Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215

User:37.11.162.133 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Declined)
Page: and

User being reported:


 * Citizens – Party of the Citizenry

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Spanish unionism

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I'm not part of this conflict, I just observed it. (Actually User:4idaho asked me to have a look and maybe do something about it) I invited her to start a discussion, but it seems that she has not yet found the time to do it. --RJFF (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * This seems to be an editor acting in good faith, so I'm hesitant to block. There's not a technical violation on Citizens – Party of the Citizenry, and the edit summaries on Spanish unionism seem to indicate that the user would be willing to discuss. I've left a note on their talk page encouraging them to do that; if they continue edit warring, a block will be in order, but I think we should be able to avoid that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll also try to talk it out on Talk on Citizens - Party of the Citizenry, but RJFF is correct I haven't had the time yet. --4idaho (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap reported by User:Sageo (Result: Warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

Edit warring (again) by SPECIFICO In deny of discussion about CV references by SPECIFICO
 * 1)  (history:    )
 * 1)

Reject of talk page discussions about BLP violations and by Steeletrap (and innaccurate use of the talk page as anti-Hoppe phamflets) Comments:
 * 1) Edit warring  >>  (history:, )
 * 2)  >>

I denunce User:SPECIFICO and User:Steeletrap for Edit War in the context of a case of Gaming the system. They have used the warning (to me) for make changes in the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe without consensus. In the history they deny many of the discussion in the talk page, that is openly a malicius practice (a sabotage of consensus, I don't know which is the policies formule in English Wikipedia for that). Both are violating WP:BLP systematicly and they rejects basic notions of use of primary sources. In any other article that practices have been sanctioned. I claim for a revert to previus version of the article Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and that the parts discusse their proposed changes first in talk page. Also, if they are part of war edition they should be warned too and stop editing without discuse the changes, and in this case they haver reverted content again and again, in particular SPECIFICO. In the case of Steeletrap he is using systematicly talk page as a anti-Hoppe phamflet. They need a kind of advice from Wikipedia Community. --Sageo (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the passage in question because it misrepresents Hoppe's view. Specifically, the passage claims that Hoppe's remarks regarding immigration "[are] not an argument against immigration but rather against the welfare state". While the quoted statement was indeed made by Hoppe, it does not reflect his position on immigration; in fact, it is his paraphrase of a criticism of his view. (According to that criticism, Hoppe's logic only implies that the welfare state should be abolished. Hoppe disagrees, thinking it implies a case against immigration.) That passage should be deleted because it misrepresents Hoppe as someone who does not advocate restrictions on immigration, when in fact he clearly and emphatically does advocate such restrictions, as can be seen through a quick google or in the RS cited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Views_on_immigration)


 * As to the material I added, it is abundantly well-sourced and no argument has been made regarding specific violations of BLP therein; it has simply been deleted wholesale by Sageo with vague or nonexistent justifications. Steeletrap (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Please also note that two of Sageo's "four" links of "Edit warring" on my part (133/136) refer the same diff. So he really only provides three examples of alleged "edit warring." Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You have deny the objections in talk page and make editions by your way without listening other voices warning about subjective use of cites, if that is a systematic practice that could be consider sabotage. BLP violations are also about ACLU-UNLV issue. You have been invited to create a previus redaction in talk page before add more information in the sections, other editors don't have deny the posibility of change the section. But you deny discussions and continue reverting and adding content by yourself. --Sageo (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside comment: This looks like a garden variety content dispute with a bit of reverting on both sides, but with progress still happening. Discussion is happening on the talk page, and it is not overly contentious, so it's all good. Actually, if anyone has been reverting too much and hearing too little, it Sageo, so perhaps WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Suggest closing this as a waste of administrator time, and an admonition to Sageo not to post reports to make a WP:POINT. LK (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Along similar lines, it is worth noting that Sageo has been given a formal warning for his conduct on the wikipedia entry in question. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sageo_reported_by_User:SPECIFICO_.28Result:_Warned.29) Steeletrap (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I know I'm not enough skillfull in Discussions in this Wikipedia, this is not my environment. But I trust that another community editors checking the attitudes will concern of what is happening, I trust in the wisdom of the most experienced. I'm not asking for blokcing anyone, what I want to notify is that the same user that denounce me, SPECIFICO, later he still do edition war (the first diff I provided is later of my warning). Also Steeeletrap still do it a edition war (or a in the way to do it) later of my warning. So, what are we talking about? Anyway I recognize I have to read more of the own policies of this Wikipedia to fit another causals, but still is clear to me that the edition war continued in two times of may 23 (24 may in UTC 0): philosopher/economist issue by SPECIFICO, and inmigration issue by Steeletrap. --Sageo (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are serious, long-term and repeated problems with User:Steeletrap's editing on the article. I will be bringing an extremely long list of repeated violations and repeated warnings at BLP Noticeboard on Tuesday. I just left my second warning (if not third) at his/her talk page at this diff.  (Unless WP:Ani is more appropriate place?) I'm still trying to catch up on the article and the talk page with all the issues of the last 24 hours. For example: Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe...
 * a bit later: having looked at both Specifico and Steeletrap's talk page discussions today, I can see that they are making all sorts of defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes. As I said at this diff: This section makes it very clear that the intent is to synthesize defamatory material about Hoppe, per Hook or by crook. I don't even know how many stupid/nasty things he's actually said, because of all the BLP violations trying to turn Bibliomancy into PhD theses, or whatever analogy works for you.  The problem here may go beyond mere POV distain for Hoppe into an actual WP:COI in that both editors as academics have gone into detail about their academic distain for one group of Austrian economists and economic writers. (A bunch of examples at (this talk page deletion diff). This "academic superiority" attitude carries over into their habit of taking any mention of or warning about various policies they are violating and claiming it is a baseless personal attacks. I'll put it all in the BLP complaint, but it's all pretty obvious to any admin who wants to take a look now. ''
 * Ok, I've put warning notices about  defamatory allegations and speculations based on non WP:RS sources and cherry picked quotes on both users talk pages and removed four sections of defamatory material from the talk page, after looking at the BLP notice on top of the talk page. They'll probably put it back, but here's the diff of the four sections that are overwhelmingly of defamatory nature'. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Carol's inflammatory yet completely vague chargers against SPECIFICO and myself should be contextualized by her consistent violations of WP guidelines through her numerous personal personal attacks toward other users. Here is just a sampling of the evidence. Carol has mocked my capacities for academics (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LewRockwell.com&diff=prev&oldid=553662712), accused user SPECIFICO and myself of sexism (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553822485&oldid=553821981 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=553843792&oldid=553842400), and claimed that I am intentionally trying to violate the rules of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=554006883.) I am happy to detail more of her copious collection of PAs if prompted, as they have continued ceaselessly to this day. Steeletrap (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:SPECIFICO: Another editor posted RfC: Should the section title for Academic freedom controversy be changed?. Despite this ongoing WP:ANI, tonight User:SPECIFICO (see May 24th edits) immediately posted a notice to 10 Wikiprojects with the very biased ("Campaigning") title →‎RfC on anti-gay bias and academic freedom: new section). (See example here) These projects include Human rights, Universities, Biography/Science and academia, Investment, Economics, Sexology and sexuality, LGBT studies, Sociology, Psychology, Biography/Politics and government. I have asked him to retitle them properly. User:SPECIFICO is very much aware of the policy having warned me here about it after I posted an announcement to just one wikiproject. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: The user who posted the RfC went to all the postings and made them neutral, which s/he should not have had to do. I assume Specifico is on vacation. I have tagged my concerns that two users who came as a result were canvassed. I realize this is not a very well formatted series of complaints and in fact does not include some of the biggest problems and offenses which I'm saving for a more appropriate forum. But admins should keep it all in mind. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am the editor that posted the RfC and I initiated the initial talk page thread. And I am the one who went and changed the Project talk page notices. In my opinion, the issue as to canvassing is closed.  But tagging the non-involved editor comments on the RfC as "canvassed" is not appropriate. One editor saw the RfC on a project page. I believe the other editor follows the particular article and/or other editor contributions. There was no direct contact on those two editor talk pages. The canvassed tags should be removed. (And as this particular EW notice has gone off the rails, it should be closed.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I went to WP:Canvassing and they suggested that as an option. Now I can see that there needs to be more guidance on what happens next. How are the people tagged supposed to respond? But it is not up to other editors to explain for them. Also, if there comments had been more neutral I probably would have not tagged them. But both were in the vein of the campaigning posting. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you mean if an editor (who was not canvassed) makes a comment, and then gets tagged as possibly canvassed, should then have to make a further comment saying "I was not canvassed"? In this particular case, the two editors who made comments were not canvassed. Posting the tag in itself has AGF implications. The best thing it remove the tags with a mea culpa in the edit summary. Just because they are fast on the draw to agree with one side or the other does not mean the non-canvassing influenced them. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * . I see a technical WP:3RR violation by Steeletrap on May 24. However, I don't intend to block him for it given the amazing number of contentious claims by so many about this article and the fact that he hasn't edited since. I am also taking into account the warning against Sageo in the report earlier on this page. That said, Steeletrap is warned that if he continues to revert in the article, he may be blocked without notice. As for the non-edit-warring claims, please take it somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:May122013 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: No violation - BLP)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lots of discussion on Talk:Rob Ford, multiple sections

