editing warring on a topic that they were aware was under discussion " After looking everything over I agree with that assessment of the situation. It's a topic for discussion and it's being discussed; regardless of how you feel about the matter it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus " (blocking admin's comment)

Is there anything different in this report, apart from the reported editor is different and the reporting editor is not an admin? And are there any reasons for the same sanctions that were taken against Skyring, should not be taken against Dennis? Because right now I can't think of any.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Did I miss this little gem of a comment? "Your current puppets, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita, are disposable. They'll get blocked and you'll make more." You've already made a sockpuppet report (proven to be wrong by check user) stating that Flyer, Zachlita and myself are one and the same, but now you've changed your mind and you think I'm a puppet of Pete? I am speechless. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When I ran sockpuppets, many years ago, it was for a different purpose than the usual, and there was never any doubt that they were mine. It would be pointless for me to attempt to run socks; my writing style is so easily identifiable. Bratland is perhaps more than a little paranoid, but I think this accusation that one of us is a sock of the other is beyond bizarre. Of course he's welcome to head over to WP:SPI, but it seems he'd rather make allegations than stand up and accept he's in error.

I think an indefinite block is in order, to ensure that Bratland makes a commitment to lift his game and work with others - even those he disagrees with - before reinstatement. Wikipedia became such a marvellous creation through editors of diverse views learning to work together, and that must continue. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

His attitude is frustrating and disappointing. In one of my earliest edits, I actually posted on his page regarding his knowledge in regards to motorcycles and in some ways looked up to him, because of his experience. He certainly has the potential to be a great wikipedian - however (and this is a huge however) he has to learn that when he doesn't get his way, the correct course of action is to discuss and compromise. Not edit war. Not accuse everyone of being a sockpuppet. Not call people a "fucking liar" Whereas I am confident that he is here to make an encyclopedia, he is not here to work with anyone, listen to anyone or ever accept that wikipedia is sometimes just as much about accepting the opinion of others, as opposed to adding the content that you like.

He's been told this numerous times, and never accepts that his attitude might have some relationship with the drama that seems to turn up on almost every article he edits. I agree that a (long) block would either give him time to reflect, and encourage him to change or, it would make him at least make an unblock request in which he would have to accept his failings. It's not about one article, because based on previous history this situation will happen again, probably on a different article, with different editors, but he will be involved.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not looking to pile on but I do feel mr bratlands behavior should be addressed. As he has just informed me of this discussion on a article talk page. His incessant comments of things like this. Asked to stay off your talk page? Nope. I think you're confusing yourself with the other sock/meat puppets. Skyring? Zachlita? Spacecowboy420? Who even knows. You guys edit as a pack and go everywhere together and say the same things. It is easy to imagine you said it when it was really one of them. Or you posting as them? Who can tell? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC) His comments that because we are all one person our vote only count as one. Or his personal attacks on other editors intelligence or even competence to edit as he sees it. He is constantly using bad language in his personal attacks.then you're going to have to get used to having your ass handed to you. There's a limit to how gentle and diplomatic anyone can be when you force them to point out that your claims fly in the face of verifiable fact. Competence is required. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2016 Or this If you're going to spout utter nonsense, like denying the reality of links to books scanned at Google Books pushing hopelessly misguided falsehoods and mangled logic that they need to step back and defer to those who have a grasp of the facts and sound reasoning behind them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC) When all I was asking was if he was sure he was looking at a first edition to date a word. As I did not see a copyright page scanned in. That with ever following edition content or format can change such as word changes or format from like going from hardcover to paperback. And the age was only a trivial point in the whole discussion. He has openly admitted to stalking editors. When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) As witnessed by him posting on my talk page just moments after another editor he deems disruptive. This is all just a small glimpse at a long line of uncivil behavior. His repeated unsupported false claims that editors are sock or meat or other unsupported claims do seem to verge on some sort of paranoia. He is consistently accusing other editors of the very bad behavior he himself has exhibited. And constantly leaving harassing messages on others talk pages. As I myself am not perfect I will admit to some bad word choices or setting the wrong tone. But by fare am I not guilty of the level of mr bratlands uncivil behavior or any of this sock or meat thing. Or what would seem of his lack of respect of consensus. If others overwhelmingly disagree with him. It would seem he just reverts to his last version or forum shops and canvas other editors till he gets his way. 72bikers (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks, 72bikers. Of course many of us have particular criticism's of this editor's behaviour in various fields, but in this case it's edit-warring. Bratland introduced various other topics above, but responding in kind just makes the job of the closing editor more difficult because the water is well and truly muddled.

Three reverts in quick succession, while discussion is underway. He knows this is a blockable offence, becuse I was given a hefty block for the same thing two days earlier, and he weighed into that report, and has been crowing over it ever since.[203] He stopped short of four blocks in ten minutes, because he knows that is a bright line. However, he made ten reverts on this article in the past month[204], so that makes it a slow-moving edit-war, and tht's blockable in itself. He also made over a hundred reverts in other connected articles (to restore his preferred wording of "winningest") while discussion is ongoing,[205][206] and he knows discussion is ongoing because he wrote about half of the two long discussions at WP:Manual of Style.[207][208]

There's the issue of fairness, which is going to hit WP:AN in about a day's time, if User:Swarm doesn't respond on his talk page, and there's the certainty that he will continue to edit-war on this point. Looking at the passion and length of his arguments, this one word is something that means a lot to him. And yes, 72bikers, he spreads personal attacks through his rants, but that's a problem that is dealt with elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes i do not mean to get off topic. But all but his statement about tracking other editor pertains to this topic of the word winningest. And that is what he is guilty of the 3 reverts on. He has done this with me while the discusion is ongoing but stopped short of the 3. 72bikers (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about this incident, he broke 3RR but the closing admin didn't notice and there was a delay before it could be pointed out. Editors who act as if they have three free reverts on every article every day are gaming the system and being enabled by admins who are too busy to investigate fully. --Pete (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes and a very acute observation. 72bikers (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It all follows a rather sad pattern. Dennis gets reported for yet another infraction. He doesn't accept that he was wrong, and starts trying to transfer blame by making sock puppet claims (that have already gone to SPI and been proven to be wrong). He brings up totally unrelated disputes and clogs the whole report, until such time as it is stale, because admins can't be bothered to wade through 30 paragraphs of diffs and links to old reports/talk pages/edits. It's a perfect example of an editor gaming the system. I hope that one day this pattern gets dealt with correctly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I note two more reverts today:

1. 03:18, 28 January 2016 [209]
2. 04:04, 28 January 2016 [210]

The reason I support an indef block for this editor is to force him to accept that edit-warring is wrong. Discussion – polite discussion, as opposed to ranting at others – is far more productive. Change has to come from within, otherwise we'll see a continuation of this notion that it's okay to revert three times in a day, and then whistle up a few mates to avoid breaching 3RR, or wait until the 24 hours has passed. As noted above, ten reverts within a month on this article, so that's a slow-mo edit-war, including three reports here. This has got to stop. --Pete (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

But don't count how many reverts Skyring did today. Embarrassing! --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It's disingenuous of Pete to bring up these latest edits to revert his questionable collapsing of comments, which were at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, when he himself has reverted the same text. For the record, I've commented at the other noticeboard about Skyring's improper collapsing.—Bagumba (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as how you have raised this, Bagumba, I'll respond. I made it quite clear when I commenced that discussion that I was not questioning the admin's actions, nor blaming anybody, nor trying to re-present the case. The fact that an admin made a flawed decision, did not respond when it was pointed out to them, and had to be brought to AN, raises questions of fairness and accountability. Apart from linking to the report and discussion on the admin's talk page, I refrained from mentioning you or your mate.

But what happened was the discussion turned into a wall of text made up of savage personal attacks on myself and other editors. Some really bizarre stuff in there. There's room for a little paranoia in everybody's life, but rarely outside the movies have I seen such a display. So I collapsed the ranting and the whining, to keep the discussion on track, suggesting it could be taken elsewhere. Your mate decided to have a fresh off-topic attack and then noticed that I'd collapsed the text and his tanty wasn't showing up. So he reverted. I thought he might have missed the reason I'd collapsed the thing in the first place, so I put it back on. He reverted instantly - more temper - and put a bullshit message on my talk page, which he's been repeatedly told to stay away from.

I could have stirred him up, maybe pushed him to another revert or two, but I've been trying to refrain from directly engaging him and responding to his continuous baiting. Was it you who reminded me of my commitment to Drmies? Thanks. I'm far too easily baited by someone posting bullshit. I like to point out the errors. Noted failing of mine.

One thing I'll respond to. Your mate's insistence that I'm trying to get him blocked. No, that's not the case. That's not the objective. What I'm trying to get is some sort of recognition that edit-warring, personal attacks and great slabs of disruption are not what we need on Wikipedia. That acceptance doesn't come from punitive blocks. It comes from realising that Wikipedia is made up of people working together, and things work better when ego takes a back seat. We all make mistakes from time to time, and I see a lot of them from your friend, but no recognition. It's always the other guy's fault, and some shadowy sock puppeteer is behind every conflict. He's made some truly bizarre allegations of sockpuppetry, fanciful conspiracy theory claims that cannot possibly be true.

Time to wake up, check reality, accept that temper and lashing out at others isn't what the community needs. --Pete (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Continuous baiting? Like when I said I had no more to say, and you hectored me to keep going? And I said "It's WP:WABBITSEASON, bud. I just can't do this with you any more." and you replied with more baiting? Two-faced gaslighting. Just like your bullshit about my "two reverts" while you think you are free to revert anything you like.

Drop. The. Stick. If anybody bought your argument, they would have done so at your first, or your second AN/I attempt to get me blocked. Or one of your two 3RR/N attempts to get me blocked. Or you many admin talk page threads to get me blocked. Or you AN attempt to get me blocked.

You deserve a block for harassment and forum shopping, but even without that I'll have to seek an interaction ban if you don't get a clue and leave me the hell alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• The blind are leading the blind. If I had seen this a few days ago I would have blocked Dennis Bratland for edit warring, no matter what the supposed "last stable version" was. And then I would have blocked Dennis Bratland again for the rather silly claims about tagteaming and socking/meating. Y'all are just ridiculous--that is, all the edit warriors. But by now this is all a bit stale, and it seems as if "winningest" has disappeared from the article. Bagumba, thanks for the ping: that was really collegial, dumping me in here, haha. Please y'all get back to work. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Lowtrucks reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Protected)

Page

Bubble Bobble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lowtrucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701584341 by Soetermans (talk)"
2. 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701584029 by Soetermans (talk)"
3. 11:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701583317 by Soetermans (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) to 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701581519 by Soetermans (talk)"
   2. 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701581201 by Soetermans (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
2. 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
3. 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
4. 11:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"
2. 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"
3. 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"

Comments:

User shows signs of ownership, is heavily involved in editing Bubble Bobble. They made an image of all games released, said that image is not necessary and can easily be made into a list or release table. Have tried communicating through talk page, issued several warnings, to no avail. Soetermans. T / C 11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days, in lieu of blocking both editors. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both blocked for 48h)

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1 (I think this is the last version of the page before this mess started)

Diffs of reverts by User:Suitcivil133:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6

Diffs of reverts by User:SupernovaeIA

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Suitcivil133#January 2016 User talk:SupernovaeIA#January 2016

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

Comments:

The diffs listed above are only the most recent. This edit war has been going on for just over a month now. Both editors continue reverting one another despite warnings, a previous AN3 post here, two rounds of full protection, and a block against SupernovaeIA. I originally took this directly to User:Ymblanter, the sysop who performed all previous administrative actions in this case, here. They are without internet for a few days so can't help, but support blocking in principle. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when that individual (multiple user btw) is removing sourced material? I have added a primary source from the horse's own mouth (FIFA - highest football authority) that confirms that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is viewed as an official club title by FIFA. Even UEFA recognizes that the tournament was the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup. A simple Google search will further confirm this fact. I have just contacted FIFA (today in fact) and I have no doubt that they will agree with me and themselves!

He on the other hand has not provided any sources. Solely the well-known fact (which is even stated openly in that Wiki article - Football Records in Spain) that UEFA does not consider it as an official title as it was not a tournament arranged by them. That should however not be a problem though as that list includes trophies recognized not only by UEFA but also FIFA and RFEF (Spanish Football Federation).

That guy is a biased Nepali Real Madrid fan who has been using other users on Wikipedia to make the exact same disruptive edits. His writing style is identical too. I am very busy currently but I recall already discussing this subject (multiple double user) a long time ago after similar "edit wars". In each of them the moderation took my side.

If I get banned then I will simply just spread the word to other editors who will continue to adhere by facts and not personal bias.

