Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive218

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)   on 2-Jul-2013
 * 8)  on 3-Jul-2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 29-Jun by me and on 30 Jun by Cullen.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk page Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon

Comments:

User was blocked before for edit warring on this same article. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User relies frequently on novel interpretations of WP:Primary policy. Intervention to help him understand better than the talk page has done is needed, if he's willing to learn, no matter the outcome of this. jj (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This editor rejects repeated attempts by several other experienced editors to explain various aspects of policy, insisting that he/she is right and that everyone else is wrong. The editor has stated a determination to continue adding disputed content against the clear consensus on the talk page.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This apparent WP:SPA continues to add unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about a WP:BLP (Robert A. J. Gagnon) in breach of consensus on the article talk page; refused a compromise solution; will not listen to other Wikipedians at all; is seemingly incapable of being WP:CIVIL; and in spite of having been blocked once is apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over. I must confess to being at a loss here. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor continues edit warring #  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated wp:POINTY removals of content elsewhere:, , ,. Edit warring on two fronts, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * and jj (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC).  Can we get this resolved?
 * He's been repeatedly told about this discussion on his talk page and refuses to participate so far. jj (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked one week. Second block for edit warring on the same BLP article. Antinoos69 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAntinoos69&diff=562667892&oldid=562538703 removed my compromise offer] from his user talk then kept on reverting. As one editor predicted above, Antinoos69 is 'apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werieth&oldid=562406515

Comments:

Clarification: This is not a report about 3RR, but is about Edit Warring. The editor in question claims that the reversions made fall under Three-revert_rule which says, "5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." However, the pattern and nature of this editors actions fall outside this exception.

This is an extension of a long-running debate on the use of non-free images on Scouting pages. Currently, there are three discussions about Scouting related images on Non-free content review. There is a pattern and practice of edit warring. In less than one hour, Werieth reverted me four times on two different pages. I stopped editing those pages to try and discuss it with Werieth, but the discussions seem to have gone nowhere..

Werieth has a habit of wikibullying. Many discussions get escalated. Early last month, I reported the same editor for edit warring on Scouting in Massachusetts and here. The response was to immeadiately report me and ask for a topic ban: Administrators%27 noticeboard/IncidentArchive799. I withdrew my previous report to show a willingness to work with Werieth.

Werieth also makes up policy: misquoting policy on non-admin closures, making up policy on image removal, not allowing similar discussions to be grouped, image removal policy again, etc.

I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the combative behavior and 'making up policy' to end. --evrik (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please READ THE POLICY? This user refuses to comply with NFCC. I am not making up policy, rather citing policies that evrik wishes didnt exist, and ignores hoping that they go away. Werieth (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An example: Nothing in the policy says the images must be removed prior to the discussion being complete. This is Werieth's own interpretation. This contentious style of edting must stop. --evrik (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow way to ignore policy. Policy is to remove NFCC violations. Until this isnt a violation (per pending NFCR) it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The editors on the pages in question have all strived to meet every request you have set forth. They are editing in good faith, so NFCCE should not apply. There is a disagreement on the interpretation of the policy. Please show me where on Non-free content review or on Non-free content it says that images displayed on an article page must be removed prior to the Non-free content review being complete when there is no consensus. --evrik (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFG states that galleries cannot be used, see WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC, (there are exceptions, but this is rare) WP:NFCC states the burden of proof lies on those who wish to include non-free media and not those who seek removal. The NFCR at this point is where exceptions/review of usage happens. The default action with NFC just like BLP is to remove until the burden of inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the editors are making good faith improvements, they have added sourced discussion about one logo. This is well within policy and I have said nothing about it. You however reverted re-inserting a gallery removing the sourced content, slapping everyone involved in the face. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'd like to point out that in previous discussions we have debated this point to no resolution. I am willing to discuss the issue in a collaborative manner. I just want the edit warring to stop. Look at the history of this page in the last five days. I'm not the one who is editing against consensus. --evrik (talk)
 * Im always open to discussion, however it seems that your POV is screw NFCC and Ill use as many non-free files as I want If you are willing to comply with NFCC I will gladly discuss things with you. Werieth (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight, you make up policy, threaten people, retaliate aginst people, make snide remarks in the edit summaries - and I am somehow to blame? --evrik (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont make up policy, I do give valid warnings, attempt to resolve an issue with a user who refuses to understand NFCC, and finally remove an invalid warning by a POV pushing edit warrior who things NFCC should be deleted. Your complete lack of understanding and refusal to follow NFCC isnt my fault. Werieth (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Evrik, much as I'm sure you feel it appropriate to gain an exclusion for scouting pages from the dictums of WP:NFG, one is not forthcoming. Given that, WP:NFG holds sway here. If you want to change that, I invite you to start an RFC at WT:NFC to get it overturned. In the meantime, WP:NFG is the law of the land here. Seeking to force placement of the images and then attempting to get an exception isn't how things work. You are in the wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * it's not about the policy, it's about the editors behavior and bullying. I have another example from Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere on June 20:


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

Werieth is implementing the policy backwards. The NFCR page is a review page. It does not say images must be removed during the review. In fact, if this were the case, most if the images would be deleted before the review is complete. --evrik (talk)
 * Again you need to review policy, I dont want to say you are lying, but its almost to the point where AGF is worn out. NFC policy is to remove violations on sight. If you want to create an exception to policy its not done. You cannot claim that something is an exception just because you say it should be (otherwise policy is void). I may be a little heavy handed, however often something needs to be done to get the point across to users who consistently miss the point. NFC actually has an exception in 3RR, which tends to re-enforce policy which states that non-compliance should be made compliant. (in most cases this is removal) Werieth (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. This morning, I looked at the way the images were being added back in. Following that example. I added the other images back in, and within five minutes you reverted me again. --evrik (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not follow the example, you added the files back without meeting WP:NFCC. The previous files that where added also included sourced discussion about the files, all you did was throw them back in with a expand section and nothing else. As I said on the review case, justification comes first, not after the fact. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually typically images are left in situ while they are under discussion, so editors participating in that discussion can see the context in which they are being used (or misused or overused).
 * Something particularly to be avoided is for images to be removed because they are "under discussion", if they will then be automatically deleted within a week for not being in use on an article page.
 * There are some cases where images should be removed on sight, but those are fairly narrowly delimited at WP:CSD, issues which are truly unambiguous where no qualitative assessment of any kind is required. If there is something to discuss, then the issue cannot be said to be unambiguous, and those speedy (or semi-speedy) criteria should not be applied. Jheald (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe Werieth's actions fall outside the exemption. I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the behavior to stop. --evrik (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whereas edit warring against him, in direct opposition to WP:NFG, is somehow excusable on your part? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth is clearly correct. Removing a de facto gallery of nonfree, undiscussed images is enforcement of basic NFCC policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth is not correct, but even if correct choses to 'act like be a bully and an edit warrior. You can say that that a gallery of unfree images is against policy in NFG, but in that same policy there is an exception. The bigger point here is that instead of working collaboratively and allowing people to discuss the issue and work to a mutually acceptable solution, Werieth chooses to edit in a bullying fashion. I cited above an instance on the NCFR page where I was reveretd 2x because I tried to group similar discussions, and I also previously cited where I was reverted by Werieth because of a style issue. NCFR is not CSD, and yet that is how Werieth interprets it. --evrik (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NPA. You said that there are exceptions, I agree with that. Where is the discussion requesting the exception for the article in question? Ill give you a hint, there isnt. Instead you decide that it should be exempt because you say so (that is not how policy works). Yes I reverted your grouping at NFCR because just like AfDs you dont combine them based of a commonality. Bulk AfDs tend to be a headache as instead of review each on a case by case basis, general brushes are used. (This does not work with NFCR) I am always willing to work collaborative example when the users are willing to follow policy. Your approach is wrong, if policy says only use 3, you start at 3 and argue for 3 or more. You should start at 0 and see if the article really needs the file or if its just there as filler. (90% of the time justification for additional images becomes more difficult with each addition.) You seem to have either not read, not understand, or have taken a stance to ignore the WP:NFC policy. Werieth (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a personal attack, but if I have personally attacked you, I apologize. I do stand by my assertion that you tend to try and bully people into submission. Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. --evrik (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Both parties warned. If either of you adds or removes an image, or makes another image-related revert on this article before a definite decision about it has been made on one of the copyright boards you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth reported by Gunbirddriver (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts: 

The editor in question contines to attempt to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) was to be a classic blitzkrieg... "

Here are the links to the talk page discussions: here and here.

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. The chief problem has been reverting edits despite consensus of opinion from other editors being opposed to his edit change. The reverts can be seen here, here, here and then here on 25 June. And again here and here. His tone on the talk page is condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You conveniently forgot to mention that it was on 11 June 2013, with THIS EDIT, that you began purging the article of the term "blitzkrieg" with absolutely no prior discussion. The term has always been there in the article for as long as possible, and fully supported by reliable sources (by reliable dudes). You came to your own conclusion that it doesn't belong in the article, and without any back up from any sources to dispute its inclusion in the article, you started cleansing the term off the artcle. There was not even any editor consensus to exclude the term from the article at that point. I added it back with THIS EDIT on 25 June. Later, you got a consistent support from two other editors, reverted it, and requested that I should discuss why I added it back. I added it back; and what did you expect me to say besides that I fixed a reliably cited content that has been tampered with. Ever since you've maintained that the support of three editors overrules the opinion of the various cited sources. But since the dispute over "blitzkrieg" has been submitted to the DRN, I will limit that discussion on here. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * PS. There was a rather now obsolete discussion we had back in mid May (i.e. one month before your blitzkrieg-purging began). In that discussion after you pointed out that the many blitzkrieg usage in the article were misplaced, I simply concluded with: "I won't object to removing "Blitzkrieg" altogether, except that I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the term without diverting the meaning of the passages from those of the various sources. If you think you can make it work, go for it. But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." (Full convo is HERE). Either ways, you purged whole sentences and whole paragraphs of cited content just to cleanse the article of this "fiercely detested" term. EyeTruth (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the accusation of misconduct, why do you always have to distort your complaints? Seriously why? You've reported this before, HERE. It got you nowhere. Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way. I don't know if it is the jocular style of my written speech is what you consider "condescending". I don't think, "hmmmn", "lol", "omg", "omfg", or stuff like "are you a gardener? because you're very adept with cherry picking (and distorting info)", are condescending in any way as you've made them out to be a few times now. Other times you've tried to accuse me of being insultive by referring to you as "dude", even though I meant absolutely no harm with its usage; nevertheless, I apologized. Other times, I misworded my intentions, but I quickly clarified them once I notice it has been misunderstood, for example HERE. You, on the other hand, have been launching very bold remarks ever since you concluded that my say no more holds any value. Now, you decided to distort your complaint even more and report it again. OK granted, I fell short of the MOS on wikilinks and even questioned others trying to correct me, but I learned my lesson and openly concurred.  I'm seriously getting tired of all these wave after wave of desperate allegations of misconduct, bombardment of speculative inferences (a.k.a original ideas) and accusations of not cooperating with those inferences. This is becoming one gigantic joke. If you keep this up, you might get what you want: to send me packing from this mutual sandbox of ours – the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As editors we have been challenged trying to figure out if the insulting nature of your comments had to do with a language difficulty, or was it just callous disregard for the other editors. The problem was pointed out to you by Sturmvogel 66 and myself on more than one occasion.  Your response was to dismiss it, and to claim the other parties were taking things too personally.  The attitude is one of a person who has no real interest in how he is being perceived.  That means callous disregard is the driving principle in your responses, not failure to master the subtlies of English or poor insight into the subtext of what you had said.  Okay.  But you were a wuss when it came to dealing with a push back, so there you go. You are quick to offer statements that start with: "I don't think.." This is not the opening path to your understanding other people's perspective.  They tell you how they percieve the manner in which you are commenting, and you respond by offering us all another look into what you think.  That may be a marker of an underlying problem.  Look at this non-sequitor: "Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way."  "I was thoroughly dismissive but I was not condescending." The statement itself fairly reeks of condescension. What is odd, is that given the fact that you are not a native English speaker, would it not seem highly likely that you are at a disadvantage and likely to be having language problems?  Why just brow beat the other editors?  Why would you not consider that there is a certain amount of awkwardness inherent in attempting to operate in a foreign language?  It stikes me as indicative of a lack of insight and a reticence toward self-critique.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * lol ok. You be the judge to decide who is a native speaker or not XD. I ain't got anymore time for this. BTW, I was speaking English when I was three years old or whenever it is ya all learn to speak it. I mean no harm. Cyaa. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As to the term "Blitzkrieg", no one is on a "Crusade" to eliminate the term, no one is "blitzkrieg-purging" wikipedia. But as to the Battle of Kursk, the term is non-desriptive and misleading, as I have told you many times before. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources don't think so. That's just your own opinion. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: EyeTruth is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to restore the word 'blitzkrieg' to this article unless he has found consensus to do so. The discussion at Talk:Battle of Kursk seems to be at least 3:1 against him. You have the option of asking an uninvolved admin to close that discussion and judge the consensus. There is currently a WP:DRN open and it is wise for EyeTruth to listen to whatever result is found there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously, since there is a 3:1 editor vote against it, I haven't made any edits ever since the third editor joined the discussion. Besides, the blitzkrieg issue is primarily a content dispute and not the case of a user misconduct. So you can be rest assured I won't be editing anything until DRN settles it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:108.246.88.27 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Wizard of Oz)