Comments: This user is edit warring to remove negative content about the subject which has been widely reported in the media, under the claim that it is a hoax, with no evidence to back it up. Claiming it is a hoax, the user is continuing to remove it despite clear consensus that it should remain, and clearly intends to continue this behavior as evidenced by his/her claim that this is "exempt" from 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue here is clearly one where WP:BLP is applicable - it contains Gawker blog posts and statements that there is no way of afirming the authenticity of the claims. Accusations of drug use do appear to be "contentious" in general, and the fact that a number of sources print the rumours do not make the rumours proper in a BLP.   As for the claim iterated by several that BLP edits are not exempt from 3RR - the EW policy states  There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy  which sure looks like it uses the word "exemption."  Now often an admin will say he does not see a BLP relevance - but the case at hand is farily clearly problematic when weighed by that policy. BLP/N shows that the issue is indeed discussed at the BLP noticeboard, with substantial comment that this is, indeed, a BLP issue.  If so, then the 3RR "exemption" may indeed exist, contrary to assertions otherwise. Collect (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * When the best secondary source admit that they cannot verify the authenticity of this video, BLP probably applies, and thus May is exempt from 3RR. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That is a bizarre interpretation of BLP. The article is merely reporting what mainstream media say, not claiming that the video is authentic.  TFD (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not a BLP violation to include material widely covered in secondary sources. The edit warrior has continued to edit war, so I've the latest revision and ask you to reconsider. As has been demonstrated on the talk page, this user is a conservative pushing a POV based on political ideology. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree that it is not a BLP violation, as addressed at WP:WELLKNOWN. Even The New York Times and the BBC have covered this scandal. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Allegations of felonies are, indeed, contentious claims of a crime per WP:BLPCRIME even if the NYT reports on the contentious source, it does not cure the underlying problem. Indeed the NYT article is quite clear that there is no proof of a crime - thus it is not a "source" allowing entrance of the accusation into the BLP.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a newspaper.  "The Star noted that it was unable to authenticate the video it viewed of Mr. Ford, which was produced by the drug dealers. The newspaper and Gawker declined to buy the video, although Gawker began an online fund-raising project Friday to raise $200,000 for it. " is pretty clear evidence that the NYT is not in any way vouching for the video - and indeed the idea that it was "available for cash" seems, to me, to indicate that the verity of the video is in question.  Thus, while I am not taking sides in the edit, there are ample grounds for assertion that this is an exemption for WP:BLP whih is the only question to be answered here. Collect (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replied here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hamitdown reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Not exactly a straight edit war - the user is repeatedly adding inappropriate links and refs into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While the links were definitely inappropriate, this is not a case of edit warring, in my opinion; furthermore, this guy is a newbie and could profit more from having the rules explained to him rather than being blocked. I suggest you inform him of our policy on inappropriate links and, if he perseveres, report him to ANI. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Both myself and User:Barney the barney barney have titled the article Colour and not Color as per the film poster and Cannes website. FilmFan picks random US reviews, which of course will use color as the source for the title and has reverted both of us multiple times. He has been warned on his talkpage, but just blanks his talkpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing random about my constant reverting. I reverted first so you should have found consensus before changing to COLOUR again. On Wikipedia we use the title most used in the English-speaking world for foreign films WP:NCF, not the title used on a French website or on a British poster.  F i l m F a n  10:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to get the consensus first, before you revert edits five or six time to get your point across.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No. When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again. That edit was COLOUR, since the article was correctly COLOR beforehand. Get consensus.  F i l m F a n  10:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "When a controversial edit is reverted, you discuss it before changing it again." Practice what you preach then!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me who made the edit. It was barney, and then you. Got it?  F i l m F a n  10:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "It wasn't me who made the edit." Well that unsourced edit in diff 138 says differently.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop wasting my time. This is utter silliness. That edit was a reversion.  F i l m F a n  10:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your time would not be wasted if you had sourced any of your changes or citied WP policy for each of your five reverts instead of edit comments such as "I am reverting you, because you are wrong". Cannes sources it as Colour, the poster says Colour and WP:ENGVAR is against you. Please read WP:3RR too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:ENGVAR is in no way against me. Cannes sources it as both COLOUR and COLOR, which is irrelevant anyway because it's a French website, and the poster originated in the UK. So... I'm kinda right.  F i l m F a n  12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The film distributor lists it as Colour and not Color.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not know what you're talking about. The title used by the FRENCH distributor is IRRELEVANT. The title used in the ENGLISH-SPEAKING world is what you're all ignoring, and the very thing that should matter. But I'm done with this stupid shit for now, because some people will never see till we get hard proof (THEATRICAL RELEASES). See you for another round soooon.  F i l m F a n  14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be civil.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * , you are edit warring; I don't want to block you, but if you revert once again, I'll most definitely do so. Please, discuss the issue on the talk page. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He's heading down the road of personal attacks and shouting to get his views across on that talk page.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not a personal attack; for the moment, the only thing I could do would be to invite him to calm down, which is something that usually has the very opposite result... Right now, he seems to have stopped editing; hopefully, he'll come back calmer... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Salvio.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to discuss this on the talk page at talk:Blue is the Warmest Colour. This is all getting very, very silly. Btw, I am completely calm, and am trying to discuss rather than "edit war". Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:CSDarrow reported by User:Slp1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This article is under community article probation. Per this ANI discussion, this article is under 1RR. Please also see the article probation]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   2013-05-25T18:27:46  (Undid revision 556558464 by Saedon (talk)WP:WHYCITE says "particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead.")
 * 2)   2013-05-25T19:56:35  ‎ (Undid revision 556768477 by Slp1 (talk)Removing vandalism. Please discuss in Talk page if you are to add material.)


 * Informed of article probation
 * Previously blocked for 72 hours for editwarring on the same article

I offered him the chance to revert, but the response was to claim that my edit was vandalism.Slp1 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

spl1 added controversial material that was not discussed let alone had any consensus. In addition a total of 7 citations where added to support a single sentence. The lede is now an utter mess. Imo opinion it is vandalism and my revert was justified under the the spirit of the RR1 rule. All that was needed was the addition of a couple of sources to support the controversial sentence in the lede. But now we are here.

Also the 'offer to revert' was posted 2 mins before it was reverted by someone else. CSDarrow (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is not the editor's first block for edit warring in this article. CSDarrow is well aware of the rule, and their contention that they were reverting vandalism is meritless.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Continuing edit war regarding "misogynist": CSDarrow previously removed somewhat similar text on April 28 and May 1, following the April 26 determination that 1RR was needed on the article. In both cases CSDarrow removed from the lead section any mention of the fact that the MRM has been identified by this or that group as having misogynist tendencies or misogynist members—a fact that summarizes reliably sourced article body text. His most recent revert once again removed the word misogynist from the lead section. This is a long-standing dispute CSDarrow has with the other article editors, not a one-time revert. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz reported by User:MrX (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  removed POV "alleged". Do we talk about "alleged problem of child abuse", etc.? The sources do not use "alleged", nor does anybody serious, e.g. Jimbo Wales
 * 2)  Reverted to revision 556710909 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah: corporation is specific while organization is vague. Precise links are better than vague links. (TW)
 * 3)  Undid revision 556715968 by Conti (talk) See your talk page. Also discussed at DYK nomination, etc.
 * 4)  Undid revision 556717514 by Conti (talk) Read the source, FFS
 * 5)  Undid revision 556720212 by Conti (talk) RS says,censorship of marijuana "inhalation devices".
 * 6)  Reverted to revision 556721982 by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: Misattribution of results to the site, as opposed to contributors, failure to obey talk page consensus, spotlighting OR on ownership violating due weight.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There seems to be some ownership issues at this article and I'm concerned that Kiefer.Wolfowitz thinks that edit warring is justified because, as he put it, "My quality and NPOV edits speak for themselves". His attitude on the article talk page is a little off-putting as well. I'm not trying to get this editor blocked, but would like for him to acknowledge the edit warring, stop doing it and start listening to objections and concerns that other editors have voiced. - MrX 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . I'm not sure why you're singling out Kiefer. It's true that he's breached WP:3RR, but there's a lot of battling in that article, and others have breached 3RR, or at least edit warred. I'm tempted to lock the article, and I may still do so if the battling becomes too disruptive, but I get the sense that the battle is moving in a positive direction, and I'm reluctant to protect an article that is being hopefully improved, albeit somewhat contentiously.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A review of the talk page discussions and editing history will show who has been acting in good faith. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't single him out and there may be others who have edit warred. His edits, talk page interactions and dismissal of my warning seemed problematic, but feel free to close this out if you don't view it as an issue requiring admin action. - MrX 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, now that Bbb23 has your permission, I guess it'd be all right. LMAO Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Come on X, you did single Kiefer out--it's the very nature of this report. Kiefer, please don't press the point, of reverting until you're brought up in one of these venues...maybe it's a hard habit to break, but it would save us all a lot of trouble. There are other ways to solve content disputes, better ways. Bbb, as far as I'm concerned you can close this, not because there's no fault, but because...I don't know. I'm tired. What's the point of anything anymore? and now I see that another editor saw fit to totally chop the lead, without taking the matter up on the talk page--and with little regard for lead writing. Should I revert the lot, just to beat Kiefer to it and prevent an additional diff for Mr. X? Maybe not because of that reason, but I'm going to revert anyway. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this per Drmies. MrX and Kiefer, please listen to Drmies, both here and on the article talk page. He's a very wise fellow, even when he's tired. So, both of you, please behave. MrX, don't focus on Kiefer. Kiefer, be nice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Drmies - I saw an editor making a lot of recent reverts and being heavy-handed on the talk page. I wouldn't have taken it to AN/EW if he had simply agreed to ratchet it back a little when I raised the issue on his talk page. Perhaps Conti was deserving of a warning as well, but at least their talk page posts were not insulting toward other editors. I would hope that this article can be edited by more than just a couple of editors, some of whom seem to be using prowess and incivility to act as gatekeepers. - MrX 01:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. X, I can't say I approve of Kiefer's style, at least not always. But you're mixing things up a bit here--you're suggesting that if he had been nicer you wouldn't have reported him. That's very honest (refreshingly honest!), but this is specifically for edit warring. Besides, I can understand if Kiefer gets a bit miffed at an edit summary "c e for style and grammar" for an edit that, well, does not help the grammar. Anyway, I agree that more editors is better. Now let's move on. Don't let Kiefer irritate you too much, and Kiefer, vice versa. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You all seem to have confused BRD and edit warring. I have not been reverting to restore my favored version of the article. On the contrary, the reverts have been part of the BRD cycle. If you examine the article history, you can see that editors have discussed changes and come to consensus. In some cases, after complaints without policy warrant were made (against the stable version of the article), I voluntarily returned and implemented changes to deal with the GF concerns of editors, who were no longer actively editing. The talk page history and article history show that my edits have support among neutral commentators. An edit-warring charge was unwarranted. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  09:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:58.165.75.85 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Possible WP:SOCK violation by this user as well. This brand new user showed up making the exact same reverts. Has very little edits outside of this article.
 * 1)

In addition, Til Eulenspiegel has been blocked numerous times for edit warring in the past.


 * I believe the contributions of this IP should prove he or she is WP:NOTHERE to do anything but try to ignite edit wars, troll and provoke disputes to block serial editors. They have edit warred to vandalize the article and I have reverted the troll when it became apparent they are trolling, but the page does need to be semi-locked now. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. Whose block log shows a history of edit warring? Not mine, that's for sure. As I've said earlier, this "editor" (can we even use that word?), has a long history of edit warring, and is very obviously using a sockpuppet account. 58.165.75.85 (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:CanadianBoy7 reported by User:Narom (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556811596

Diffs of the user's reverts: +many more.
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556823649
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556878219
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556885905
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neymar&oldid=556888435

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 556892474, 556887505

Comments:


 * I'm an involved party (I believe I'm at or past 3RR), but I did try to explain the issues to the user. Mosmof (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mosmof has warning him, has also not gone over 3RR himself. Canadianboy7 has also commented in person attacks stating he had all day to keep making the changes. I've also warned him. Narom (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * for vandalism by User:Alexf.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Explosiveoxygen reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903018
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556903856
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&oldid=556905060
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xbox_One&curid=39458161&diff=556906869&oldid=556906387

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Explosiveoxygen&oldid=556904037

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Constantly tries to re-introduce poorly written criticism section with poor sourcing, also showing inappropriate conduct and ownership (calling a reverting user a "filthy liar", "DO NOT DELETE MY ADDITIONS.")

I am the "reverting user" noted above. EO was advised each time why their edits were being undone, as shown here and here, yet they continued their POV-pushing without so much as a desire to discuss. -- McDoob AU93  19:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

User:103.247.49.151 reported by User:U3964057 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and again here

Comments: Hi there. An added complexity to this issue is that the Anon editor appears to be using multiple IP addresses (the other addresses appear to include: 103.247.49.160, 103.247.49.158, 103.247.49.133, 103.247.49.161, 103.247.49.148, 103.247.49.168). That is why the | warning went on the relevant talk page. I am not sure how best to handle that. Kind regards Andrew (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected due to the shifting IP. I have also removed some material that may be perceived as outing from the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Your help is appreciated. Cheers and happy editing Andrew (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Granuator reported by User:Premkudva (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Granuator#Kashi_Math_.28unexplained_uncited_and_unverified_edits.29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashi_Math&oldid=556555000 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kashi_Math&oldid=556983105

Comments:

User consistently removes cited verified content from article without any explanation. He has been warned on the article talk and his talk pages.

-- PremKudva    Talk   09:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . The history of this article and the editors involved is unusual. For the moment, I'm not taking any action pending a little more digging, although my present inclination is to lock the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:Richardhod (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  This is the diff of the previous version and the first edit I made to the page. FYI The only part of the page I have edited is the plot (as I watched it on TV, originally)

Diffs of the user's reverts: - Forgive me if I give the wrong Diffs. I've never used these before. But it's a close history and all sequential, and obvious from the History Page of the article. I put the diff links in the brackets: I hope that's right.