May I also add that the Inter-Fairs Cities Cup was included as an official trophy on that Wikipedia page for years until he started to revert it. Long before our "edit war".

I also told him long ago that I will take his side the second he provides evidence of FIFA not recognizing the Inter-Fairs Cities Cup as an official trophy. So far he has failed to do so. On the other hand I have used a primary source from FIFA themselves that prove the exact opposite.

To me this dispute is quite simple.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The references I have provided (which is much many more than she has provided btw) clearly state that for club football records purpose ICFC cannot be counted. The number one reason being?- It was not a open official tournament. Check its history and you see clubs like London XI, which is not even a UEFA/FIFA affiliated club. This tournament was a solely trade fairs friendly tournament meant to promote trade. The articles history log is also there. USer:Suitcivil is a well known Spanish owned catalonia based vandal who has been trying to skew up Barcelonas records with this unrecognized ICFC titles. If you check her edits, it is quite clear she is a fan and violates WP:Bias. This matter was closed with consensus a long time ago. Why are administrators just not viewing this? Anyways, it is worthless to talk with a pro barca vandal so I wont say more. References are there and Suitcivil references are froma unknown spanish based fifa page which doesnt prove anything. It has to say ICFC can be part of a UEFA affiliated club, otherwise it cannot be put. This was the consensus a long time ago if you check the very first talk archives. SupernovaeIA (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

* Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, the warrior whom I blocked last week is still unblocked; the other one blocked; the article fully protected for a week; it is regrettable that nobody responded in more than a day. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Justinw303 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

Page

If You're Reading This It's Too Late (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701713323 by Joseph Prasad (talk)"
2. 03:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701712565 by Joseph Prasad (talk)"
3. 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Corrected to show that this is an album"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just released from EW block ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User just blanked this section as well. Also see all recent edits, massive 3Rr and EW to numerous articles.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Along with that, the editor's response to the warning of the blanking was "Fuck you." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

JP, you need to stay far away from this discussion. Your continued involvement will only lead to a 3RR/EW to you as well, no matter the justification.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Reviewing admin, please see edit warring report filed directly below this one for related edit warring between the same two editors. In fact, the other editor involved in this content dispute was edit warring at the article referenced here (why he also wasn't reported, I have no idea). This has also been noted below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: should Justinw303 be blocked, removing access to his talk page might be a good idea.

Blocked - 2 weeks by User:Ponyo for disruptive editing. See ANI for the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Justinw303 and User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Justinw303 blocked; Prasad warned)

Page

Drake discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of Justin303's reverts

1. [211]
2. [212]

Diffs of Joseph Prasad's reverts

1. [213]
2. [214]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No, neither of them have reached 3RR, however, this is just the same shit, different day. Both users are edit warring at two articles currently. Both were just released from a 72 hour edit warring block for edit warring at the same article (history here) - blocked by Swarm. Today's edit war just picks up where the other one left off and is in tandem with their edit warring at the article If You're Reading This It's Too Late (see edit warring report above this one). An editor, trying to reason with Prasad, tells him to stop edit warring. In his own typical reasoning, Prasad excuses his own behavior by saying, "It's not a true dispute though, ATinySliver. One, he is using original research. Two, he is ignoring the established consensus that no one else besides him has tried to argue in a while. Three, other editors have reverted him on the exact same content." Discussion can be seen here). Prasad was on a 6-month block until early December for... yes, edit warring. Block after block for edit warring, Joseph Prasad continues to edit war, still doesn't get it, and continues to blame the other party. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Four articles - they have been edit warring at four articles today. Add this article and this article, as well.

Speaking of same shit, different day Winkelvi is trying to smear Joseph Prassad. 107.107.59.46 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Winkelvi, please do be careful to avoid any appearance of "piling on" or having a personal issue with any editor. This dispute is over for the time being, as can be seen by reading the above-referenced discussion User talk:Joseph Prasad#Stop. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ATinySliver, I'm not sure reporting both editors for edit warring at two articles is piling on. They were edit warring at two articles almost simultaneously, that's the fact. Any admin reviewing the report above this one needs to be aware that there are two articles being disrupted by these editors, seemingly without any care by either that they are being disruptive. Justin303 I can understand to a degree because he's fairly new. Prasad, though -- he knows better and is still doing what he seems to always do: get pissed off someone disagrees with his edits and then edit wars over them. He's been warned time and again. After a six-month block and still doesn't stop the behavior? Sorry, but the only piling on I see happening is at least one of the editors being reported piling on the disruptive behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: it very well may appear to the casual reader that you're saying "Both Editor 1 and Editor 2 are guilty. But especially Editor 2." We all should be careful to remember, in the end, that it's about the encyclopedia, not its editors—and even the appearance of something personal can be distractive. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. Even so, editors who have been around longer and have been blocked numerous times for edit warring should know better. Myself (and you) included, yes? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. At the same time, I know how difficult divorcing myself from something can be, and I have been known to express frustration with those who can't. () Still, it doesn't hurt to just step back and keep an eye on something when it appears defused, then jump in if/when it fails. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is becoming rather absurd at this point. I strongly believe in second chances, third chances, and even fourth chances at a push. But should this report result in the blocking of both users, it will become Joseph Prasad's eighth block for edit warring, all of which have been attained within one calendar year. At what point do we just indefintley ban? How many AN3 reports, 24-72 hour blocks and ANI threads will it take? Upon being released from his block, Prasad made no attempt at continuing the discussion at Talk:Drake discography, most likely because the page had been returned to his preferred version and he saw no reason to discuss, unlike Justinw303 who at least attempted to present his findings. In this case, Prasad cannot blame Winkelvi and accuse him of coaxing him in to edit wars which is usually the story he presents. Prasad has been told time and time again to discuss instead of revert, revert, revert, and has taken absolutely no notice. It's becoming incredibly disruptive and down right annoying. SNUGGUMS, one of the blocks in Prasad's block log is accompanied with the summary "User has agreed to 3 month 1rr restriction and indefinite mentorship under User:SNUGGUMS" has there been any progress in your eyes with the user? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The mentorship ended as soon as he got revoked for going against 1RR. I feel that Joseph has gotten somewhat better and more cautious since his 6-month block by taking matters to talk pages, though am disappointed to see him slip back into edit warring habits (even if temporary). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would remind the reviewing admin only that the dispute is defused for now, and blocks would strike me as punitive. I have warned Joseph Prasad that he is on his last legs with respect to content disputes; should that behavior resume, I too would recommend a permaban, however much reluctantly. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Justinw303 has been Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks by I JethroBT. Joesph Prasad has been Warned as mentioned above. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Martin IIIa reported by User:Stormwatch (Result: Stormwatch warned)