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

Previous version reverted to: (List of Warner Bros. films)

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:

After an explanation was posted at Talk:List of Warner Bros. films the IP did stop reverting on List of Warner Bros. films, but the underlying problem persisted on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and many articles related to The Wizard of Oz. Because of this most of my efforts were focused on contacting the editor on their talk page:. Either IP isn't aware of the messages I left or is ignoring them, but either way we are still left with the same problem of factually incorrect information being added to this group of articles. I think a block is the only option here, since the problematic behavior extends to many other articles. The only reason I have listed two articles is because this is were the 3RR violations occurred. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 72 hours. A blizzard of unsourced changes to articles, like the one about Warner Brothers producing the Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Warner acquired the rights much later. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wonderful_Wizard_of_Oz&diff=prev&oldid=562651504 Here] the IP replaces a working link to Glinda the Good Witch with a made-up redlink that goes nowhere. Hard to know what the motivation is, but this is disruptive. Cleaning up after this editor will use a lot of time. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jc37 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  3 July 2013
 * 2)   3 July 2013
 * 3)  27 June 2013
 * 4)  21 June 2013
 * 5)  15 June 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In a nutshell, this is a strange case of a closing admin edit-warring to uphold a decision which he made subsequent to a CFD closure, and which which was neither mentioned in the closure nor supported by any participant in the CFD discussion. In the subsequent discussions, no other editor has supported the closer's actions. Discussions at:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 12 (permalink)
 * User talk:Fayenatic london (permalink)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland (permalink)
 * User_talk:Jc37 (permalink)
 * User_talk:BrownHairedGirl (permalink)

If this was simply a case of a contested closure, where discussion with the closing admin had not produced agreement, I would have gone to WP:DRV. However, in this odd case, the closing admin is edit-warring to uphold an edit which is unsupported by his own closing statement, which means that there is nothing for DRV to examine. So 3RR seems like the best place to go. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Comments:


 * I think it's for now, but a block is in order if he reverts again. Pinging Jc37. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Again) (Result: No Action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 21:09, 25 June 2013  (edit summary: "Unreliable sources and duplicate information")
 * 2) 14:08,  2 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 561788616 by CartoonDiablo (talk)You are simply wrong on both accounts.")
 * 3) 13:42,  3 July 2013  (edit summary: "Stop adding in duplicate information and blogs.")
 * 4) 19:15,  4 July 2013  (edit summary: "revert edit warring of duplicate information.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Arzel previously did the same thing not that long ago on this and the rape and controversy page. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * These edits are over too long a period to be considered a 3RR and its not quite clear enough to look at as a slow burning edit war. Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Boy2013 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "at the bottom of the article given for the reference where it states this person had three affairs with married men"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562887766 by Gantlord (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562892555 by Blckmgc (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 562893236 by Blckmgc (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 562893913 by Gobonobo (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562893913 by Gobonobo (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Boy2013 is repeatedly inserting a violation of WP:BLP to the lead of Katie Hopkins over the objection of other editors. Gobōnobō + c 22:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear cut; was warned. I also removed the edit as it is a clear BLP problem.  Kuru   (talk)  22:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Scythian77 (Result: Scythian77 blocked 72 hours for edit warring to maintain BLP vios)
Page:

User being reported: User:Darkness Shines

Previous version reverted to: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Iranian_sentiment&oldid=562600524]

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:Just wanted to discuss removal of text. Not edit war. The Scythian 03:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

FFS. Removing BLP violations is an exemption, now try to explain why you reverted unsourced and BLP violating crap into that article 3 times. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * OP blocked. Spartaz Humbug! 04:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  24 June
 * 2)  25 June
 * 3)  30 June <-- Is a revert because it adds Kurds to rebel section against consensus
 * 4)  1 July 12:27
 * 5)  1 July 13:49
 * 6)  1 July 14:13
 * 7)  3 July 18:58 <-- Is probably a revert because it removes the neutral Kurd position against consensus
 * 8)  4 July 10:42
 * 9)  4 July 12:47
 * 10)  4 July 17:45

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Admins may hesitate to look into such a complex case. To get attention to your complaint, please supply the date and time of each revert, and if possible the edit summary. In case one edit is changing multiple things, explain why you consider it to be a revert. The 3RR reporting tool here will allow you to easily collect dates, times and edit summaries. Remove from the list of edits anything which is not a revert. If the editor is reverting against consensus, say what you think the consensus is. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that no major Kurd group is with the rebels or loyalists (see here) Pass a Method talk  19:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Untrue. The discussion in the past never included the Azadi. I have plenty of sources, including the new york times, to back up my edition. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

On a side note Ed, there is no one revert warning on the template page. The discussion of the template page was moved by User Funkmunk simply to make it easier for people to access (ie rather than going back an forth between pages). Sopher99 (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The redirect was made by Futuretrillionaire, I only copied the talk page over. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . Everyone is warned that the template is subject to WP:ARBPIA. I will add an edit notice shortly. Sopher99 is warned that their conduct is unacceptable, and if it weren't for the extreme muddle that everyone has made of this, I would have blocked them. They are the only editor who has violated WP:3RR, but I am also taking into account that the first revert is being called "probably a revert", even though it clearly fits the policy definition of a revert. I also propose that you folk eliminate the redirect to the talk page so the article and the template each have their own talk pages. I haven't decided whether ARBPIA permits me to do that unilaterally and enforce it; I'll think on it and perhaps solicit input from other admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rodneye9110 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I just suggested that there are alternative and more up-to-date sources of information regarding this topic"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562967779 by Zad68 (talk)"
 * 3)  "brings the state more inline with the wording of the actual source"
 * 4)  "Just changing the wording to match the actual wording of the CDC study"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