Here's his first revert, diff with my first edit. Here's the second reversion, after I'd undone his revert, and was writing on his Talk page, and re-editing for length and improvements Here's his third revert, and at last he edits the talk page rather than just edit comments. HOwever, just minor style complaints, no edits, and reverting to the initial inaccurate version. 4th revert. Manifestly decides that his agreement is consensus. This is a serious case of "my version" trolling. I haven't undone this ridiculousness as if will obviously go nowhere.
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Indeed. Informed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheOldJacobite&diff=557054620&oldid=557054581

Diff of first attempt to resolve dispute, which I first did On his talk page:  Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (the first time I did this on the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Page, as soon as I realised this was better) 

Comments:

TheOldJacobite has form for warring, as you can tell from his Talk page. He seems to believe this page is his own personal fiefdom. Instead of making constructive re-edits, he decided to revert to a manifestly inadequate old version rather than trying to improve the wiki, which is my only intent. Even though (or perhaps because) I'm a trained and experienced journalist in my past, I'm not precious about my words. If none of my words end up on the wiki, but it's accurate and well-written, I shall be happy. I suspect this is not the case with TheOldJacobite. Please look at our edit histories and talk pages! This guy has complaints all over.

I felt justified in putting back my at least accurate version, and particularly when I re-edited it for length and even more improved accuracy. All TheOldJacobite does is revert, which appears to be childish and destructive behaviour, n the grounds of extremely minor issues, and he's not doing anything useful or involving work.

I posted on TheOldJacobite's Talk page after his first revert, but he ignored it and commented through the edit summary. After his Second revert, I re-edited my version and posted it, and posted on the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang talk page, as you see. I advise him he's warring and reverting to an inaccurate version etc (See talk page). It should still be there at the bottom of his page. (Or see his talk history) Richardhod (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC) OK, thanks. It looked as if he was exactly doing that, but you are the experts. Problem is the criticisms change every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . Neither of you has violated WP:3RR. Both of you are edit warring. I suggest you go back to the talk page to work out the content dispute. Try to focus on TheOldJacobite's specific criticisms of your version of the plot and ignore his crustiness. If you can't work it out, there are dispute resolution mechanisms to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:90.203.225.5 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hour block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Some of the user's edits above (though not all of them) were to re-insert the unsourced assertion that human evolution is a "very unproven concept" so they might be editing with an agenda or being disruptive to make a point. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Vsmith (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:71.2.172.65 (Result:No action)
Page: Reference desk/Science

User being reported: User:AndyTheGrump

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link here

I'm not actually asking for medical advice, I am asking a question based on curiosity as I am already being treated by an endocrinologist. I would just like to know more about androgen insensitivity syndrome.

Boomerang applies here in spades. The OP added this question to the Science desk six times and was reverted by three different editors, including me. Andy was right in reverting as trolling. Objections by the OP aside, I agree that this question is an inappropriate request for medical advice. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a request for medical advice. Or quite possibly simple trolling. See the contributor's first post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not trolling or a request for medical advice. Why would you consider it so? See the discussion. I did not ask the question six times, I asked a different question later. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's really idiotic for Andy to keep reverting when there are other editors around perfectly willing to do it (e.g., me), but regardless of that, what really needs to happen is for the IP to be blocked. Looie496 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No action. I'm not entirely sure how often the OP has to be told that their question is inappropriate for the refdesk; even if they're convinced they're not actually asking for medical advice, other editors are. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like a homework assignment, which the ref desk also will not do. He needs to do his own research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for the refdesk to do my homework. I'm asking for help in answering my homework. You don't even know what my homework question is. For all you know I have to write a 3000-word essay on the topic. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Start doing your research then... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You deleted my question. How am I supposed to start? I already searched the literature, but I don't have access to journals from the Holiday Inn. 71.2.172.65 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Grammarxxx reported by User:Jerzeykydd (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: Grammarxxx and I clearly have different visions of how U.S. Congressman Maloney's page should look like. We have talked on each others talk pages and on the Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney page to no avail. He hasn't been very civil in this process. In fact, he has been very combative since the beginning. He has called me names and has accused me of ownership and reverting his edits. The fact is that both of us have been reverting each others edits. I could just as easily accuse him of ownership. It is unclear who started this dispute. Unlike him, I have been civil and tried to find common ground. Ultimately, I recommend the page to be semi-protected permanently and fully protected temporarily (a few days) as a cooling off period. In addition, Grammarxxx has not been civil in this process and I'm hoping that an administrator could at least warn him of a possible block.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: While it is very true Jerzeykydd and I have different opinions on the layout, I have always tried to remain a civil as possible, and I find the fact he has come here to accuse me of being "combative" and "uncivil" during this process insulting. I on the other hand am here just to give my perspective on these conflict of edits (otherwise known as a "spat"). I have attempted to reconfigure the sections in the article, and when it became clear Jerzeykydd and I felt differently on the subject it was brought it up on the talk page, where we received an third opinion in my favor. Following that Jerzykydd then reverted my edits, the initial beginning of the edit war. While in his summaries he's claimed I "haven't been responsive to [his] comments," he has made none, and has simply tried to get his edits back in. Although Jerzykydd's summary makes him seem the victim in this war, he is leaving out crucial details in loo of mudslinging, I am sure once it is examined, it will show that this is just a spat between two Wikipedians with a difference of opinions. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * . I don't see why the article should suffer because you and the other editor duke it out in the article. No one else is doing it. Both of you should stay on the talk page, or both of you may be blocked for edit warring (fortunately, neither of you has violated WP:3RR). If you're also going to accuse the other editor of civility issues here, then provide diffs. The worst thing I saw was an edit summary in which they said "Are you nuts?" Pretty mild stuff. Does it really matter who started reverting first? And accusing you of ownership is probably not justified, but it's also not a big deal if it's not supportable. All this over layout issues. Come on. If you can't solve it between the two of you, then use dispute resolution to help you. I believe Grammarxxx suggested something along those lines on the article talk page. But stop battling in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bodinmagosson reported by --Kaiyr (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC) (Result: No violation)
Manchu people:

User being reported:

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

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

Hej, my friend, I've left messages on your "talk" page, please check it. I'm new to wiki edit and am yet to fully learn how to properly reply a "warring" or "talk". I'll be busy these days but hopefully we can further talk in the "wiki way" since mid June. Bodinmagosson (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Long running slow edit war. Discuss (further) on talkpage, pleaseBlack Kite (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:108.198.156.21 reported by User:Gabby Merger (for sockpuppetry as well as 3RR)
Page:

User being reported:

There's been something going on for almost 2 weeks now. That is rather bizarre. This IP address 108.198.156.21 (and his alter, because the edit comment styles are the same, with the wording) 75.14.223.79, and his other alternate (again SAME writing style with his comments) 75.15.192.209, has had this uptight thing against simply modifying "Mosaic Covenant" to "Mosaic Law Covenant" in the article Council of Jerusalem. Just a simple clarity and valid modification, per context of paragraph, as well as the fact that that is ALSO a standard way of saying it. No valid reason to revert willy nilly, for basically "I don't like reasons".

The revert and edit history for the article is right here.

This user has reverted six times in a week and a half. Regardless of the clear point that wiki links DO NOT HAVE TO BE exactly the same wording as the actual article name. And that "Mosaic Law Covenant" IS a valid and standard and encyclopedic way of saying it too. He doesn't care. See what he did...

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

This is what I wrote on the article talk page (in part) to the warring IP address:


 * Again, the fact that the article name has it as "Mosaic Covenant" is NOT really all that significant, as there are many wiki links with slightly altered or modified display wordings. With no problem.


 * And again, to repeat....sighs...."Mosaic Law Covenant" IS ALSO USED IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS TOO!!! What part of that fact is hard to understand or believe or see?   It's a standard expression for that ALSO.  So there's ZERO Wikipedia justification or reason to be so weirdly uptight about this, and to rudely undo that all the time. Again, "Mosaic Law Covenant" is also used in Encyclopedias... For real.


 * As for "consensus"?? You're kidding me.  There's no "consensus" for YOUR uptight whiny nonsense on here.  Plus this is such a minor (and correct) modification, it does not warrant all this edit-warring and craziness from you.  Good day.

I almost can't believe this is going on. I'm a serious editor on Wikipedia, and I don't have time for uptight and silly games like this.

I have to say though that another editor (by mistake) In ictu oculi entered in, but admitted later that it was not "3RR" on my part, because he didn't carefully at first check the dates. It was over a week apart (at first), NOT "24 hours". In ictu coli is cool overall.

But the IP address(es) (the same person) has been constantly reverting, and being rude and unreasonable about this. It does not matter that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant" if the display link is a correct and valid modification or variation, being "piped".

Also, encyclopedias and other reference works use "Mosaic Law Covenant" ALSO. There's ZERO Wikipedia justification or reason for what this IP address has been doing. I warned him already that if he continued this nonsense, I would report him on here. He reverted again, despite what I took the time to explain and write on the article talk page. He's stuck on this for some reason. I mean, as I said, there's no "consensus" for HIS attitude on this, and there should be no real need for big "consensus" for my simple and valid modification, as it is correct, and it's not such a big deal.

Anyway, I'd like someone's take on this, and for someone to do something about this warring IP address. This is ridiculous now. I'm trying to be careful not to edit-war myself, or violate 3RR. So hence why I'm here now. Thanks for your consideration to this. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Article protected. This does appear to be a long edit-war over a triviality, so it needs to be discussed on the talkpage. I have protected the article to prevent anyone getting themselves blocked. Black Kite (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it's a triviality, and that's part of my point. And I already discussed this (at length too) on the article talk page. The IP user doesn't care.  So what do I do?  I just don't like the fact that it was HIS last revert that remained just before your block protection.   But the point though is that there's no "consensus" for his trivial whining about this matter, and there arguably doesn't need to be, as my modification is not some earth-shaking or horrible thing.  But valid and sourced and standard.  So again, what do I do here?  Gabby Merger (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is now as it was on April 15, 2013, before any of the disputed edits were made. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? The appropriate next step would be to obtain consensus for any change on the talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is such a trivial and minor modification (and a valid one), that really no other editor even cares about this, or is even adding anything or contributing to the discussion either way.  Meaning that the IP editor's position on this (his whiny and weird position on this) does not have "consensus" really either.   And he had no WP valid right to do what he's been doing.  If other editors could chime in, on this silly matter, then fine...try to build "consensus".  But no one seems interested.  So again, what is to be done? Gabby Merger (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:186.92.124.108 reported by User:Zhmr (Result: Block, semi)
Page:

User being reported: also,  and many more

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] open proxy, multiple (blocked) IPs, warned of reporting on the talk page []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've edited the page as per agreement here: Talk:Kingdom_of_Syrmia. I've stated this in the edit summary. An open proxy vandal (an example of his methods ) has been following me around since yesterday and reverting my contributions. He hides behind multiple IPs, resorts to personal chauvinist insults and accuses me of sockpuppetry (the tag was removed by Zzuuzz, see []) and reverts my edits first without explanation, then on this grounds (sockpuppetry ), than at last of being POV nationalist pushing. He refused to discuss anything on the talk pages till he was reported at [] and []. Now he's somewhat pacified by refuses to adher to the agreement here Talk:Kingdom_of_Syrmia. Zhmr (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: First IP blocked as a suspected open proxy. Two articles semiprotected. Consider filing this at WP:SPI, and let me know if you need further assistance. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Obvious violation of 1RR at an Arab-Israeli conflict article. Discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. There is no consensus whatsoever to add Israel to the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Man,He violated the 1rr about five times,trying to impose his point of view without any consensus Alhanuty (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as i can see, at least 11th time. Wow... -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WW, what in the world have you to do with this article? :) imo your stalking my talk is just embarrassing by this point. I honestly hope you might find some other hobby. -- Director  ( talk )  11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I call on anyone to review the sources next to Israel's entry in the infobox (here) and not question the justifiability of the reverts that have been taking place for six months now. And that with significant support on the talkpage for its inclusion (its 6v5 or 6v6 or something..).