Page: Shockwave Assault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martin IIIa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [215]

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

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

Comments:

This dispute has come up before, and Martin IIIa just doesn't accept he's in the wrong. Here's my rationale again: the game's original release is Shock Wave, the expanded re-release is Shockwave Assault. Unless there is enough content specifically about the expanded version to grant it its own page, the article should be named after the original release, not the expanded re-release. Similar cases would be games like Unreal and Rune, whose articles are not titled Unreal Gold or Rune Classic. --Stormwatch (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I was planning on giving Stormwatch one last chance to stop his disruptive editing before reporting him here, but clearly he'd rather deal with the WP administrators. I love how he singles out Martin IIIa here, completely omitting my involvement in the issue; clearly his strategy is divide-and-conquer. Here's the scoop: Back in September 2014, Martin IIIa posted a merge proposal at Talk:Shockwave Assault. He tagged both the target page and the destination page, used the talk page templates, the whole nine yards. He held the proposal open for a whole month, during which it went completely unopposed, then closed the discussion and performed the merge. Stormwatch then reverted the merge within hours of his performing it, with no edit summary, and posted some flame bait on Martin's personal talk page. Naturally, Martin reverted him. Long story short, since then Stormwatch has repeatedly reverted both Martin and my edits with no edit summary, and aside from a (highly confrontational) post just a few hours ago, he has completely ignored our repeated directive to use Talk: Shockwave Assault. Also, you may have to review the article histories carefully to see this, but he actually shifts positions mid-dispute. First he was reverting Shockwave Assault to two separate articles, but now he's pulling for a single article at Shock Wave (video game). Reading his posts, he shows no awareness of having changed his mind - he just flat-out forgot which excuse he was using to antagonize other editors.

In between this, he has taken the time to (irony of ironies) report Martin three times for edit warring. On the first occasion, the responding administrator, Darkwind, opted to preserve Stormwatch's version of Shock Wave (video game) by blocking all editing from the article for six months. Martin posted this message to Darkwind's talk page, requesting an explanation for his blocking of the article and indications on how he was supposed to proceed with the dispute. He never replied. I'd like to believe that Darkwind wasn't simply abusing his power as an administrator, but I can't think of any alternate explanation, and Darkwind has turned down his first opportunity to provide one. I've notified him of this thread at his talk page, so hopefully he'll take the time to pop in here and relieve my suspicions.

If all the above still isn't enough proof that Stormwatch has not been acting in good faith, he apparently considers notifying an editor when you report him here to be optional; on the second occasion he gave Martin no notification at all, and on this occasion he used this happy little post for his notification.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've little to add to NukeofEarl's account, save that in addition to Shockwave Assault and Shock Wave (video game), Stormwatch has been carrying out this pattern of disruptive editing at Shockwave (disambiguation). I think I can succinctly summarize Stormwatch's behavior at these articles with a single observation: Despite this being his third time reporting on this noticeboard, he still doesn't have a single thing he can put after "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:".--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are in the wrong. The merge you propose makes NO SENSE. Why can't you understand that? --Stormwatch (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Stormwatch is warned. He may be blocked if he makes any further reverts at Shockwave Assault or Shock Wave (video game), unless he has first obtained consensus for his changes on the talk page. Stormwatch doesn't appear to participate very much in discussions. He hasn't replied to anything on his own talk page since 2007. If he intends to work in contested areas, he has to be willing to negotiate. A previous complaint about the same dispute was filed in July 2015. At that time Shock Wave (video game) was fully protected by User:Darkwind. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What kind of silly argument is that? Of course I don't answer, why waste time with that? If it's a warning about something I can fix, I just go there and fix it, if it's not I just let it be. --Stormwatch (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:104.254.90.19 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: 1 week semi)

Page: The X-Files (miniseries) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 104.254.90.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]
5. [221]
6. [222]
7. [223]
8. [224]
9. [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227] (and diff of user talk notification of article talk section)

Comments:

User is well aware of article talk section, and has explicitly referred to it in their edit summaries, so is clearly wilfully ignoring invitation to discuss content. GRAPPLE ^X 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP is still at it, this time warring with other users, even going so far as to claim that one editor's actions were done "out of spite". [228] [229] [230]--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected - Ymblanter has semi-protected the page for a week, which should stop the disruption. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dumudumbass reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

Page

R v Elliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dumudumbass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "fixed misleading text"
2. 18:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "removed misleading information"
3. 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "This isn't tumblr. Fixed misleading information regarding legal outcome."
4. 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "nature of the accusation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing edit-warring by master. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musclejam. Dr. K. 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note the account has been indef'd as WP:NOTHERE by John, and the WP:SPI linked to above was closed as confirmed. This can probably be closed without further action. — Strongjam (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User indeffed by another admin. His choice of user name might not reflect entire good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BJFLAHERTY606 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Warned)

Page: Seán McManus (priest) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BJFLAHERTY606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [231]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:

While not all reverts by BJFLAHERTY are exact reverts to a prior version, they are all attempts to introduce wildly inappropriate, non-neutral, and promotional text to a page, including at least one case of WP:COPYVIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. No block, since the editor has done a few self-reverts. They may still be blocked if they make further reverts at Seán McManus (priest) or if they engage in further copyright violations. Use the talk page to get consensus for your changes. Material added to Wikipedia articles is expected to be neutral and must not be worded so as to promote the article subject. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Julio Puentes reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)

Page

Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Julio Puentes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701871232 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
2. 02:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701870503 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
3. 02:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701870333 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
4. 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701869320 by Apokryltaros (talk) not accurate information"
5. 01:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701869087 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)"
6. 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701868631 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
7. 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701868081 by Apokryltaros (talk) Sorry, but not unbiased"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: although the Julio Pentes's edits were WP:TEND and just plain wrong, they do fall under WP:NOTVAND since he did what he did because he earnestly believed that was somehow helping the site. Apokryltaros's edits contributed to Julio Puentes going over 3rr, so I'm splitting the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:111.95.123.207 reported by User:PK-JIN (Result: Semi)