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

This is a controversial article that is currently undergoing a dispute resolution process, and has attracted a spate of new SPA users in a couple of weeks. There is extensive discussion ongoing on the talk page. The user here was duly warned about edit warring. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I think the best place to start in settling this dispute is to actually publish in wikipedia the information from the CDC study on page 9 that states that the "material found was 83% protein...". From there the discussion can move forward because neither side should dispute that the study actually says this before it goes off into an unscientific rant that is unsupported by fact.  That is why the followup study published in the Dove Press states that the body of the CDC's study was helpful but that their conclusion is not supported by the body of their work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneye9110 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 July 2013‎ Rodneye9110 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rodneye the best place for such a discussion is the talk page of the article, and the best time was before you edit warred. Please take it there, not here.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the four reverts is a borderline case; nevertheless, there is certainly edit warring behaviour being exhibited here, regardless of whether 3RR was technically violated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:76.87.31.178 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National_Organization_for_Marriage (and earlier Talk:National_Organization_for_Marriage)

Comments:

User has been blocked twice in the past month for making this same edit here and here. Attempts to do away with the "opposition to same-sex marriage" phrasing as opening have been Talk page'd extensively. More lasting sanctions should be considered. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no violation here, but there may be a long-term issue that needs resolving. I'd suggest taking this to ANI to achieve a decision with a wider consensus. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Damascus road reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Actually, this is a continuation of a long, slowburn edit war. I've shown only the latest reverts. Attempts to explain the problems with the editor's proposed edits by another editor, User:Contaldo80, resulted in a hostile response with accusations of bad faith and bias. The response was similar to my edit warring notification and my attempt to engage him on the talk page. Based on the editor's talk page comments, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am certainly new to editing on WP and I have no interest in "edit wars"... I came to the article about Alcuin having read his Opera Omnia, as I explained to User:Contaldo80, and was surprised to see him (Alcuin) at the center of a debate about homosexuality. This was supported by one (1) reference by Boswell, whose studies have been repeatedly criticized and shown to be extremely fragile (see http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-kennedy1.asp). I offered the counter reference previously mentioned (Robert G. Kennedy & Kenneth Kemp) and later added a quote from Alcuin himself on homosexuality in both Latin and English from the definitive reference work: his Opera Omnia (published by J.-P. Migne). None of this was my personal "opinion" and practically all of this was done with "talk". It seems to me, given the fact that User:Contaldo80 used highly offensive language and "edit wars" but has not been singled out by Dominus Vobisdu that the latter is driven by bias. I hope that I am wrong on this point. In any event, I am not interested in "edit wars" nor am I interested in ideological battles. However, Alcuin's own words should be heard if the topic of homosexuality is to be discussed in his context, and the title of the section should not seek controversy where none exists. Damascus road (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * for 4 days. It looks like both editors are editing in good faith here; I'd suggest pursuing dispute resolution to move the discussion forward. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Toymaster1 reported by User:C6541 (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562011777 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 562011303 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 561999650 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 561873685 by C6541 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 561988462 by EditorE (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 561873174 by C6541 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 561784942 by C6541 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 561873174 by C6541 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 561784942 by C6541 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on William Hung. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:TwoNyce reported by User:Don King's hair (Result: Both editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) --Don King&#39;s hair (talk) 10:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) --Don King&#39;s hair (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) --Don King&#39;s hair (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Don King's hair believes he can change the format that is used on every other boxing article. I'm only doing what is necessary cause article Timothy Bradley does not fall under the "Philosophy of User:Don King's hair". If anything Don King's hair needs to be reported for his vendetta against me. --2Nyce 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . The report is a bit stale, but because it's a slow edit war, I've warned both editors that they risk being blocked if they continue reverting. Also, @TwoNyce, you need to bring down your tone a few notches.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Maurice07 reported by User:Proudbolsahye (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: linklink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The issue has already been discussed in addition to this, some user have told him to discuss it first. Evidently he has read the edit-summary and avoided taking it to the talk page here, since he responded directly to another users edit-summary.

Comments: This user has been blocked many times for edit-warring and has been warned many more times. He is already under WP:ARBMAC sanctions and has violated his ban many times. Generally, he/she will delete the warnings he/she receives and continues edit-warring. It is my distinct personal observation that the user continues to edit-war regardless of how many times he's been warned or blocked.
 * . I agree the editor is a problem, but there's been no edits to the article by him for over 3 days, and he didn't breach WP:3RR even when he was reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:99.172.172.40 reported by User:Dfw79 (Result: No Vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Will_Rogers_World_Airport&diff=558912520&oldid=558172192

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.172.172.40

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Will_Rogers_World_Airport

Comments: This user has a history of unconstructive edits and edit warring. The information being presented on the Will Rogers page specifically is inaccurate. I have attempted to provide the correct information twice now, since I am actually employed by the company, but this user keeps reverting them.

Dfw79 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No Vio. There are two separate sets of 2 reverts on different days. That's not a 3RR. Please see WP:DR for advice on how to progress your dispute. While you are at it, you should read WP:COI as well to understand how to contribute through a COI. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Montanabw reported by User:Shokatz (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've contacted him or her on the personal talk page here

Comments:

Hello. I made a minor edit at the Lipizzan article linking countries in the infobox description there. After which Montanabw appears saying he is reverting another user due to picture being too-light or something. I restore my links and the said user appears again reverting my changes saying "No need to link all those countries either". Now from my experience it is a common practice if you to link the country of origin in the infobox wheter it be a person, animal or whatever. This user appears again now claiming this is against WP:OVERLINK despite the fact nothing there is talking against this practice, nor is WP:OVERLINK "a rulebook" as the said user has described it. Now I have posted a warning template to his page that he has broken the 3RR rule to which he responded putting one on my page as well in retaliation. I have also went to his talk page asking what exactly is the problem here to which he responded again by accused me of "edit-warring all over the place". He has also decide to hide my posts and the warning I posted at his talk page followed by the comments like: "Now go away..." and "Shokatz, get off my talk page and stay off." . Now I don't know exactly is the problem here this person has but this is certainly not a model behavior. I've tried to reason with this person over my edit comments and on his talk page but he refuses and is extremely offensive so due such rude behavior I have decided to report it here.