For six months now, and longer, these fellas have been WP:DISRUPTING the functioning of that talkpage, and should imo be sanctioned without delay for the serious damage they have caused to this project on one of its most prominent articles. It is impossible to post sourced material into the article unless it "passes the approval" of resident edit-warriors, shamelessly WP:GAMING the 1RR restriction and WP:STONEWALLING any and all additions they disapprove. And that regardless of talkpage support, as one can claim "no consensus" and "ongoing discussion" however long one wishes without being technically wrong.

Reams of text were written in numerous talkpage threads, all sorts of DR attempts, several RfCs were called, DRN threads were posted. Over there, however, it boils down to the edit-warriors and their reverting, plain and simple. And no one wants to touch this with a ten-foot pole.

I'm an editor with over 46,000 edits on this project, and all I'm doing is making an addition that's so damn sourced its not even funny anymore. An addition which, I assure you, its entirely impossible to make in any other way. If you fellas wanna sanction me - sanction me. I do not believe my actions are fundamentally in contradiction with the meaning of Wikipedia policy. -- Director  ( talk )  11:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If both Direktor and his opponents keep reverting the article, blocks appear likely. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=557362554&oldid=557318106 Saying you are reverting 'Per talk'] looks like empty words at this point. You all should know how to open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're just going to let him get away with this? This is not the first time he's done this. He's been trying to add Israel to the infobox without consensus since for months. Also, there was an RfC. See the discussions here: Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't close the original report because the counting of reverts seemed messed up. At present I'd settle for any plan that aims to find consensus on whether Israel should be listed as a combatant. If blocks are needed, I'd propose that anyone reverting on Israel's combatant status from now on (before a clear talk page consensus) should be blocked. If there is no appropriate promise from either User:DIREKTOR or User:Sopher99 about their future conduct I'd include them in the blocks for what they've already done. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree to cease altogether removing Israel so long as DIREKTOR agrees to not add it in when a debate is ongoing. Stonewalling is not a legitimate excuse as there are significant minorities and significant majorities in this discussion, each with in depth arguments. Considering RfC and Dispute resolution's both failed to establish consensus, we can rule out stonewalling as an excuse. Sopher99 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So yes I agree to EdJohnstons's proposal. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. Anyone who add/remove Israel from now on should be blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Though we need someone, an admin or such, to revert the edits while discussion is ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a general discussion at Talk:Syrian Civil War, and a collection of threads at Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel. If anyone thinks this adds up to a consensus, why not ask an admin to formally close it? EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats the thing. There is no consensus, even when we tried RfC and Dispute Resolution, so it stays at status quo. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Closing. I think Ed has it right here; discussion is the only way forward, with the caveat that further edit-warring to insert/remove the section absent a talkpage consensus will mean a block.  And, oh yeah, a couple of editors above inserting comments to the effect of "BLOCK HIM!! BLOCK HIM!!" - not helpful. Let the report speak for itself, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

(just saw the post on my talk) I am prepared to give my word never to breach 1RR over there, if I could only get some helpful advice as to how and where this WP:STONEWALL might be adressed (and it is my immutable opinion that any objective survey will indicate disruption on that talkpage). In fact, I do hereby vow so, in hopes od receiving said advice. I myself have no idea. It appears only edit-warring breaks the easy and relaxed manner in which sources are off-handedly dismissed over there. No RfC result is deemed "consensus-worthy" for these folks, who apparently believe wikipedia fuctions by WP:VOTE. DRN & ANI threads are just plain ignored. -- Director  ( talk )  13:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Resaltador reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:THC Loadee reported by User:AutomaticStrikeout (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Though not pertinent to edit warring, the user in question has been blocked for personal attacks, and has been harassing User:ZappaOMati here. Again, this does not pertain to the edit warring allegation, but just as an FYI to any patrolling administrator. Thanks. Go  Phightins  !  21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that he is continuing the edit war. AutomaticStrikeout ?  02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * by User:Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dyrnych reported by User:Federales (Result: No violation, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Discussion belated started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice.)

Comments:

Diff #4 is an IP hailing from an open proxy server. The revert should be credited to Dyrnych according to WP:DUCK. Federales (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Geolocate indicates that the IP is a network sharing device or a proxy server, but not an open proxy server.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not my edit. Also, "revert" 1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all.  Dyrnych (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Not seeing a violation of 3rr, and if Federales thinks that the IP should be credited to Dyrnych, then I don't see why the other two IP's should not be credited to Federales. As a side note, the current version is very neutral.  Arzel (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff #4 is not my edit. Also, Diff #1 is my original edit of the page and not a revert at all. I explained the reasoning behind Diff #2 in my edit summary. Diff #3 was probably not appropriate, but my reversion had just been undone by a nameless IP address that has apparently engaged in precisely one action: undoing my reversion (See |here). If Federales is going to blame me for Diff #4 via WP:DUCK, he should be blamed for the revision noted above as well as for |a subsequent revision by another nameless IP address which itself has engaged in the sole action of undoing Diff #3. Thus, Federales would himself be guilty of edit warring and probably of violating WP:3RR. That said, I'm not interested in harassing Federales; I'm interested in resolving the underlying conflict.

Although I've never been involved in an edit war and this is something of a new experience for me, I've familiarized myself with Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and do not intend to revert further. Hence, I'm attempting to resolve this conflict through the article's talk page. Thus far, Federales has used the discussion solely to accuse me of edit warring and has not addressed the actual substance of the conflict other than subjectively noting that my edit "didn't improve the article." I don't see how any sort of resolution within WP:BRD can be achieved when I lay out my rationale and the response I receive is as trivial as that. Dyrnych (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, I should point out that Federales' claim that "[d]iscussion belated [sic] started by Dyrnych after he received a 3RR notice" is false. I started the discussion prior to receiving the 3RR notice from Federales.  That's an easily verifiable fact, and I'm not sure why Federales would claim otherwise.  Dyrnych (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Article already protected, and regardless No violation. As mentioned above, the filer should be very careful about assigning IP edits to the other editor "per WP:DUCK" when there are two IP reverts that do exactly the same for his own edits. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Attleboro (Result: No block, BLP concerns are legitimate and need to be discussed and consensus reached before adding material )
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557462217

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&oldid=557550431

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557415804&oldid=557411621
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557462486&oldid=557462217
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557463349&oldid=557462808
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557549799&oldid=557549234
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557550431&oldid=557550234
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=557553561&oldid=557552495  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attleboro (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Gospel_of_success

Comments:


 * As can been seen from Talk:Prosperity theology, I have made it clear to Attleboro that this material is a clear violation of WP:BLP policy - it uses the words 'crass' and 'hucksterism' in Wikipedia's voice, characterises Donald Trump as a 'heretic' quoting no source whatsoever, and and goes out of its way to brand Joel Osteen as both 'heretic' and a 'subversive' with no pretence at presenting any objectivity, or even an intimation that others might not share this point of view. It is clearly a coatrack attack on Orsteen, and simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I apologise for repeatedly reverting this, rather than bringing it up at a noticeboard, but I hoped that Attleboro might see a little sense. In any case, since WP:3RR doesn't apply to reversions of WP:BLP violating material, while it clearly does apply to those inserting such material, I suggest that action be taken against Attleboro instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The BLP concerns here are legitimate and need to be discussed. That is not to say that some form of this material cannot be in the article, but unless and until a consensus is reached as to the form, wording, and specific sources used to put in the article, it should NOT be there until BLP concerns are dealt with and a wide consensus is reached.  Attleboro, please do not readd this material, consider this a warning to not proceed down this path.  If you wish to see this material in the article, work out exactly how to do so on the talk page, and get widespread agreement to do so.  Which is not to say 100% agreement, but a broad consensus is necessary.  -- Jayron  32  18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jayron, I wish you'd review this. WP:3RR exemption 7 is "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since neither libelous, unsourced, nor poorly sourced, the only one that may apply is biased, but since this is criticism, that shouldn't apply either if reliably sourced to a notable. Grump does not read carefully. The words he objects to are sourced, except no one called Donald Trump a heretic. Some of Osteen's ideas are called heresy. Some of what Trump represents are called subversive. No individual is called a name. Also, Grump did not "report... to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Attleboro (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * First, it's a judgment call by the reviewing admin on whether to apply the BLP exemption. Wikilawyering the language of the exemption won't assist you. If the admin believes that there are strong enough BLP issues, applying the exemption is sound. Second, to the extent it matters, I agree with Jayron. Third, arguably the material is poorly sourced considering how you cobbled it together.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have, and am going to again, expressly not make any decision about who is correct and who is wrong with regards to the content issue here. Instead, I am instructing you both to use the talk page, make your case, and invite others to weigh in so consensus can be established as to the specific wording, sources, and text of the section in question.  I have not, and will not, make any decision as to whether or not the current text is or is not appropriate, or whether some form of the text would, or would not, be appropriate in this form or a modified for, or whether it should or should not be there at all.  The issue is that the text should be worked out on the talk page, out of the actual article, and once consensus is established there, and it is clearly established by enough users who have weighed in, then the version that everyone thinks is the best, and has consensus, can be added.  Do not add any text about this material unless and until that has been done.  If you need additional eyes or help from previously uninvolved users, WP:DR has many suggestions.  -- Jayron  32  21:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Batvanio (Result: Batvanio warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I have high respect for User 57 for his editing work. I welcome Wikipedia helping the community with grants that promote transparency, honest dialog and correct information. However, it seems to me that User 57 has taken a personal attitude towards my edits and deletes or reverts them no matter what. I did try to take many of his points in the comments he provided, and I did try to correct my edits accordingly. However, I found them outright deleted without any regards of contents. For example, one of his/her comments were "unfunded edits" - I did provide enough references from public media and official reports (see my last edits). However, my edits were deleted regardless. Please help.
 * As can be seen from the edit history of the article in question, Batvanio has repeatedly added unsourced material which is a clear WP:NPOV violation. I have removed this several times (as have two other editors -, the second of which also requests that Batvanio be reported for his problematic editing), and tried to make it clear to them via their talk page that this is not acceptable editing. Unfortunately Batvanio has added almost identical material to the article again since posting this complaint, and I am unable to removed it without violating WP:3RR. The major issue is in the claim in the inserted text that "Bulgarian Socialist Party lost because of alleged involvement in massive corruption, links to criminal groups and siphoning EU funds to private individuals and organizations". This is not supported by the two citations given in this sentence, and has been blindly reinstated despite this being pointed out to Batvaino. My last message to them warned that I would seek a topic ban from this article if they continued to edit in this fashion, so if this is a possibility, please can it be implemented. Thanks, Number   5  7  22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * . I have formally warned Batvanio on their talk page about their inflammatory, non-neutral, unsupported edits. @Number 57, you should be more careful of your reverts. You may not have violated WP:3RR with respect to Batvanio and the one IP who re-added the same material, but you have other edits on the article that could be considered reverts. As for your suggestion of a topic ban, even assuming it was warranted after such a short history, I do not have the authority to unilaterally impose it; it requires community consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:184.91.36.102 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An IP editor has continuously removed the section about Angie Miller's "controversial" shocking elimination and truly has many reliable sources in her elimination weeks ago, though was shocked by many criticisms in reality shows. It's really confirmed to an edit warring removal. ApprenticeFan work 00:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . I semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: see below

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

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

Comments:

Although there was no 1RR violation, the editor has not learned anything from their previous blocks. They are still edit warring, albeit in slow motion. The editor's very first edit after returning from their 1 week block (see report |here) was to re-engage in trying to edit war their preferred content into the article. Why would someone keep doing this over and over ? They want to be able to include a link to Palestinian political violence in the "See also" section presumably because it is prominent. They first tried to do this with their edit at 2013-04-08T08:53:13. It was reverted because it is inconsistent with WP:SEEALSO i.e. there is already a link in the article body. This was explained to them Talk:Palestinian_people/Archive_22 on April 9. Nevertheless, they added the link again on 2013-04-23T10:07:44. Their solution since then has been to try to edit war the piped link Palestinian political violence|political violence link out of the article and replace it with a less specific link to political violence so that they can include the link in See also.
 * today - they changed the piped link Palestinian political violence|political violence to political violence.
 * This is a repeat of the previous edits below
 * 2013-05-02T09:57:40 - ES = "Change to normal wikilinking"
 * 2013-04-29T01:42:26 - ES = "This link will define the term in a less "politicized" way."