Page

Sentani Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

111.95.123.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps making edits on the page claiming that Air PNG operates out of the subject airport. This is false. Despite repeated attempts on my side to contact him using (1) the article talkpage and (2) the user's talkpage, the user keeps making the same edits without a sign of cooperation. PK-JIN (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. This IP is probably a sock of User:Cyntiamaspian. If you think the IP is making bad edits elsewhere, report again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:106.185.46.30, User:188.254.219.92, User:176.126.71.182 reported by User:Crovata (Result: Block, Semi)

Page: Talk:Kutrigurs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Sandilch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Zabergan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 106.185.46.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 188.254.219.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 176.126.71.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 185.8.60.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (New)

Previous version reverted to:

1. Kutrigurs [238] 2. Sandilch [239] 3. Zabergan [240] 4. Huns [241] (New)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Kutrigurs [242], 27 January 2016 - 188.254.219.92
2. Kutrigurs [243], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
3. Kutrigurs [244], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
4. Sandilch [245], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
5. Sandilch [246], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
6. Zabergan [247], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
7. Zabergan [248], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
8. Huns [249], 27 January 2016 - 185.8.60.69 (New, during the writing of this report)
9. Huns [250], 27 January 2016 - 4th revert (before was politely warned by User:Borsoka, but without success)
10. Huns [251], 27 January 2016 - 5th revert
11. Huns [252], 27 January 2016 - 6th revert (won't revert anymore this talk page, already done 3 within 24h)
12. Huns [253], 27 January 2016 - 7th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

check the talk pages Talk:Kutrigurs, Talk:Utigurs, Talk:Sandilch, Talk:Zabergan, Talk:Bulgars, Talk:Onogurs, Talk:Huns, Talk:Dulo clan

Comments:The disruptive edits are not focused on raising new questions and discussion, yet mis-use of talk page - to duplicate content (fringe theories), almost looks like editing of a separate article within the article. This same kind of edits (ie. also topic, behaviour (also personal attack on other editors), lack of signature etc.) previously (before the protection of articles, and block of user accounts and IP) was done by account socks, in beforehand listed articles and specific article's talk page, by blocked User:PavelStaykov, and (his) IPs:

93.152.143.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 188.254.217.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.238.240.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.204.142.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.40.112.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 188.254.217.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) among many.

We are dealing with personal agenda, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and continous WP:SOCK, since March 2015. Someone need to start sockpuppet investigation. --Crovata (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Socking is obvious, User:185.8.60.69 has been blocked. Talk:Huns has been semiprotected. We already have semiprotection on Kutrigurs, Sandilch, Zabergan and Huns. I don't see enough abuse to justify semiprotecting the other talk pages. If you want to start an SPI, why not contact the admins who issued the previous page protections for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:emotionalllama (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Britain First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bardrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [257]
5. [258]

User has been warned repeatedly: [259] and [260] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. There is no recent discussion on the talk page; I will start one now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Darouet (Result:no action)

Page: Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [261] and [262]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [266]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [267]

Comments:
FreeatlastChitchat nominated Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi for deletion, and the result was keep. After that, the user removed large portions of content from the article 4 times within 24 hours, and three of these removals were reverts. The user has (at least some) valid concerns about content and can edit productively to address those. However, the 3 reverts in 24 hours after a failed deletion nomination clearly indicates a behavioral issue as well.

I am NOT recommending a block, but kindly request that an admin warn FreeatlastChitchat that this isn't acceptable behavior, and that their concerns can be addressed using other means. I saw they had a raft of blocks recently and a warning for them to cool off and approach this more productively would help all, I think. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - FCC has apologized and self reverted, and the third revert genuinely appears to have been accidental. FCC's content concerns are serious. I am not requesting a warning and don't believe one is merited in this particular case. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I haven't edited this article, but surprised that FreeatlastChitchat has removed large scale material five times in the last two days given how recently they were warned by Drmies after the ANI monster case. As so often before, FCC is right, concerning the content. Had I seen this article before instead of here, I would have supported FCC's interpretation. I have no recommendation to make (not my place) but I would implore FCC to change behavior. Despite our differences, I don't doubt your knowledge and you often do good things. But edit warring really is big no even when we're right. And in this case, you were right. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Jeppiz. I have no background on Hadith, and am a little underprepared to evaluate the quality of sources that should go into an article about Islamic texts. I appreciate FCC's substantial post on sources, and was reading more about those earlier today. But I was surprised by their deletion of the background section I added in an effort to improve the article, and the edit warring just isn't helpful. I think that if FCC's objective is to improve the article, there are far more constructive ways of using their energy to do so. -Darouet (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have little to offer here: I scolded Freeatlast for their intemperate word choice, not for anything else. I haven't looked at this article since Freeatlast was reverted twice; I thought they started talk page discussion, with an RfC, after I advised them to do so. What I did notice was that some of the sourcing proposed at the AfD (in which I did not participate) was extraordinary weak (vanity/POV publishing), and that is why I was wondering if Freeatlast didn't have a valid point with their removals of information. That doesn't invalidate the charge of edit warring, of course, but it is to say that we're not simply dealing with someone blindly removing well-verified content. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading more about the dispute, I think FCC is correct that many provided sources are woefully inadequate. For the most part, Mhossein's rebuttal's of FCC's critique suggest a major competence problem for Mhossein. Nevertheless the blatant edit warring after the failed AfD is a behavioral issue, and the last revert was not supported by policy, nor by content problems. A better use of FCC's time, if they really want to invest in this topic, is exploring what sources are appropriate for commentary on Hadith. -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Defence@Darouet and @Drmies I fail to see how this can be called edit warring.