Comments:

I am about to be offline for some time due to the USA holiday and may have extremely limited access to defend myself in this situation. I actually only did 2 reverts within 24 hours, as the first was an undo of two previous edits, not just Shokatz, AND it was outside the 24 hour limit anyway. Even if you find the 3rd close to 24 hours, it's the FOURTH revert that a 3RR penalty kicks in, and we aren't there. Further (If more defense is needed) My position is that this individual is engaging in a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when I explained that per WP:OVERLINK there is no need to wikilink major nations. This particular article has been relatively stable in content for a long time, but is a frequent magnet for kiddie edits, insertion of trivia, but also an occasional flare-up of edit disputes between people who edit articles on Eastern European nations versus Austria (There was actually a lawsuit in the EU between Slovenia and Austria over the breed name "Lipizzan") But in short: The first reversion on July 1 was intended to be to a swap of a photo, reverting the immediately preceding edit. I missed seeing Shokatz' edit. my edit summary makes it clear I was going after the photo (and assumed good faith). It was a simple good faith error. Next, Shokatz reverts me, pointing out my error. Therefore, I fixed the image and overlinking problem together, and thus this is NOT part of the 3RR concern). Nonetheless, Shokatz takes offense, I revert, citing policy (and yes, getting a bit testy), Shokatz says IDINTHEARTHAT, and I revert and remind him of BRD.  At this point, Shokatz templates me, I'm seriously pissed by now and template him back, and he comes running here.  I've been on WP over seven years and just did my 50,000th edit this week, have a totally clean block record and this ranks as the lamest thing for which I've ever been dragged to the AN board. Someone else explain WP:OVERLINK to this individual, please. Montanabw (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was technically a 3RR vio here, in that the four reverts were made in over 24 hours. I've protected the page for three days in hopes of promoting discussion on the talk page. I'd like to emphasize that this is a minor issue, perhaps go to WP:3O for resolution? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that is highly disappointing as this user has shown obvious and blatant disrespect to me and the Wiki policies. Accusing me of "edit-warring all over the place" which is a fallacious statement. I have never been even reported in all two years on Wikipedia. Not to mention he or she reverted me citing nothing but claiming "it shouldn't be up there anyway" as if it's the user in question someone who decides what should or should not be in the article, then citing guidelines claiming it's a "rulebook". If you observe majority of similar articles (horse breeds included) it is a standard procedure to link the countries of association or origin in the infobox. WP:OVERLINK is certainly not a "rulebook" nor does it applies to linking countries of origins in the infobox. If the said user wishes to call upon the mentioned guideline then that user should read it carefully once again. This is certainly a minor issue but the reason why I got annoyed is the user's stance and rudeness, blatant reversion of something he/she didn't saw fit acting as if he/she is the sole proprietor of that article. Shokatz (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And Shokatz seems completely oblivious to his own attitude and rudeness. My first edit was intended to reverse a different editor, and I made it clear with an apology at the time, only to be met with the very tone that I am being accused of here. (Quite tired of those who can dish it out, but can't take it) I don't start these, folks. Once again, quality control is not ownership, particularly when it involves a drive-by editor who has no interest in actually contributing to an article and only makes nation links that I know some bot or other drive-by editor is just going to go through and remove again anyway.  (I personally don't give much more than a rat's ass if nations are wikilinked or not, I just know that it is frowned upon pr MOS in most cases and discouraged by the guidelines)  As for edit-warring, I noted at the warnings on that user's talk page and checked contribs.  It's clear Shokatz has an angle of interest, which of itself is not inherently a problem, except that it is an interest in Croatia, and partisans of the former Yugoslav republics have caused edit wars on the Lipizzan article in the past, so I was quite fast to act. Now I'm done, if Shokatz requires WP:LAST, that is fine.  Montanabw (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And still you continue with your ridiculous and fallacious accusations. If you haven't noticed my interest is actually in Croatia-related articles and I make no secret of it. I also have an interest in the history of the region and in general as can be seen from my edits. The Lipizzan article certainly falls into that category as well. Also your claim I have "contributed nothing" to the Lipizzan article is misleading and just wrong. I would like to remind you of a correction I made to that article, more specifically to the Foundation Lines section some time ago. The same change where you reverted me outright as well despite my explanation and rationale given in the talk page without even reviewing my edits and despite the facts they were directly supported by the existing references. Only after my intervention by quoting you the references you decided to accept it...but not without a twist ... talking about the WP:LAST aren't we? May I remind you that you do not WP:OWN that article and that you are not some sort of guardian of it. I couldn't care less now about the links, it was a minor WP:Good faith edit based on the common practice of linking the countries of origin in the infobox...until you started this whole charade acting as if you are the master of the Universe. Shokatz (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw is female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Mark Arsten.   Your comment above went up as I was writing the tl;dr response above.  I am glad to discuss the issue at article talk or elsewhere.   Montanabw (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the person submitting this was just as guilty, so prot is a good solution here. Pumpkin Sky   talk  21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:97.91.198.94 reported by User:75.111.63.85 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Jake_and_the_Never_Land_Pirates_episodes&oldid=563134621

Comments:

Repeatedly adding fake info on the page, even after talking to them.

  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.91.198.94

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:97.91.198.94#3RR
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:24,  7 July 2013  (edit summary: "I asked you to discuss. Left message on your talk page. You ignored it. You aree trying to create an edit war and not discuss good faith addition, simply deleting it!")
 * 2) 02:50,  7 July 2013  (edit summary: "re-wrote my good faith entry after vandal deletion")
 * 3) 14:44,  7 July 2013  (edit summary: "Discussed this issue and consensus reached today to leave in after other editors trimmed it.  Am working oin the best source! Stop engaging in edit war and undoing my additition.")
 * 4) 14:58,  7 July 2013  (edit summary: "consensus to leave in today with two experienced editors while best source is added. Leave it with me. Stop undoing my addition. You refuse to discuss iss246! Discuss on my talk page. Discuss. Totally refusing to discuss. one sided edit war!")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 04:28, 7 July 2013

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational_health_psychology

Comments:

Looks like this is part of a larger dispute between Mrm7171 and that goes back to at least May and has included a previous block for edit-warring of Mrm7171, a sock puppet investigation of, and page protection.

I've warned Iss246 as well for his continued reverts.

In addition to myself, and  have both stepped in to help resolve this dispute.

The article talk page is a mess. These inexperienced editors need further help from experienced editors to make some progress with the larger dispute(s) here. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . It's not just the continuing reversions but also the content, which, as has been pointed out, is not even close to encyclopedic (sourcing issues aside). And then there are the walls of text on the user's talk page and on the article talk page. I'll leave it to you (Ronz) and the other experienced editors to clean up the content issues. I'm dealing only with the conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Wearenotgermans reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user, curiously named WeAreNotGermans, is obviously pushing an agenda here, and has not shown any intention to contribute to the project. His or her only reason for being here is anti-German sentiment. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . In the future, Surtsicna, it would be better to warn the editor of edit warring on their talk page rather than on the article talk page. However, the 3RR violation was blatant as was the agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be enough to start a discussion and to ask her or him to stop edit-warring in an edit summary, but I now realize I should have gone to her or his talk page as well. Thanks for your help! Surtsicna (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Trekphiler (Result: No action)
Page: User being reported:

Adding trivia, then restoring it. Further, accusing me of edit warring for removing it. By appearances, he dislikes having his adds deleted.   