Please keep blocking them over and over again until they stop this kind of disruptive behavior.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User: MarshallBagramyan reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: Article placed under sanctions)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: The user is using absence of others to reopen a closed case. Clearly, with one person (himself) in the talk page we do not have consensus for inclusion and I tried reminding him but it does not seem to work. P.S. He was the only person in favor of including the material when the case got closed due to WP:BLP / WP:SOAP; yet he is still insisting on his position.

Kazemita1 (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just absurd. My first edit was not a revert but a re-addition of material which had been removed and left out of an article pending its discussion. As the discussion petered out, I wrote on the talk page of the article informing all concerned editors that I would re-add it, if there were no objections. One week passed and I re-inserted said section. The two reverts I made today but that is hardly a violation of 3RR nor necessarily proof of mendacious edit-warring. A perusal of the article's history page will show that Kazemita was perhaps one of the most passionate of editors of trying to sanctify this particular individual's biography and went through several rounds of reverts, continuously removing, wholesale, in my and several others editors' belief a well-sourced section. Even though that section has been improved with additional references by me, he has still continued to remove it, not even bothering to add simple "disputed" or "needs resources" tags in the section in question. It should be noted that this complaint follows my recent warnings to him that he desist from making disruptive edits. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an Armenian matter: ARBAA2 may apply. I'm somewhat involved here as an editor, and I have given my opinion on the talk page. This is a BLP and I have serious problems with the content, though I can't say that removing it would exempt one from 3R, since it's not that bad. Mendacious or not, it seems clear to me that Marshall is continuing a conflict--but I have not studied the history carefully enough to pass judgment. I leave that to the experts. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no 3RR violation by anyone because each contributor made only two reverts during 24 hours, with the first recent revert started by Kazemita1. However, reporting someone on 3RR noticeboard, while being perfectly aware that there is no 3RR violation (this is not the first time when Kazemita1 comments on 3RR) is an obvious example of WP:BATTLE. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . The disputed material has a long and checkered history. As far as I can tell, it was first added to the article by Marshall in April 2011. Since that time it has bounced in and out, and it's kind of interesting to see who, other than Marshall, restored it. As others have said, there has been no 3RR violation by either editor, and I'm reluctant to sanction either editor based on WP:ARBAA2 given the lack of warning on this article (Marshall has a deep familiarity with ARBAA2). However, in my view, the material transforms what would have been a rather humdrum article about a college professor into an article that should be subject to ARBAA2. Therefore, I have added the sanctions template to the talk page. The two editors involved in this report are now aware of the sanctions and should act accordingly. Any further signs of disruption may be met by blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked Marshall after he went back to the article and reinserted the disruptive, BLP-problematic material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring over nationalities of various musicians and a sitcom
A number of ever-changing anonymous IPs has been edit warring over Dirty Pretty Things (band), Dizzee Rascal, some Franz Ferdinand (band) releases (Can't Stop Feeling, Eleanor Put Your Boots On, Lucid Dreams, No You Girls, Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Ulysses (song) and Walk Away (Franz Ferdinand song)), Klaxons, Murdoc Niccals, Rab C. Nesbitt, The Cure and likely more, changing any mentions of them being English/Scottish to British and vice-versa. This happens every day or two and has been going on for over a month now, with the anons showing no sign of heeding any warnings or engaging in any talk page discussions. I would like to request an admin step in and do something about this. -- I need a name (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but could you please provide edit histories for these articles? It would be nice to check out what is going on without having to go to the articles themselves. Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions)  20:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure: Dirty Pretty Things (band), Dizze Rascal, Can't Stop Feeling, Eleanor Put Your Boots On, Lucid Dreams, No You Girls, Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, Ulysses (song), Walk Away (Franz Ferdinand song), Klaxons, Murdoc Niccals, Rab C. Nesbitt and The Cure. Also, three more that I've noticed since originally posting this: Blood: Franz Ferdinand, Die on the Floor/Katherine Hit Me and The Fallen / L. Wells. The last one hasn't been touched for 2 weeks, but it fits the pattern of the others. -- I need a name (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sageo reported by User:Finx (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'll try my best to explain briefly, because there seems to be some language barrier between myself and this editor. This article (along with others relating to the topics of anarchism and markets) has a bit of a history of previous abuses and to me this seems not too dissimilar. As far as I can tell, the objection, once again, appears to be that an article on "market anarchism" is not an exclusive and dedicated shrine or redirect to the ideology of Murray Rothbard, since there are now several solid sources disassociating its most prominent anarchists from the ideology. The editor had originally made "market anarchism", "free-market anarchism" and "market anarchy" redirect to "anarcho-capitalism" -- some diffs and reverts here:


 * 1) redirect 1
 * 2) redirect 2


 * 1) subsequent revert
 * 2) subsequent revert

When these changes didn't stick, as the two clearly aren't synonymous (for the simple reason of most of the anarchists described being clearly and explicitly anti-capitalist, spanning over 150 years of the movement's history), the page was labeled by this editor as using 'primary sources', then 'original research', then 'previously unpublished synthesis', in a kind of shotgun blast of apparently random objections. Sageo would not identify the primary sources used, what constituted original research or how this was synthesis, but insisted that the article was an "essay" (despite ample citations for an article of this size), proposed again and again that the term "market anarchism" should not refer to anyone except anarcho-capitalists (which was refuted with yet more academic references on the talk page), and then repeatedly accused me of pushing some of sort sinister personal political agenda. I don't know how to resolve this, because I've tried reasoning through it and all I'm getting is foot-stomping, accusations and threats to, um, "denounce" me until I run out of time and patience. Finx (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by "non"-involved editor:
 * I am not involved in the content/article talk page discussion, but I have revised the article page with an essay template replacing the disputed OR/SYN templates. My edit summary suggested that particular OR/SYN problems be tagged in-line.
 * With my "compromise" template in mind, I think this ANI is pre-mature. OP posted both a level 4 EW message and a notice of this ANI at the same time. (I have remarked on OPs talk page about this.) I suggest that the editors go to WP:3O to resolve the question of whether the article page should have the templates. – S. Rich (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I posted a warning regarding the redirects that prompted this edit war long before this noticeboard post. Still not clear on how many academic citations need to be provided to prove this point, if the The Journal of Historical Review, Woodcock, Ellen Frankel Paul and Tucker's/Spooner's own written works are not sufficient to elevate the claim that market anarchism has something vaguely to do with markets and anarchism from 'essay' status. Finx (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * by non-involved editor: It's not necessarily an 'essay' - type article; it just needs better references. Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions)  20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case for "edit warring" by me. Please don't make false assertions Finx. This is not a case for redirection revertions (today is 1 June). I put a template of OR/ and then synthesis on 18 May, that now have been changed for Essay template from another user on 30 May (no problem for me, the idea is the same). And I discussed for a consensus without make any edition on the content of the article. A don't make any edition to any redirection since the discussion beggins (18 May). A template couldn't be quit before consensus, and I want to dialogue with the user and don't denounce him for don't make the troubles bigger. It's terrible that now, the user who was deleting templates without get an agreement in talk page denounce me for ask him follow the rules. This is not a problem about "redirection", after dialogue with Finx and after some references, both accepted to make that page a disambiguation page (Finx "If you want to make that into a disambiguation page, I think that's a good idea, personally", me "We get a first consensus that this article is wrong and should be a disambiguation page (it's a contradition to remove templates after both get to the conclusion of make a disambiguation page)"). Adding an editorial comment, that article have no one reference about the term that the article asserts is a theory with history and internal disputes, after research (see talk page) the term seems to appears at later 1970's without any complex pretentions. In my editorial experience that is an apocryfal article, and in my editorial experience no user could remove a template before a consensus in talk page if it have been rationally argued by a community user. I'm not asking for any punishment for Finx for removing templates and then make false accusations, that I believe he deserves it, but only asking that him accept to follow the rules and discuss in talk page. --Sageo (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected three days. There is a long-running thread at Talk:Free-market anarchism where Finx and Sageo are the only participants. So long as there are only two, it seems unlikely there will be any resolution. Follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution and consider a WP:Request for comment. Reverting of tags is considered like any other edit warring; there is no right to revert tags. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Youssif Saadieh reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is removing reliable sources and adding original research. Pass a Method  talk  10:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . Pass a Method, next time please use the template at the top of the page to notify a user of a report, or at least provide a link.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Finx reported by User:Sageo (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) 21 May
 * 2) 26 May
 * 3) 27 May
 * 4) 29 May

Removing of OR/SYN templates in the middle of a discussion in process since 18 May. I don't ask for strong sanctions, that could damage the dialogue, but I have warned the user in two times for stop removing templates without consensus 27 May/ 30 May. For me a warn message is enough.Sageo (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected three days per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=557693852&oldid=557693264 the above closure]. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Expatkiwi (Result: Declined)
Page:

Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ,

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is unilaterally removing my flag submissions on a continual basis and by doing so, is questioning my integrity as a contributor. No discussion before the fact or no putting it up as a candidate for deletion. 14:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC).