I reverted Mhossein and Nadeem once, which makes two reverts but the third "revert" is not removing anyone's information. It is more of a self revert. I restored the article to a version "BEFORE" the the time I edited. It removed my own edits. I would like to apologize to Darouet if his background section was also removed, but I did not keep in mind that he was editing the article as well. I simply restored the article to a stable version and reverted "MY OWN" edits. You can clearly see that it is not removing anything that is being discussed. I am merely undoing my own work. If in this process I have inadvertantly removed Darouet's background section I can just put it back in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have reinserted the text by Darouet.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I accept that explanation, believe you made an honest mistake and thank you for self reverting. Your concerns about sourcing for the article are not trivial. I am curious to know what kinds of texts are available to provide basic sourcing for Hadith and other historical and literary documents that pertain to Islam. This seems to be an important issue, since the Hadith probably deserve to be (neutrally) described on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Declined, seems to have already been resolved Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Parsley Man reported by User:Rebbing (Result: Warned)

Page

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701889652 by 108.174.119.237 (talk) You messed up the section!"
2. 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Sigh."
3. 04:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701888586 by 45.26.44.116 (talk) There are still protesters present."
4. 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701888010 by 62.107.223.152 (talk) Completely unnecessary."
5. 04:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "There are still supporters present at the refuge."
6. 03:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701878540 by Rebbing (talk) What are you talking about? You just changed the titles."
7. 03:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701877443 by Rebbing (talk) Not sure what this is about."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:35, 10 January 2016
2. 20:47, 14 January 2016
3. 01:33, 19 January 2016
4. 08:42, 23 January 2016

Comments:

My attention was called to this user's behavior when he repeatedly reverted my efforts to fix this page's citations. Looking at this page's history and the comments on his talk page, this appears to be a pattern.

— Rebbing talk 17:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Only two sets of two appear to be reverts of the same material--for 3RR we need four. There is no proof of edit warring in this set of diffs. Parsley Man is thanked for their cleanup efforts: one of the edits messed up the formatting, and two of the edits claimed the affair was ended; it hasn't ended, as far as I know. Rebbing, please inform yourself of the relevant policies before you bring someone up on charges. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: The text of WP:3RR (and the definition at the top of this page) says that "[a]n 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 say that I've only shown two reverts of the same material, but the text of the rule repeatedly says that it doesn't matter: it defines a revert as "any edit . . . that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." The diffs I've provided show: (1) an editor (2) performing more than three edits that reverse the actions of other editors (3) on a single page (4) within a 24-hour period. Is there anything else needed to show a violation of the rule?

And, by my understanding of the policy, there is no exception to 3RR for reverting good-faith edits that are merely incorrect or make the article ugly: there is an exception for "obvious" vandalism, but the policy explains that "editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism."

I did not bring this claim on a whim: I brought this because I thought this behavior was unhelpful, a clear violation of policy, and something about which the editor has repeatedly been warned. If I'm out of line, I sincerely apologize, and I will cheerfully drop the matter and return to editing, but I would appreciate being shown the error in my thinking. Thank you.

— Rebbing talk 04:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Well, Rebbing, I guess you showed me. Good work. Let's get a real admin, like EdJohnston, to look at this situation. Personally, I'd never look at these edits as in any way disruptive, though I did look at that talk page before I closed it and saw what you saw. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather leave this open until User:Parsley Man has a chance to respond to the message on his talk page. The edits may be helpful but he has been acting as though he is immune from 3RR. He has received lots of 3RR warnings by different people during January and we need to find a way to get him to pay attention to this. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Oof! There's no need for sarcasm; I'm not out to prove anything here. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia bureaucracy, but I want to be useful, and I honestly thought bringing this case was the right thing to do. Have I misunderstood the rule? Is the rule only enforced when the violation rises to a certain level of disruption? Do you simply not care? I'm not trying to make this into a drawn-out discussion, but you said I ought to inform myself of the relevant policies, and I believed I had. Thank you. — Rebbing talk 05:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, I wasn't being sarcastic. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My bad, and I see EdJohnston's comment. Thanks. — Rebbing talk 05:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not daunted by this. I admit that I've done wrong and I am willing to accept whatever punishment comes my way. Parsley Man (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Parsley Man is warned that the WP:3RR rule applies to all editors, no matter how well intentioned. You haven't used the talk page since 10 January. The next time you feel the urge to revert, consider going to the talk page first. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Protected)

Page

Luhansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "There was no consensus to change the infobox"
2. 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702027981 by Iryna Harpy (talk) I did read the talk page, there is no consensus to change from what was originally here"
3. 00:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702029754 by Iryna Harpy (talk) There is no consensus for change, see DPR Talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "/* POV pushing on Luhansk People's Republic */ new section"
2. 00:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Luhansk People's Republic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor has ignored the talk page indicating that the use of a 'war faction' infobox has been discussed here on the Donetsk People's Republic's talk page, and has reinstated the 'geopolitical organization' infobox on that article despite there being no policy or guideline-based arguments for 'geopolitical organization' having ever been used for either article from the inception. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have not ignored the talk page, in actuality i viewed the talk page in question in which there clearly is no consensus to change to the 'war faction' infobox. Given that there was no consensus to make the change to the 'war faction' infobox, i merely reverted it back to what it was before the discussion had begun. I note that i have not engaged in any edit war, i have not broken the 3 revert rule, but do note that User:Iryna Harpy appears to be abusing the noticeboard here in attempting to muscle through what they themselves desire the infobox should be. As i stated above, multiple other editors on the relevant talk page objected to changing the infoboxes to 'war faction' and i posted my view there as well. There clearly is no consensus for change.XavierGreen (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I also will note that User:Iryna Harpy deleted an edit war warning i had place on their talk page just prior to her filing this complaint about me here.XavierGreen (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment (From uninvolved) The warning was on the user page, if that makes any difference. GAB^Hello! 01:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear i put it there by accident, almost immediately after i had clicked on their username i saw that this complaint was filed here, so i must not have noticed i was not on their talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Xavier is back as an IP, clearly to avoid scrutiny. The same edit summary is used. RGloucester — ☎ 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several IP editors showing up there to continue the edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected two weeks by User:KrakatoaKatie. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ichsumit reported by User:Dksats (Result: Malformed report / No action)

Page: Sumit Kashyap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ichsumit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

(Non-administrator comment) Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ghost of hugh glass reported by User:MShabazz (Result: Indeffed as sock puppet)

Page: Social Justice Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ghost of hugh glass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [268]
2. [269]
3. [270]
4. These are just a few of the editor's recent reverts. They have repeatedly recreated a "popular culture" section even though it has been deleted by several different editors

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [271]
2. [272]
3. [273]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Social Justice Warrior#"Popular culture" section

Comments:
I don't know whether Ghost of hugh glass has violated 3RR, but they have been edit warring since they started editing the article. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive305#User:Ghost of hugh glass reported by User:96.253.53.16 (Result: ).