Have I tried to resolve it? No. I'm not the one restoring this junk. Go ahead & block me. I expect you will no matter what I say.  TREK philer any time you're ready, Uhura  06:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I don't know who, if anyone, may be blocked, but you could certainly have done a better job in filing this report. There are instructions on how to do it, and if you'll pardon the pun, you've been around the block. In addition to the report being malformed, you failed to notify Gwillhickers, which I've done for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice Bb23. As no one has yet to exceed the 3RR with a fourth revert I don't understand why we are here now. In any case, this is not the first time user Trekphiler has gone into the USS Monitor page and has made repeated deletions without any discussion. This user went through a similar approach to editing just a few days ago.
 * Diff
 * Diff
 * Diff
 * Aside from correcting comma usage, which is welcomed, most of his edits were made for highly opinionated reasons (insisting on using the general term "flooding" instead of the more definitive term "rapidly rising waters") This user's deletions/reverts were not anything that involved correcting factual errors, lack of citations and other important items. When matters were explained, he ignored them and continued to make the same opinionated reverts regardless, often leaving less than friendly comments in edit history, the likes of which Trekphiler has demonstrated above. "...junk, go ahead and block me."


 * During this second episode Trekphiler continued to make needless edits, deleting well sourced historical content, (all the while he was using the mark-up page to leave hidden comments containing personal opinion and questions that are normally posted on the talk page). Definitive example: One of Trekphiler's edits involved the deletion of a sentence that mentioned the crew's condition after they had just returned from a two day (world famous) battle and that they were exhausted and were given a meal -- a historical fact supported by RS's to which this user typically has just referred to as "junk". Here are the Diff's of Trekphiler's second episode of undiscussed deletions/reverts:
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * After the first edits/deletion I thanked this user for the 'clean up' while pointing out some of the edits were inappropriate, and so I restored a couple of the items in question. Immediately this user made the same reverts, again, without a discussion. A second message was sent asking Trelphiler to discuss any challenges of sourced content and to seek consensus before insisting on making deletions of sourced and factual content. Both messages were ignored while this user continued to make the same deletions/reverts, again, based on personal opinion with no consensus. Before Trekphiler exceeded the 3RR with a 4th revert I placed a  template on Trekphiler's user page in a final appeal to get this user to discuss matters before making a 4th revert. Again, this user made no attempts at discussion and instead placed the same template on my user page. Trekphile as of yet has not exceeded the 3RR with a 4th revert, so I am hoping this matter will go away, and that contributing editors can continue in their efforts building the USS Monitor page without any further disruptions. Again, Trekphiler's clean up efforts are welcomed where they are truly needed, but IMO at this point this user needs to discuss matters before deleting well sourced content that doesn't involve factual errors, policy violations, etc. Again, thanks for the notification and for your time. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . I'm closing this report without sanctions. The report started badly as I noted earlier. It was malformed. Of the three diffs included in the prose, the first is a diff by the reporter, not by Gwillhickers. The latter two are indeed reverts by Gwillhickers, but there were not enough reverts to violate WP:3RR, and, in my view, not enough problems to establish edit warring. At the point Trekphiler filed the report, they had not participated in any discussion on the article talk page for several days. From the sequence of events, it looks like they filed the report out of anger, not for a policy-based reason. However, I would like to caution Gwilhickers about his edits, edit warring, and what constitutes a revert per policy. A user may be blocked for edit warring even without breaching 3RR. In addition, the only edits that are exempt from counting toward 3RR are listed in the policy; restoring the deletion of content is generally not an exemption, unless the removal is egregious. From what I can see, the USS Monitor is receiving a lot of attention from several editors. When that happens, it is sometimes hard to separate the collaborative attempts to improve the article - even if the edits involve reverts - from edit warring. So, one needs to be very careful if one is technically reverting multiple times. If you have any doubt, the best way to work these things out is on the talk page without editing the article. Keep track of your reverts, and be aware of the policy definition of a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Uruguayriver reported by User:Struway2 (Result: Warned)
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:

After User:Add92 made changes to the article, including addition of sourced and relevant content, there was some backwards-and-forwards editing between User:Always Learning and Add92, before User:Uruguayriver decided they preferred the Always Learning version, and began reverting to it. User passed 3RR yesterday, but as they're relatively new and not a native English speaker, I spoke further at their talk page, asked Always Learning to explain the problem in a language they'd be more comfortable with. Always Learning and Add92 spoke at their talk pages,, and Add92 made some more changes to the article. The last revert (diff 5, above) is of Add92's later changes, made after I'd gone to bed last night or I'd have made this report then. Struway2 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Uruguayriver has removed the story of Marc Muniesa's torn knee ligament five times now. Unclear why he doesn't want that in the article. If he continues to remove material that he doesn't like without getting consensus he may be blocked. He has not reverted that article in the last 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (to EDJ but also in general)Maybe because that injury bit does not belong in the introduction but in the body of article (it was not a big part of his career, only an accident, so it does not merit intro "honours" i reckon). Actually it was i who rephrased the intro last week, Mr.Uruguayriver agreed with me (i appreciated it) then began reverting others massively (that i did not). Now that i see that the majority wants intro to be that way, i have left it well enough alone (but again, i have to make Ed Johnston take note of the following: URiver does want that info to be present in article, just not in INTRO, as do i).

Attentively --AL (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Chauahuasachca reported by User:Eng-men (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:


 * User:Chauahuasachca wants to add a false information to the article. He tried it without reliable sources    since December 2012. And I think the user has used sock puppets for the target. If you look at history of the page, you could see it. --Eng-men (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . You did not warn the editor of edit warring. You did not notify the editor of this report. You did not discuss the problem on the article talk page or anywhere else. Chauahuasachca did not violate 3RR. If you believe socking is involved, WP:SPI is where you should go.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Andreacingalli reported by User:Tiller54 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)
 * 22)
 * 23)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has ignored requests to stop vandalising the page and has made the same edits almost two dozen times. Tiller54 (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . User blocked for 48 hours by User:Ged UK.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Kauffner reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result:72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) to last revision by Kauffner. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 563317428 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
 * 3)  "revert blanking"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reverting a redirect/merge which was merged via merge discussion with consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While the three reverts above don't violate 3RR, as you need four for that, they are a case of edit warring, and more to the point, they're part of a longer sequence of the same. That's the main reason I'm blocking for 72 hours (24 seems questionable to stop a slow edit war). It also wasn't acceptable for him to call his opponents' edits "vandalism", though that is not the reason for the block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:75.67.112.116 reported by User:Superfly94 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: See line 40