User:Expatkiwi


 * Please note that I am removing obvious violations of the non-free content policy, which is exempt See Edit_warring #5 (See WP:NFCC,WP:NFCC and WP:NFLIST). This is a classic case of IDONTLIKEIT in regards to WP:NFCC and the user is attempting to circumvent the issue by reporting me here. If the user wants removal will remain and it can be taken to WP:NFCR where my position and a long history of policy will be re-enforced. (PS I was never given a link to this discussion) Werieth (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time that User Werieth has targeted my submissions. I've been taking pains to ensure that the images submitted meet the criteria for non-free image usage.  He has also threatened me with removal from Wikipedia.  His actions are an attack on my integrity as both a vexillologist and as a contributor.  BTW, he had been informed of my intention to report him. Expatkiwi (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For one, I don't see 3RR here, though one could argue "being in the spirit of" 3RR. But that said, NFLISTS is clear that non-free images cannot be used in tables like these, and enforcing NFC policy is exempt from 3RR/edit warring. If you feel the editor is specifically after you, an RFC/U may be a better venue, but that's not apparent from the evidence given. --M ASEM  (t) 18:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * For your information, Masem, I had refrained from reversion of the pages concerned due to Werieth's earlier threats to have me blocked. In any case, I looked at similar non-free images in Wikipedia and modelled my submissions and usage rationales on them.  If those other illustrations are able to be used without threat of deletion but the ones I submitted are, then that is showing a selective hypocrisy on the part of Wikipedia.  In any case, he is acting unilaterally in his removals and taking a distinct pleasure in doing so.  Incidentally, finding the correct noticeboard to lodge complaints has not been the easiest thing to do on Wikipedia either.  I will make this clear: MY SUBMISSIONS HAVE NEVER BEEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEMEANING WIKIPEDIA!!!!!  Why can't you people understand that?!! --EXPAT KIWI  (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that I never stated that your intent was to demean wikipedia. All that I stated was that your edits are not in compliance with wikipedia policy. There is a large gap between the two points. You will not find a list with a large amount of non-free files on a single list page. List of Australian flags had 14 non-free files. There are only 23 pages on the entire wiki with as much or more non-free media. This is because the usage of non-free media is restricted. Werieth (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure that it was with a bleeding heart that you decided to yank those flag images... The rationale for the usage of those images on those pages is pretty clear: to add to the information given by the page, and the page does happen to be about flags, in case you hadn't noticed.  You have in effect told me that not just my vexillological inputs on Wikipedia are unwelcome, but me as well.  And you wonder why I think you're being a hypocrite?  --EXPAT KIWI  (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review our policy on no personal attacks. I removed those files that where used in the list article. I am not nominating them for deletion. I am in fact enforcing one of the most important policies on wikipedia, our policy on non-free media. Take a look at File:Torres Strait Islanders Flag.svg which is the first file on the list that I removed. It is still being used on Indigenous Australians where it is the flag of that group of people. Besides failing WP:NFLISTS it was also failing WP:NFCC on List of Australian flags. Werieth (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. If I put the Australian Law enforcement flags up on a separate page because you're stating that the issue was numbers of images on the List of Australian flags page, then I beleive you'd pull the page using the non-free images excuse.--EXPAT KIWI  (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-free media is meant to be used exceptionally per the Foundation (and the basis of our non-free policy). We require images to be used with contextual significant - that is, that a page requires the image to be present to be understood. Lists and tables of non-free images - including your flag pages - do not need those flag images to be understood. That's why NFLISTS was created, because nearly every case of such image-filled list or table is just as a "decorative" element. --M ASEM  (t) 01:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct. NFLISTs was created largely in response to television series character lists -- where an image, even if valuable, is not the defining aspect of the character; and also where there was often the possibility of a cast group image instead.  But when we're talking about flags on the other hand, what the flag actually looks like arguably is the defining property of the item -- rather than being tangential knowledge, it is arguably actually the key piece of understanding per WP:NFCC#8 that can be imparted to the reader.  In such a case it may well make sense to include the image.  It is also acknowledged in U.S. fair-use case law (Graham vs Dorling Kindersley) that an image does not necessarily need to be commented on to be valid fair use.  The exemption from WP:3RR is only for absolutely black-and-white NFCC violations.  In this case I think therefore it would have been better for User:Werieth to refer this to a discussion board, rather than to use WP:3RR to force through his interpretation of the WP:NFC policy. Jheald (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We are purposely stricter than fair use so that argument is useless (though I agree on the legal principle we'd not be in trouble), and while NFLISTS may have been in the context of character lists, its application applies to all articles. --M ASEM (t) 14:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Expatkiwi, you wrote that User:Werieth has been targeting you. Are you saying that has been specifically targeting you? Looking at contributions, it looks as if  picks random WP:NFCC policy violations, not targeting any specific user. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That is what I believe. Expatkiwi (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . The reported editor has not violated WP:3RR on either article. The copyright issues should be worked out elsewhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean. You wanna-be beaurocrats with your noses stuck in the rule books don't give a straight answer!!! You just push it somewhere elese where its goning to be shoved elsewhere again.  [[User:Expatkiwi|Expatkiwi]

User:109.65.226.91 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Was processing this when Bbb23 beat me to it... my close included a comment that it seems to me that we're seeing too much rollback and "revert vandalism"-style edit summaries from the opponents of the IP in this case, which appears to me to be a content dispute. So I'll just put it here now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about the subject matter to determine whether the use of the label vandalism is appropriate, although, generally, I don't like seeing the label used except in blatant cases. However, in addition to the 3RR violation by the IP, the personal attacks (racist pig, etc.) by the IP went far beyond the probably loose application of "vandalism".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no complaint about the block. It just seems to me it's not really the only problem here, even though none of the others have reached actionable status yet. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Film Fan continues to edit war on this article over trivial things. He was reported by myself for edit warring on the same article one week ago where he was warned by an admin to stop edit warring or he would be blocked. He was warned on his talkpage about this edit warring by User:Black Kite (as per the diff, above), and the talkpage was blanked by FF. He then posted on Black Kite's talkpage about the rules stating I know them. Clearly then, he is aware of the 3RR and the fact he is breaking them. Note that FF has been blocked no less than five times since last July for edit warring, with each block increasing in duration (24hrs, 48hrs, 48hrs, 72hrs and 1 week). Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons for reverting were not valid.  F i l m F a n  09:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you've been wikihounding me for a while now. Quit it.  F i l m F a n  09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Johannes003 reported by User:Dravidianhero (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: not done myself

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:

Johannes is not interested in standpoints of others and always thinks he's right because he is senior (with almost zero real contributions in the last year months as far as I see). That's why he always reverts to his own version to push his POV. Talking is fine as long as you fall in line with his mostly what seems to me Alibi arguments.--  Dravidian   Hero  10:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a discussion on the article's talk page regarding this, I have explained the changes I had made in detail. User Arjann, on the other hand, reverts back to his version without giving any reasons. He has not replied at the talk page either. Also fellow Dravidian himself has agreed with me that the changes seem reasonable. I don't know why he has suddenly changed his opinion now (he hasn't given any reason for his edit either). They refuse to discuss at the talk page and keep reverting, so who is violating the rules? Johannes003 (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Both of you. Johannes003 blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Other sides will be blocked for edit warring as well if they continue to revert without engaging in talk and coming to a consensus. That is both Arjann and Dravidianhero. Canterbury Tail   talk  13:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And Arjann has also been blocked for reverting again. Canterbury Tail   talk  18:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Shaushka reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 557812461 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 557812325 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 3)   "Undid revision 557809651 by Ahmetyal (talk)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 557794155 by Rivertorch (talk)"
 * 5)   "Undid revision 557670476 by Ahmetyal (talk)"
 * 6)   "Undid revision 557492506 by Ahmetyal (talk)"

That would be basically hopeless, because they refuse to discuss anything.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  blocked for 48 hours two days ago by Vianello
 * 2) Notification of ANI discussion by Rivertorch
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Clearly here as a POV-warrior, is edit-warring on multiple pages and shows no intent of stopping. The previous 48h 3RR-block just expired and they're right back at it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not POV! Shaushka (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have blocked them for 72 hours unrelated to this report or the ANI discussion. They have been repetitively adding a delete tag to Yazdânism even after I explained twice they need to follow the directions at WP:AFD.  GB fan 11:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User:77.12.61.95 reported by User:Ross bencina (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_Computer_Music&diff=prev&oldid=539400457

Revision being reverted to is left hand side (Revision as of 22:30, 31 January 2013 (edit)). In other words, my deletion has been reverted.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Same revert, from two different IPs:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_Computer_Music&diff=553007675&oldid=539400457
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radical_Computer_Music&diff=416409650&oldid=413982665

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

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

The reverters are not talking. Both deletions were documented on Talk:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radical_Computer_Music

Comments:

I believe that the deletion is justified on the basis of

WP:PEACOCK WP:RS WP:V

Note that I am only responsible for the second deletion.

Ross bencina (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Posting here after advice from #wikipedia IRC. Trying to conform to protocol on repeated reverts. Advice happily accepted.
 * . Someone gave you bad advice at IRC. There's no edit warring here of any kind. Nor is there anything else to report at any other noticeboard. You reverted a month-old edit. Before that, months had gone by with nothing. The article has very little activity and only three watchers, which is probably why it takes so long to remove inappropriate material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

User 98.193.225.142 (Result: Malformed}}
In the course of attempting to remove an item that apparently contains invalid citations on the entry page 'Jim O'Rear' my edits have been continually undone by editor 98.193.225.142 who deletes these valid edits and accuses me of "vandalism" each and every time. I posted two entries in the talk page that were deleted by another editor, one rightly so, but the other, which I have since restored is factually based and indicates why neither credit appears to be a "reliable source" as both are privately printed books that are either co-authored by the subject entry, or feature an interview with the subject entry where he simply repeats his own claims of being in the film in question, despite no other evidence of his purported involvement would appears to exist. The editor has also re-worded my own talk page entry and altered it, instead of responding to it. My attempts to resolve this issue where met with rambling accusations and are written diatribe describing what he considers to be his definition of "vandalism" including rather wild accusations. This subject of this page is a minor film figure of very questionable notability who cites many "uncredited" roles and stunt work in major motion pictures, but almost always cites questionable citations which in the past have included consumer reviews from sites like Amazon and Barnes & Noble as well as IMDB (in which anyone can add a film credit) It would appear that this page may possibly be a vanity page which is either written by the author himself, or somebody who has a close relationship with the subject. The page appears to be hyper vigilantly "guarded" by the primary editor with any edits that contradict what that editor wishes to be true quickly deleted as "vandalism". I would appreciate expedient attention to this matter. Thank you (Sellpink (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC))

Response to SELLPINKs claims...

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)"

User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sellpink reported by User:98.193.225.142 (Result: IP 98.193.225.142 instructed)
Page:

User Being Reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557546403&oldid=556857958
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=557914651&oldid=557678083
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557546403
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_O%27Rear&diff=prev&oldid=557548364

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sellpink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jim O'Rear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.193.225.142

Comments: User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)" User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan. 98.193.225.142 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC) User SELLPINK has posted libelous, uncited statements and make malicious changes of vandalism to teh JIM O'REAR article and talk page. He has aready been warned of this by GBFan and had his comments deleted and instructed not to readd them. A copy of that warning is here: "I have removed your post from Talk:Jim O'Rear. It contained negative information about a living person but was not sourced. Wikipedia takes this seriously and does not allow any negative information about living people to be published anywhere on the site unless it is sourced to reliable sources. Do not readd the information unless you provide reliable sources for the negative claims you make. GB fan 11:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)" User SELLPINK continues to readd material and make libelous, uncited changes after being warned not to in an attempt to start an edit war. His most recent claims of invalid sources are, again, not researched throughly. Both of the publications cited in question are published by Bear Manor Media (also available on Amazon) and are valid public sources for citation. Mr. O'Rear is not an author of these books, as the author is clearly stated by the publisher. Again, User SELLPINK is attempting to vandalize the article (On Wikipedia, vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive) with malicious intent and has already had malicious, libelous content deleted over this same article. Now it appears that the user SELLPINK wants to start an edit war by readding material that he was clearly told not to readd by GBFan.

98.193.225.142 (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sellpink made only two reverts on this article and has engaged in a talk page debate. It seems rather that the IP has been heavily edit warring in this case, e.g. by repeatedly reverting a valid copyedit. Instead of reverting even more contributors you should have waited for consensus on the article talk page. Currently the edit warring seems to have stopped and this edit by Collect has been confirmed by several other editors. But if this continues, the article will be semi-protected. On a side-note, posting your paragraphs twice as you did above or here is confusing and unnecessary. De728631 (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ccroberts123 reported by User:Frungi (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (edit: I missed this line before. I did leave the warning, though, after posting here, and he has since been blocked. —Frungi (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire edit history of User talk:Ccroberts123 as of.

Comments:


 * - 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:OrangesRyellow (Result: Full protection for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The edit warring involves two different sets of data. The first two reverts are to edits by a third user, and the last three are to my additions of sourced content in the lead. All within 24h. I have placed a warning template on the user's talkpage just now. The last revert is a partial revert in the sense that may edit in the lead has been reverted, but the material which I added in the article body has been moved to another place in the article body and many of the sources have been deleted. I count it as a revert because I think the material should remain in the lead too, and the current placement in the article body is inappropriate.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Anjem Choudary/Archive2

Comments:


 * Full protection for 24 hours. Discuss this on the talk page, please. BencherliteTalk 10:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KAME 1971b reported by User:1966batfan (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558139432 by Technopat (talk)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 558139347 by Technopat (talk)"
 * 3)   "Undid revision 558139281 by 1966batfan (talk)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 558139216 by Amaury (talk)"
 * 5)   "Undid revision 558138994 by 1966batfan (talk)"
 * 6)   "Undid revision 558138854 by 1966batfan (talk)"
 * 7)   "Undid revision 558138777 by 1966batfan (talk)"
 * 8)   "Undid revision 558138567 by 1966batfan (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on April 30. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on April 30. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * as a VOA. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:77.56.43.218 reported by User:Mangoe (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

There is a long discussion of how God got to be not a legendary creature at Talk:Legendary creature

Comments: IP user has come in pretty much once a day, as their only activity, to re-add "God", without discussion. Page protection was refused, so here we are. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one week by another admin. This article gets a lot of drive-by edits from people new to Wikipedia. These edits usually end up being reverted. So a longer semiprotection would be something to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  removed fact Rothbard has an MBA from Columbia
 * 2)   removed new material as unsourced WP:OR when kept other material from same source; didn't ask for quote to verify;
 * 3)    removed new material;( also removed fact Rothbard founded Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics)
 * 4)  In info box changed  economic history to Historical revisionism (probably beginning of attempt to introduce negative WP:OR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. (He asked a question I replied to 10 minutes later, but given below I think that was fair warning.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murray_Rothbard is whole thing started last night, latest change after no reply and diff on another related issue

Comments:

As a PhD economist of some competing Austrian economics school, User:Specifico already has expressed contempt for Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises-related economists (as well as editors who he perceives as defending them) as at April 20 diff, April 21 diff,May 28 diff.