I've pinged the editor, but I will not notify them about this report because they made it very clear that I am not welcome at their talk page. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• - Comment - I've left the required notice on their talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• "I don't know whether they have violated 3RR." Sure you do, you checked and I have not. Or else you would have reported me for it. Disagreeing is not edit warring. This is just a continuation of your harassment campaign against me, which you should be sanctioned for. I'm working to improve the article and you're trying to obstruct me. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Grow up. Tagging things that need improvement is not "obstructing you". — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • As usual, you lie about the facts (you've done far more than just tag things) and insult me while doing so. This report is nothing more than a continuation of your harassment of me and you should be sanctioned for it. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Keep it up. Your little temper tantrum is quite impressive. What would be more impressive would be some diffs to support your unfounded accusations of harassment. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Glad we agree you lied about the facts and that you lie about the facts regularly. You've done much more than tag things. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - After taking a look at the edit history and the talk page, this appears to be a clear case of edit warring, over the addition of the cultural section. The place to reach consensus is on the talk page, not through constant BRD edits. The section should be struck until a consensus on whether or not to include is reached on the talk page, and closed by a non-involved editor. The editor has been informed of the 3RR rule on at least one other occasion, and replied that they now understood the rule. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I do understand the 3RR rule and I'm fairly certain I haven't violated it. It's not a 'no revert rule' it's a '3 revert rule.' If any revert is edit warring, the person who reported this is also guilty. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment Actually you're mistaken. While violation 3RR leads to an automatic block, edit warring is very much discouraged and users can most certainly be blocked for edit warring even if not exceeding three reverts within 24H. 3RR sets the red line for where automatic blocks kick in, it definitely does not condone making 3 reverts, especially not against a consensus to the contrary. Jeppiz (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:EW "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring" -- ok well multiple editors have done that, including the person who reported me here. Though my edits have mostly come with improvements, addressing issues raised. While they are just reverting. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ghost of hugh glass - AGF, I'm taking it that you simply don't understand the concepts of the 3RR rule, or of edit warring. One of the guiding principles of WP is consensus. When editors disagree, that process must be invoked, or else you have articles which become unstable through edit warring, which this one has. While other editors have multiple reverts, only you seem to have taken it beyond the level of disagreement and into edit warring. This is in part due to the fact that you are the only one in the edit history which has your viewpoint, while there are several other editors who disagree with you. Please attempt to build consensus on the talk page, before making the attempt to include the disputed material. It would go a long way to showing good faith on your part, if you deleted the disputed section yourself, until consensus can be reached. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Other editors are repeatedly restoring their preferred version of the article, which is how edit warring is defined at WP:EW. If I'm edit warring, then so are they. WP:EW specifically says that believing you are right is no excuse, yet you are excusing what they've done due to the fact that they agree. Ghost of hugh glass (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked and tagged Ghost of hugh glass as a  Confirmed sock of DegenFarang (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Ghost of hugh glass has at least 5 reverts to different parts of the page in the last 24 hours or so: [274][275][276][277][278] His comments here and on the talk page[279][280] make it clear this problem isn't going to stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Outback1964 reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: 24h)

Page: First Fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Outback1964 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [281]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:33, 28 January 2016
2. 11:04, 28 January 2016
3. 11:13, 28 January 2016
4. 11:22, 28 January 2016
5. 11:22, 28 January 2016
6. 11:40, 28 January 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: talk page warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 3rr warning

Comments:

I came late to this incident, through my morning vandalism patrol. The above editor had already reverted 6 times, and while they did take the advice of another editor and "take it to the talk page", they have not waited for consensus to be reached. As far as I can tell, consensus about this cited material's inclusion is far from being reached. I've warned them on both the talk page and the user talk page, but that was after the 6 reverts, so if they agree to wait for consensus, no action may be needed. But I felt that with the plethora of reverts, it should at least be brought here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. The user stopped reverting after warning. I suggest waiting for a day, and, if they do not resume, close as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mildly, there's a rough consensus on the article talkpage to remove some or all of this material as being irrelevant to the topic. Not to condone edit-warring but it would be helpful if those reverting the removal of the material also contributed to the talkpage discussion about why they feel this material should remain. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Follow up - Unfortunately, Ymblanter - they haven't stopped, I guess they were just off-line for a bit, see here. In fact, their comment on my talk page, would indicate that nothing short of a block is going to get them stop their disruptive editing. And, Euryalus, I wouldn't say there is a consensus on the talk page. There is discussion, and has been on and off for 2 years, about inclusion or exclusion of this material. I don't care to weigh in on that discussion, and my reverting is simply a matter of procedure, since this user is clearly in violation of the 3RR rule. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

  Blocked them 24h. No idea about what the consensus is (I checked they did not use the talk page though).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, Ymblanter, they did make 2 comments on the article's talk page here and here. Although, now they've begun to revert the information from an ip address: see here - I know it's them, since they left a message on my talk page from the same address (which I've deleted as nonsense). Regardless, thanks for stepping in. The sad thing is, they might have a point, but they simply need to learn how to achieve consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial reported by User:217.17.137.178 (Result: Protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Fast Low-Ionization Emission Region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [282]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [283]
2. [284]
3. [285]
4. [286]

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

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

Comments:

User reverting edits for no reason other than to be disruptive: first claiming "unexplained removal", perhaps having not bothered to read two clear edit summaries ([287], [288]), and then bizarrely claiming NPOV. Additionally leaving inane messages repeatedly despite clear request not to. The material I removed from the article and which this editor is restoring was either false or irrelevant or both. 217.17.137.178 (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Uh, you were to busy leaving edits with summaries that were in violation of WP:CIV, such as this[289], this[290], and these [291][292]. I left a clear message of why I reverted your edits[293], as well as an apology on my talk page for mislabel your edits as (Unexplained removal of contents)[294]. You're response were these[295][296] clear violations of WP:CIV, which i warned you about. Please just stop. Your edits are in clear violation of WP:NPOV. Consensus is not editing Wikipedia to read to your standards. Boomer Vial^Holla 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected three days. There isn't a 3RR violation here, but there is an edit war. My guess is that Boomer Vial, a new editor since January 2, may have over-reacted to the removal of a paragraph, though the IP's removal was in good faith. The level of diplomacy shown by the IP in his above comment doesn't help the situation. Please use the talk page before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Four reverts in 25 minutes is not a 3RR violation? Please explain how that works. 217.17.137.178 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Twenty reverts in 25 minutes would not be a 3RR violation either when reverting vandalism. Whereas removing content from an article without an adequate justification is just such vandalism. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Wildly misguided nonsense. Clearly, you are the user doing the reverting, and you are now sockpuppeting. You managed to get away with an obvious 3RR violation this time. You're going to have big problems if you keep on reverting with false and dishonest claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.221.204 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Clearly??? I haven't reverted anything. However it is abundantly clear that you are User:217.17.137.178, given that (1) the above is your sole edit ever and that (2) you are in exactly the same geographical location as User:217.17.137.178, then that makes you the sock. So I think both IP addresses are up for a block. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha. You have no clue about what vandalism is, and you have no clue what the blocking policy is. Perhaps you're not a sock puppet; you're certainly a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.127.221.204 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See WP:VANDAL and WP:ILLEGIT. Confirms my view. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oshwah report by anonymous user (Result=no violation)