S/he is attempting to remove material with high quality sources describing Rothbard as a Misean who influence libertarianism, and material showing his academic and editorial credentials. S/he and another editor have twice removed Austrian school from the Infobox even though the fact he is an Austrian economist has four high quality refs in first sentence of lead, and more easily can be found. They replaced it with Anarcho-capitalism, even though there is no such economic school, and s/he uses refs that only say he influenced that ideology. When I pointed this out in the most recent talk page thread s/he ignored it, but opined in a separate one that the Economist infobox should be replaced with a general one. Yes, the article has far too many primary sources that need deletion and I'm helping clean that up, but it's getting frustrating having to explain real problems on the talk page, have to tag them to get their attention, and just be ignored while lots of questionable changes get introduced. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 20:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment – We are provided 4 diffs, dealing with different portions of the article, and at least 2 of them are well founded edits. Item 1 (diff 38), both degrees are in economics, but clearly a PhD is better than an MBA, so no need to list both -- Rothbard's creds as an economist are established. Item 2 (diff 39) removed clearly non-sourced info. (Perhaps there is more stuff that should be removed? SPECIFICO selected that one -- so what?) So, with 2 diff remaining, that editors may have a more basic difference of opinion on, where is the warring, what violations of 3RR are there? – S. Rich (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The 3rr rule is that one should not revert to a preferred version more than 3 times within an 24 hours – not one should not edit more than 3 times within 24 hours. The 4 edits listed does not revert back to a 'preferred version' that was previously introduced or supported by SPECIFICO. From the edit history, it appears that Carolmoore is the one who has been reverting to a preferred version. This complaint is baseless, I suggest that someone explain to Carolmoore the difference between editing and reverting. LK (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The time period in question of what is a revert has never been established firmly (unless I've missed something in the last year), as I know from past discussions trying to clarify the matter. (I just noted two as new material since that also is relevant.) So just in case I tried to establish the larger context of POV pushing to remove material that makes the subject look good and put in material that makes him look bad and refuse to discuss on the talk page despite editing the article after talk page notes made. I know from past experience that LK doesn't think much of Miseans either; SRich may be annoyed at me for other reasons as an involved editor in ongoing problems at a series of articles.  But if I've misinterpreted current policy as interpreted by non-involved, neutral editors, I do apologize. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 12:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Given OP's intensely critical comments to SPECIFICO on talk pages and the prior (erroneous and rejected) ANI complaint filed by OP against SPECIFICO, I fear that WP:Battleground may be in play here, particularly because the charges are (again) erroneous. Steeletrap (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article protected 48 hours. Both Carol and SPECIFICO appear to be editing on a topic where they have strongly-held personal convictions. Carol observes on talk that she herself is mentioned in one of the references. She is described as a left-libertarian activist who opposed Rothbard at some Libertarian conventions in the 1980s. SPECIFICO identifies himself as an Austrian economist. When you care about a subject it may be difficult to achieve neutral prose. I suggest that the editors use a Request for comment or some other method to bring in outside people who might help balance the article. The WP:RSN is something else to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Ed. With all due respect, your comment above appears to affirm carolmooredc's ad hominem complaint against me in this matter. I am an Austrian economist, but aside from carolmooredc's undocumented personal ruminations and allegations, there is no evidence that I have edited Rothbard against policy.   On an ANI or other complaint I'd hope that the issue would be stated and documented in terms of specific behavior and policy with diffs or other documentation.  This is one of a series of escalating personal attacks that carolmooredc has brought against me and others recently. I've already stopped editing the Hoppe article because of them and I will now stop working on Rothbard.   If you check the history of Rothbard, you'll see that carolmooredc had 4RR over the same period she cites, and unlike me, she did edit war back to her preferred content.  I'm gone from that article, but other editors will continue to improve the article.   SPECIFICO  talk  03:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After my first set of edits where I did some reverts I was careful and just added material or tagged material that the editor was ignoring on talk while continuing to edit on the article. Always glad to undo any accidental 4th revert. Also commented on all the templates you put up on the article, which were either valid or needed future discussion, so did not ignore yours. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 03:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Carol, these past couple of weeks, you've been way too eager in reporting people to ANI and AN3. It appears that you have become emotionally involved. May I suggest that you take this article freeze as an opportunity to step back? Above you show some confusion about what constitutes a revert. The WP:3RR policy is pretty clear: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." I revert when this sequence of action occurs: 'You change something, I undo the change.' That's why there's a "Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]"  line in the 3RR report.  It's pretty clear that Specifico was not reverting in some of the diffs you posted. You should understand the difference between an edit I don't like and a revert. Lastly, it doesn't help your case to accuse others of bearing a grudge against you, as you did above, all that shows is that you've adopted a battleground mentality. At this point it's probably best to step back, relax, and take a break. Remember, nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, you can work on getting it right next week just as easily as you can today. rgds LK (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * LK: I think a lot of editors get annoyed at behaviors described above and go to noticeboards about them, mentioning expressions of POV. (All sorts of editorial comment removed or withheld.)
 * However, more importantly, I decided to search back through Editwarring talk page and found the quote that has stuck in my mind (and now is copied to my harddrive):
 * At this diff EdJohnston 20:52, 15 November 2011 wrote:
 * The current policy says "A revert means undoing the actions of another editor." It is left up to the closing admin as to how far back to go when judging whether something is a revert. If you impose a 24-hour limit on the definition of a revert, then someone could revert at exactly at the same time every day and never be blamed for revert warring. This would be nonsensical. Since the July dispute between Carolmooredc and Goodwinsands was never reported at WP:AE it is hard to know what the verdict would have been. Actual AE closures sometimes take into account the apparent intentions of the parties.
 * I don't see that policy has become more explicit one way or the other since than, unless I missed something. If admins disagree on this policy, they should have a conference, make a decision and change the policy accordingly so that we mere users will know. Thanks. ''CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie &#x1f5fd; 15:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:KARGOSEARCH2 reported by User:Delljvc (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Edit warring Delljvc (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: KARGOSEARCH2 is warned. The above list of diffs is wrong. Some of those edits are by others, and some are consecutive. Only three reverts by KARGOSEARCH2 in total, and none within the last 24 hours. But if KARGOSEARCH2 continues to revert the article without joining in discussions they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:AcorruptionfreeIndia (Result: No vio, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The disputed text is left in place as I do not want to EW with this editor. I was planning to seek wp:3o when he 3RRed.

AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No violation I do not see more than 3 reverts in a 24 hours period. In addition, whilst the editors changes to the article may be problematic, some of the reverts to them are as well (for example, sourcing to unreliable sources).  Therefore, I have protected the article for a week to allow discussion to take place, which may include WP:DR and/or WP:3O. Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, the article (in both versions) is very poorly written and contains large violations of original research, not to mention primary sourcing, stating opinions in Wikipedia's voice, MOS violations and borderline copyright violations. In short, it is a mess.  It may be better to stub it and start again from scratch.  Also, the reporting editor's username suggests they have a conflict of interest here. Black Kite (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558341772 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 558340874 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 3)   "Undid revision 558340645 by Cullen328 (talk)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 558338515 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robert A. J. Gagnon. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Balance and Context */ re:"
 * 2)   "/* Balance and Context */ comment re: revert"

As evidenced by the discussion in the article's talk page, the user has been advised that his addition of a 'Controversies' section is in violation of a host of guidelines: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. A previous addition by another account (SPI?) was revdel'ed yesterday after an OTRS ticket was received regarding the language and content of the changes. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

I HAVE been discussing this matter in the article's talk section, but I'm being largely ignored. This editor, in particular, wants me to talk but doesn't respond when I do. Furthermore, the accusations as to neutrality and whatnot are utterly unfounded and absurd. People are deleting an entire section that I very carefully wrote and sourced, even by the highest academic standards, which is my background, without so much as a single accurate reason. No one makes any specific edit suggestions; they merely delete the whole thing. Apparently, there are some biased editors who follow the article and are unwilling to allow any facts they don't like into the article. This is utterly unacceptable and must stop immediately.Antinoos69 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Antinoos69

Note - User Antinoos69 was just blocked through wp:AIV. - DVdm (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Tieff reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Warned)
Pages:

User being reported:

User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at ELPEREN. Noticeboard thread: RSN.

Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (6 in <48 hrs.:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Talk page discussion is here: Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons

Diffs of the user's repeated edits at Suicide of Audrie Pott (4 in <48 hrs.):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

User warned about edit warring:

Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of WP:SUICIDES, and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on Talk:Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons, as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of WP:RANDY, so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. Fiddle   Faddle  07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment by filing editor. Although the user appears to have made no edits since this report was filed, I believe that allowing it to go stale would be a mistake. Since the user has shown no sign of willingness to acknowledge being warned (even to refute the warning), let alone discuss the matter, it isn't improbable that they will resume edit warring and this will wind up at ANI. This is is really a rather clear-cut case of edit warring; on the first article listed above, 3RR was even exceeded. And it's not a run-of-the-mill content dispute at all; rather, it's at least three established editors trying their best to enforce a core policy in the face of a new editor who is completely disregarding policy. If something about the format of this report is causing difficulty or delay, I'd appreciate knowing so that I can fix it. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've left a formal warning on Tieff's talk page that if they revert again on either article, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PhunderMerwe reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: edit warring has ceased)
Page:

User being reported:

This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.


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

Note first that this is HTML element, not HTML. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

Specific problems:
 * Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
 * Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
 * (Most importantly) "element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online." is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully separate content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
 * %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Now they're still "improving" the article by changing titles and direct quotes from sources, including technical non-prose changes like renaming the  entity from the HTML DTD to  .  This is simply incorrect. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result The edit warring has now ceased, and the other issues are a content dispute. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting participation at relevant Wikiprojects as unfortunately this isn't an effective forum for resolving content issues. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:LoveWaffle (Result: page protected for 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (User's Talk Page)

Comments:

User Rusted AutoParts has consistently reverted the order of the film's cast to one not represented on the film's press release without reason. The User has ignored any attempts to discuss this matter, so I am forced to bring it here. LoveWaffle (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Plain and simple: I disagreed with placing the two most likely men to be credited towards the end of the cast above the primary players in the film (Evans, Johansson, Mackie, Stan). The first three reverts were 5 days ago, well out of the 3RR range. Assuming this is a legit report out of offence or the user wishes to be correct in the matter, the reverting has ceased and no furthur action will be taken in regards to LoveWaffle's pickiness of the location of the named actors. RAP (talk) 5:46 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You both seem to have conduced a similar amount edit warring over what is, to be frank, a pretty minor issue with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page, which is where dispute resolution is generally best handled. I've fully protected the article for 36 hours to allow for this dispute resolution to take place. RAP, please note that there's no 'entitlement' to three reverts in a day, and edit warring which lasts across several days is strongly discouraged. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Five in the last 24 hours: Plenty more before that.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * ;
 * ;
 * ;
 * ;
 * 

; Petrarchan47 has since removed that section from their talkpage.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Various talkpage threads have been started by other editors (including me) but the reverts keep on coming. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Oops - I missed a point. DGG also started a talkpage thread (after having been invited by Petrarchan47) but, alas, after DGG's comment it went the same way as the other threads. Not that I'm implicating DGG of course 718smiley.png just that various different editors have started talkpage threads. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar with this (new) topic, please look at the references section at March Against Monsanto. This article was being considered for deletion when I discovered it, and began doing research and filling up the article with references. When you glance at the refs, you'll see "2 million" or "millions marched". Now you can see bobrayner quoting from a local newspaper (printed online while the protest was still ongoing) that the numbers "ranged from 200,000" to 2 million, and making a crack about RT, even though it is recognized as RS (CNN was also a source for the 2 million number and no major media has mentioned a "range from 200,000"). This change to the number happened at Genetically modified food controversies as well as Monsanto today.
 * Comments:

The main issue at hand, besides having my words misrepresented as a promise to edit war, is that I am not being allowed to tell what one of the protesters' main points is. It gets reverted every time. I think it is an incredibly NPOV handling of the issue and is sourced to the Guardian: "in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This is all I have said about the GMO issue, besides adding some quotations from their protest signs. But this is an article about the protest, and what caused them to go out and marched HAS to be mentioned (this is not a promise to edit war, it's a simple fact).

If any administrators are listening, Please, can we get a babysitter at that article just while it's written? I don't know the right way to tell this story, but I do know that the fact that people are wary of GMOs, ie, the reason the protest exists, has to be mentioned. Why is it so hard to tell this simple story?

Yes, I erased the messages from my talk page because frankly, it seems like harassment. I've been around, and I have never had as many comments on my talk page about what I'm doing wrong (in fact, none that I can think of) as in this past week working on this one article. I think the article needs supervision. I don't know what else to say. I've put in a lot of time and effort to get a neutral article that is factual. What I see is a well established group that works on GMO articles who don't seem to see that March Against Monsanto is not one. I have gone to two administrators to ask about this problem, and was pretty much told there is not much that can be done.  petrarchan47  t  c   01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I don't have time to review this in-depth, but the five diffs listed are not all reverts. Two are out of order, but, more important, two pairs are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert each.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Mea culpa; I lost track whilst up to my neck in tabbed browsing. Aggregating series of reverts, there's only 3 net reverts in the last 24h.
 * It doesn't help that every single attempt to deal with the problem, including this report at AN3, gets bogged down in arguments about how other editors are biased and about how the article must reflect the TRUTH &c; but that's not editwarring per se. Sorry. bobrayner (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A promise from one or more of the parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further changes would be welcome. I did not detect much hint of compromise in Petrarchan47's statement above. His suggestion that the messages left on his talk are harassment looks to be incorrect. The most obvious reason for the complaints on his talk page is that some other people disagree with his changes. If he is interested in consensus, he could try negotiating with them instead of deleting their comments. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no problem agreeing to wait for consensus on future contentious edits. I have been choosing to work with editors on the talk page of the article, rather than mine. I am not making a formal complaint, but it is true that after a few of those comments on my talk page, it did feel like harassment to me and actually ruined my weekend to be very honest. I am not at all happy that I stumbled upon a GMO-related article. This is a most unpleasant task. I do hope someone will help.  petrarchan47  t  c  
 * What Petrarchan is alluding to here is that he thinks there is a large conspiracy to insert "Pro-GM" material on wikipedia: . Him, Gandydancer and Groupuscule appear to think they are fighting the good fight against US Corporations (they have been battling at the BP article for some time), e.g and have been relying on a mixture of favourable opinion pieces to insert highly polemic statements into the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what Petra is alluding to is that this RfC has no basis. No edit warring occurred. BUT, now that Petra is "in the pillary" he (?) is fair game for other questionable attacks. Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been involved in this article, but I noticed this discussion on Petrarchan's talk page. This appears to be a content dispute, since it appears to be agreed that no 3RR violation took place. Why not close this out and end the drama? Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that Coretheapple and Buster are two editors piling in from User_talk:Petrarchan47. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull. Thankfully, with the result of 'No action', we can all move on. ```Buster Seven   Talk  20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards. The March Against Monsanto article seems to have been recently improved since the person who opened the AfD was convinced to withdraw the nomination. A number of people seem to believe that the anti-GMO people are using Wikipedia for publicity, but that question can't be settled here. Petrarchan47 and his opponents disagree as to the extent that the article should uncritically quote whatever the protesters are saying about the bad effects of GMO. This is a matter for consensus and it is not up to admins to ensure that 'the story is told.' Reflecting what major news sources have said about the protest would be more defensible. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Syngmung reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Blocked)
Page: and other related edit warring over the last few days

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts in the Invasion of Normandy article (all 5 June)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of the user's similar reverts in other Battle of Normandy related articles:
 * (4 June)
 * (2 June)

Previous related edit warring in the Rape during the liberation of France article
 * (1 June)
 * (1 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion of the problems with the content which is being edit warred all over the place at Talk:Rape during the liberation of France and Talk:Normandy landings. Syngmung has not been attempting to discuss why he wants to add this contested material into the other articles, and simply edit wars. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a report of sustained edit warring to push a point of view rather than a 3RR violation. has created the Rape during the liberation of France article, and is trying to edit war material from it into other articles, despite serious concerns raised by myself and others about the neutrality of this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I know Nick-D well, we have had conflict concerning Articles for deletion/Prostitutes in South Korea for the U.S. military. We should try to unthread emotional entanglements.--Syngmung (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ? I haven't had any involvement in your edit warring in these articles other than in regards to the Rape during the liberation of France article. This is a report of your sustained edit warring, and not a discussion of content. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

See. Nick-D lose his calm mind. He refuse conversation.--Syngmung (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removing a new thread you started on my talk page after this report was lodged in which you accused me of "hidding outcasters acts" is not relevant to this report, except to illustrate your POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in trying to bring some sense to this article. Normandy landings refers to the initial day of invasion and not the Normandy Campaign. My reverts have been again changed without any adequate and understandable reason. I would add that there is only one source, and newspaper review of same, for any rape allegations, which have not been mentioned by any other reliable sources. I also have to say that this person seems to be pushing POV and also seems by their history, to have a unhealthy interest in rape. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I came across Syngmung's somewhat obvious WP:AXE edits to Invasion of Normandy and reverted him. Another user apparently thought based on a technical error in my revert that I was a vandal, so I figured creating an account might prevent this from happening again. This user is clearly attempting to promote a POV that American troops in South Korea are rampantly engaging in rape of local women, and so has been WP:SYNTHesizing sources to create links between this and other topics such as the Normandy landings and the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. Eh doesn&#39;t afraid of anyone (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Read the source Military Prostitution and the U.S. Military in Asia by Katharine Moon.--Syngmung (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already read it. You misrepresented it and I removed your misrepresentation here. Eh doesn&#39;t afraid of anyone (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The comment above by Synmung illustrates their bias and POV. There is only one source quoted! It really is time to stop this POV pushing and obsession with rape.  David J Johnson (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mean as custard reported by User:Bhtpbank (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user appears to have a long history of trying to remove "promotional" content from articles without discussion. When I tried to resolve on his talk page I got this response:
 * For information, this was my latest response to this editor's complaint on my talk page:
 * "My reversion applied solely to a large edit made by a user (who has made no other edits to Wikipedia) on 30.5.13. It was clearly intended to be promotional and it was impossible to separate out the flagrant advertising from the potentially useful (but uncited) material. Don't shoot yourself in the foot has been known to apply to editors who threaten to have me blocked. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"
 * Mean as custard (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Having read WP:PROMOTION I can see the intent of his actions, but deleting large sections of text, in my view, comes after (1) Tagging the article as such (2) Requesting on the talk page that the article be re-worded to reflect WP:NPOV (3) As a last resort, wholesale deletion of large sections of text. It is one thing to be WP:BOLD, but another to not attempt to get the article toned down beforehand. This user appears to be very deliberate in his actions, to the extent of removing "self promotional" material from user pages, as evidenced by this diff . I can understand the basic reason for taking out advertising from articles, but from the page of a user??  Bhtpbank (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure if my edits to Ansaldo STS are the only subject of the complaint, as it appears my entire editing history is now under scrutiny. I am beginning to feel as though Bhtpbank is stalking me. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . Mean as custard has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Adelmira reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor isn't responding to warnings/requests for refs. Similar edit warring at Swahili people. — kwami (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Qara xan reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079451
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079773
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558118054
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558282348
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558428541

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qara_xan

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azerbaijani_people

Comments: The person refused to use the talk page to cease our edit war and he does not go against my arguments on the history page either.

History page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&action=history

Verdia25 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I again repeat that the reliable source, Encyclopædia Britannica writes Turkic people. Please read Wikipedia:IRS. Your propaganda edits in the article ( 7 times ) was undoned by two users: Samaksasanian and Qara xan. You are not right. Qara Khan 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Encyclopædia Britannica say : Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. but User:Verdia25 Does not accept Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people.--&#39;&#39;&#39;SAMƏK&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * with 'Turkic-speaking people' you know for certain that the ethnic group speaks a Turkic language which is the case. With 'Turkic people' it suggests that their origin is Turkic which isn't believed to be, explained in paragraph 'origins'. There was nothing wrong with the original 'Turkic-speaking people' so why change it? To propagate that their origin may be Turkic which again isn't the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdia25 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User:109.145.244.1 reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558590936 by Mrt3366 (talk) vandalism by Mrt"
 * 2)   "article is basically a pov hell hole reads more like a transcript from a indian movie"
 * 3)   "Undid revision 558313895 by Mrt3366 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Faizan (talk): It's not your talk don't revert my posts here. It was not tagging the page, but undiscussed, unexplained removal of well-sourced content."
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism."


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


 * Uncivility? thats rich coming from a guy who refers to some editors as "typical pakis" your hypocrisy in mind boggling your article is just a platform for you to express you anti-Pakistani pov which comes naturally to indian editors (not all but most) how about we create a few articles on indian minorities I can assure you that Mrt will send messages to canvass every indian editor to get the article AFD he is a hypocrite and a pov pusher 109.145.244.1 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments:

That IP wanted to unilaterally blank a section of relevant, sourced info (without any discussion whatsoever) and edit-warred about it too. When I told him "Tags should be added as a last resort." he behaved utterly uncivilly with me on my talk based on personal attack and allegations. He was given a final warning by me but he reverted it and continued disruption ← do something about it. It's classic example of tag bombing. Take appropriate action please. he was also edit warring on 2002 Gujarat Violence. Admin commented, "This is likely a sockpuppet account." I don't know who the puppeteer might be. Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by Faizan: MrT needs to differentiate between Vandalism, and "removal of text" or "adding tags". He issued warnings on the talk page of the IP and named them as "unconstructive". That is not appropraite. Secondly four absoulte reverts are necessary for 4RR,resulting in "no violation". Fai  zan  13:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . The probable sock master is User:Nangparbat. @MrT, you should have looked at the IP's block log and the IP's user page; that would have pointed you in the right direction.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Sir. Yes, I ought to have checked the user's block log. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhanozkilic reported by User:Randykitty (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Note: Twinkle did not give me the option to add three correct examples, so I selected as third one a partial edit, a complete revert is here.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Beerest355 reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked - see above)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "adding this back"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 558486184 by Archcaster (talk)
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558486184 by Archcaster (talk)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * I'm not sure if this has much to do with anything, but I'd like to point out that the first edit noted here is not a revert. Beerest355 Talk 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't a revert. I added the link back after citing it at the WP:ANI, and User:Archcaster, the user I was in a conflict with, seems to be OK with it. There are some disputes about the reliability of the source in question, so I'm intending to open a reliability discussion. Beerest355 Talk 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)