Just look at the the Macross Delta page. He's done around 5 reverts this hour against an edit warring IP. I myself have done 2 reverts on the page. Requesting 24 hour block for Oshwah (and minitrout) and a protection of Macross Delta. 96.237.18.103 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, 96.237.18.103. The reversions you see were for blatant vandalism, which does not constitute edit warring or count towards 3RR :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok (: 96.237.18.103 (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP vandal has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Bbb23! ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Fsacristan reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: No violation)

Page

Max Gerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fsacristan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Rv. editorial musing that adds nothing"
2. 13:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702259596 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
3. 13:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 702202594 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
4. 00:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC) "Add information in Cancer research UK as explain in the first lines"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None whatsoever. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

One good faith edit, followed by three reversions of attempts to remove that edit is not a violation of the three revert rule. However both User:Fsacristan and User:Alexbrn (not to mention User:Roxy the dog) have made multiple reverts and yet made no attempt at all to discuss the issue on the talk page.

The edit in question is cited (but I offer no opinion about the merits of the edit beyond that - that belongs on the talk page), though its location (in the article lede) may not be appropriate and it should be in the main body. This is nothing more than a content dispute as it stands and the article's talk page is the correct venue for this. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple? Haha. -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No violation – However, both WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS may apply to the content of this article. The reported user, User:Fsacristan, will break 3RR if they revert again. Semiprotection may be worth considering due the history of poorly-sourced additions by IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sylvain1975 reported by User:Radezic (Result: Blocked)

Page: Magyarization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sylvain1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [297]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [298]
2. [299]
3. [300]
4. [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

Comments:
Sylvain1975 wants to add a biased paragraph, that is also contested by Nigej. Sylvain1975 made 4 reverts today. Radezic (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
Radezic, deleted my post on "Magyarization" article, writing this to my talk page: "Between 1000AD , from the foundation of Christian state by king Stephen I of Hungary, the Latin was the official language of Hungary. Why did you rewrite this sentence?" you can check that I did not rewrite anything that he wrote, but it seems that he wanted some revenge because of something I did not made. But even if I would made something to delete something he wrote (which, I underline, I didnt), I do not think that deleting someones contributions based on revenge is an acceptable and ethical method on editing Wikipedia... I just saw that this article is highly anti-Hungarian, one sided, without mentioning for example the unprecedented network of autonomies in medieval and pre modern Hungary and Transylvania, or the fact that the first Romanian schools were made also in Transylvania, or the preaching in the Romanian language instead of Slavonic, in the Orthodox churches was promoted by the Transylvanian princes, about all of which you can read here: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/hevizi/hevizi.pdf, http://adatbank.transindex.ro/html/cim_pdf61.pdf, Fogarasiné Bereczki Irma: Lorántffy Zsuzsanna fejedelemasszony nyomdokain http://www.e-nepujsag.ro/op/article/lor%C3%A1ntffy-zsuzsanna-fejedelemasszony-nyomdokain, Erdély Története II. Akadémiai Kiadó, Bp. http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02109/html/246.html. I tried to keep the balance of rationality, when I made my contribution. It seems that those people who wrote this article, like to keep this article anti-Hungarian, one-sided, and double standarded, to present the Hungarians like an aggressive, xenophobic nation, who did only bad things, and delete all contributions which try to prevent the distorsion of the historical facts, spreading of hatred against one or other nation or race on wikipedia, based on lies or on one sided, partial presentation of the historical truth. I thaught that wikipedia fights against nationalism and racism, and do not promote it...

Sylvain1975 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Boyconga278 reported by User:Opdire657 (Result: Protected)

Page: AFC U-23 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [303]
2. [304]
3. [305] here he wrote a summary as "rvv" even though it was not vandalism by me.
4. [306]
5. [307] reverted my edit after the match finished without any reason
6. [308] same as previous revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [309]

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

Comments:
He does not seem to prefer cooperation and has a high level of vandalism on another article: 2016 AFC U-23 Championship.--Opdire657 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article protected for 24 hours. Take it to the talk page, and stop accusing each other of vandalism. Neither of you have attempted a civil discussion. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Acroterion Hello, there is no content dispute between us. I see it very unjust to not block this user when he clearly breached the three-revert rule on AFC U-23 Championship after reverting 4 times. What do you consider the warnings I gave him to stop his conduct?--Opdire657 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No attempt at all has been made by either party to discuss, and the alternate is to block both edit-warriors and to let more cool-headed editors work it out. I expect you to use the talkpage and agree on the appropriate edits, including sources. Acroterion (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I just saw this, and I must say that I am deeply concerned about Boyconga and lack of competence, for example look at User talk:Boyconga278#Hello where me and an other editor expressed concern about the competence after the editor repeatedly has accused editors for vandalism and I can give you a lot of examples. I can not answer for this current dispute but the behaviour of Boyconga278 is alarming. Qed237 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Opdire657 reported by User:Boyconga278 (Result: Protected)

Page

2016 AFC U-23 Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Opdire657 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [310]
2. [311]
3. [312]
4. [313]
5. [314]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[315]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [316]
2. [317]
3. [318]
4. [319]
5. [320]

Comments:

I know you were against me on an article because you have vandalism on to articles: 2016 AFC U-23 Championship and AFC U-23 Championship Boyconga278 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

False, I did not vandalize anything on the two articles only updating the tables and it was you who began all this mess.--Opdire657 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Opdire657: I was shaking my head and where vandalism should not surprise me you're updating just conflicts of two articles, I disturb you post embarrassing too! Boyconga278 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop throwing around the "vandalism" now. Use the talkpage and agree on how the page should be updated. I will block editors who try to escalate disputes. Acroterion (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article protected for 24 hours. Take it to the talk page, and stop accusing each other of vandalism. Neither of you have attempted a civil discussion. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)