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:75.67.112.116

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I believe that User:75.67.112.116 is in fact User:Sticks830, formerly User:Carly3737, with whom there has already been a dispute over this exact same bullet. See here in the article talk page, where the editor has posted as the IP address above. History of the previous report can be found here. I have repeatedly asked this editor to start a 3O or DR process but they seem unwilling. My reasons for not initiating it myself are because I have done so once already about this same disputed bullet here and I don't feel there has been any new information presented. This most recent iteration has brought absolutely no response from User:75.67.112.116 in the talk page. I left reinserting the disputed bullet during this previous reporting period and gave the editor more than 4 days to respond to my call for them to start some type of mediation process but got nothing. Once the report was archived I went back to the WMSCOG page to re-insert the bullet, which is when this latest revert frenzy began. Superfly94 (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be looking for WP:SPI to report sockpuppetry. 155blue (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt since she hasn't logged in since she changed her user name. She probably doesn't realize that she needs to use her new user name but the same password to log in.  While she was waiting for her user name to get changed she was posting as this IP but manually signing her new username. You can see it here. Superfly94 (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * - That is, Superfly94, Sticks830, and the IP 75.67.112.116. Both Superfly and the IP edit warred on the World Mission Society Church of God and both broke 3RR. It seems pretty clear that the IP and Sticks are the same person; I don't think that this is a malicious case of sockpuppetry; nevertheless, I have blocked both the account and the IP because the block is intended to stop the individual from editing. Sticks and his IP are blocked for 24 hours; Superfly is blocked for 48 hours because this is the second offence in the past 3 months. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Mathew harding AKA User:122.58.208.58 reported by User:70.235.86.12 (Result: )
Page:

Page:

User being reported: AKA

Previous version reverted to: List of Christian denominations: ; Jediism:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warnings:, , , , ,

Comments:


 * This user has disrupted several pages and has not engaged in any sort of discussion, despite several warnings from several different editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:JuneteenthDOC reported by User:Inayity (Result: 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , And a COI was opened.

Comments:

It is extremely hard to develop this site when nothing you say or do gets through to an editor. He was requested on a COI to limit his insertion of his own website, he would not stop, despite the talk page discussion explaining why it violated NPOV and RS. Despite discussing it he still reverts and inserts his website quoting himself in a self-published source.--Inayity (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 3 days. The editor added a lot of material on July 2 which does not appear encyclopedic, referring to self-published sources. Others tried to fix up his material and remove promotional language, but he reverted them several times. His comments at WP:COIN suggest that normal discussions are not going to persuade him to follow policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Truthwillneverdie reported by User:155blue (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid CJK's vandalism and returned to Darouet's stable version"
 * 2)  "Undid CJK's vandalism and returned to Darouet's stable version"
 * 3)  "Undid CJK's vandalism and returned to Darouet's stable version"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 563262758 by CJK (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 563262636 by CJK (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 563262636 by CJK (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

These two editors have been warned before as shown at User talk:Truthwillneverdie and at User talk:CJK and have been giving the same, divisive accusation to each other, accusing each other of being vandals. This compromises the article and has resulted in protection templates being removed during the reverts. 155blue (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this warning is a mistake, as I believe I am actual just providing a third (or forth after Darouet) opinion in CJK’s ongoing edit war with Thucydides411. Thucydides411's edits have been very much in the interests of having a factual article that is up to Wikipedia standards.  The CJK edits mostly erase factual information that do not support CJK's theories about the Iraq war, and do not provide any factual information. In reality, Thucydides411 and Darouet have been simply helping to return the Iraq war article to a state of being a balanced fact-based article that is up to Wikipedia standards, rather than a one-sided opinion-based CJK editorial that is far below Wikipedia standards. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . @155blue, although you filed the report against Trutwilneverdie, you also accuse CJK of edit warring. I've therefore notified them of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I forgot to tell him of this discussion, which I should have done earlier.
 * . I already blocked in response to a WP:RPP request. I had protected this article a couple weeks ago. In the meantime, CJK has gone to the talk page and discussed issues with the article (as he did even before the protection), while Truthwillneverdie has not. The tenor of the latter's edit summaries don't help either (to say nothing of his username). --  tariq abjotu  16:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this blocking is a mistake. It is clear consensus exists between many editors (including Thucydides411, EllenCT,  Darouet, TFD and myself) that the large (10K+ line) CJK edit moves the overall article to a less NPOV.  I have heard no editor speak out in favor of the CJK edit other than CJK.   I believe it makes good sense to stop the reverting of the version of the article that is supported by wide consensus to the version that only CJK supports.  I have just been one of several editors attempting to stop the CJK reverts. Please see the article's talk page under the heading "On CJK's edits" for more information. -- Truthwillneverdie (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:63.251.133.194 reported by User:71.199.125.210 (Result: Proxy block, semi)
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: Having seen 5 previous warnings all about this article, I didn't feel one of my own was necessary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: C.Fred tried to start a discussion, which nobody responded to.

Comments:

I've just noticed this. Other users have apparently been at it for a while.

--71.199.125.210 (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention, the first few of these are from a while ago, after which there's a gap, followed by the last one occurring today. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 01:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The section removed was dreadful and arguably a BLP violation. I've edited the article. I'll let another admin review this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * just undid your edit. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, I've raised the issue at WP:BLPN. It still boggles my brain that so many editors were warning the IP who kept removing the material. Didn't anyone read it? The section header alone is a huge red flag.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One IP has filed this report against another IP, who has in fact been removing this BLP-sensitive section added by a third IP. The latter is an IP-hopper from the range which is a web hosting range operated by [//www.neutraldata.com/ Neutral Data Centers Corp.] in Toronto, Canada. The Neutral Data IP has been systematically re-adding the controversial section since at least May 31, and has reverted the article 22 times. (Click on 'range contributions' to check). A web host counts as an open proxy for Wikipedia purposes and I'm considering a two-month block of that range. Also planning to impose a month of semiprotection on the article due to BLP concerns. I'll leave this open for a bit to see if there are more comments. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Enacted the rangeblock and semiprotection as proposed above. EdJohnston (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Niemti reported by User:Fortdj33 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:

User:Niemti and I have collaborated on the Jinx article before. However, he now insists on including a quote box in the live action film section of the article. Putting the quote in a box at the beginning of the section is unnecessary, as it sandwiches the text between that and the infobox, plus the quote refers to elements of the plot, before the reader has had a chance to read that paragraph! Therefore, I moved the quote to the end of the section which I believe allows the article to flow better. Niemti reverted my edit, stating that I had deleted content. I reverted back, because of the above reasons. Niemti reverted a second time, taking it as a dispute against the quote box in general. I then explained on his talk page that I'm not disputing the content that he added, just the way that is is displayed. Niemti simply reverted the article a third time, without any further discussion. I feel that my edits were made in good faith, and that Niemti's edit warring borders on him claiming ownership of the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And I feel that my edits were made in good faith, and that Fortdj33's edit warring borders on him claiming ownership of the article. Too. Plot: if you don't want he spoilers, don't read Wikipedia; anyway this was all from a pre-release interview. --Niemti (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one of us attempted a discussion, and the other simply kept reverting the article back to their POV, so that should show who is really claiming ownership. For the record, I don't think that the quote is spoiling the plot, but it is discussing the movie after the fact. The article should be allowed to discuss the plot, before the quote refers to those same elements. Therefore, putting the quote at the beginning of the section disrupts the flow of the article. Again, I'm not disputing the content that was added, just the way that it is displayed, and you have not provided any explanation as to why the quote box at the beginning of the section is preferable. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * for 24 hours. You're both at 3RR though there has not been a violation yet. Still, this dispute is not helpful - try discussing the issue on the talk page, rather than arguing in edit summaries. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Article is on a 1RR restriction

The first diff is not a revert. I simply took out 3 of 6 consecutive citations - per Citation_overkill. I also added context.

Only the second diff is a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The first edit was a revert - you removed content that had recently been added by another user. Also, this edit this morning is a third revert and falls within the 24 hours. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, how is Syrian civil war covered under WP:ARBPIA? Sure the parts about the isolated Israeli strikes or anything about the Golan might be, but the reverted material has exactly nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict and should not be covered under the 1RR.  nableezy  - 15:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's reasonable, as the whole article is under restrictions, and the scope is broadly constructed. Having said that, I'd be happy for another admin to review my block. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sarvajna reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  This is revert from what he had now with his first edits.
 * 5)  And now he is deleting academiclly sourced content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not only is the user edit warring he is misrepresenting sources and engaging in synth. His first edit sourced to the Guardian source does not mention any conspiracy. I told him on his talk that if he did not fix the misrepresentation I would revert him, rather than fix the misrepresentation he then engaged in synth adding this source, which has no mention of the court case. I have asked the editor several times to self revert, he refuses and instead seems to think I am "baiting him". I myself have two reverts on the article, one was due to the source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all I did not revert anyone's work but I added something that was not present in the article, I added a wrong source in one of my edits which I accepted and had also corrected, I don't know how the second diff is a revert. The third diff is the one were I added proper source and DS did not care to look at the source, all he needs is to report me here so I cannot do much about that. The fourth diff was a correction, I just corrected a wrong info. So I request any admin who takes an action to look into my points. Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not know how this is a revert? It is the same bloody content which had just been added by you and reverted by me as as a duplication. You restored it, so that there is the revert, then Maunus reverted you on that as the source was misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not try to fool people, it was not a duplication of content. Like I said, this verdict was not expanded so I added the material there, you pointed out that it is present under prosecutions, it was not so I added there and later with a source from BBC which did mention the conspiracy when even that source was objected I gave a proper source which you never cared to see. I would not like to have any more debate with you, admins will surely review and take appropriate action against me if I have erred. -sarvajna (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a duplication of content, the same information is in the very first line of the Criminal prosecutions section "There have been 249 convictions in 19 cases as of August 2012. This includes 184 Hindus and 65 Muslims- 31 for Godhra and 34 for post-Godhra." Darkness Shines (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, hope you understand that this is not a place to discuss content, you have reported me and an admin will look into it. I am ready to answer you question about why this is not a duplicate content at proper venue. -sarvajna (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

And also more source misrepresentation, attributes the Muslim communtitys anger to one person, the source has quotes from three different people. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What has that to do with me? Have you confused this forum for something else? I am feeling that you are using this forum to vent your anger at someone else -sarvajna (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It has to do with you as you did the edit and misrepresented it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * are you alright? That edit was done by yogesh, my username is Sarvajna.Lol!! .-sarvajna (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Struck, sadly we now have two editors who misrepresent sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:86.159.173.24 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Continues to add unsourced editorial material after template warning, now in conjunction with a likely sockpuppet account. Charles (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Paul2924 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "MrOllie continues to disregard Wiki Policy and remove changes rather than discussion them on the e-Tools discussion page as required - he is responsible for an edit war and should be sanctioned!"
 * 2)  "Reverted the entries pending final dispute resolution, readded a citation supporting information"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 563702078 by MrOllie (talk)"
 * 4)  "This content meets the Wikipedia Standards, does not include any specific website or e-mails, and discusses an overall effort to revive the eTools Product as open source."


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has an admitted COI with regards to the one week old 'grassroots effort' he is pushing. MrOllie (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rahul duhan reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 563817261 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 563817635 by HMSSolent (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 563817635 by HMSSolent (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

I'll add more to this after report is created. Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User blanked the noticeboard shortly after being reported. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 14:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

This user has a checkered history. He was blocked once before because of his disruptive edits. On June 28, User:Yunshui stubbed the article similarly to the way I did today. The user then edit warred over it and three times blanked Yunshui's user page before being blocked. The user has created inappropriate pages, which have been deleted, including one about himself, which I have now deleted twice. This really needs more action than an edit warring block, although I know that goes beyond the purview of this board. Having now battled with the editor over content, other than the deletions of the article about himself (the first I did before becoming involved), I don't feel comfortable taking any action. (The user also has a language problem.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. He may also be editing as . That account should probably be indeffed as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Orthorhombic reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (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:

I'm reporting this because the article keeps getting reverted back to a version that clearly goes against several of our rules on Wikipedia. Much of it is oversensationalized, almost to the point where it looks more like a conspiracy website than a Wikipedia article. At this point it's just getting silly. I've tried explaining this on the AfD page as to why I changed things, but it keeps going back and forth with reverts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The reverts were made in response to two different attempts to significantly alter the article. As far as I can see, the content of the fuller version of the article is in fact scrupulously well cited and researched, drawing on major international news outlets. It is simple, encyclopaedic summary of a very well-covered news story. Ortho rhombic, 17:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * by User:GB fan.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have no reason to suspect that this IP is the same user that I just reported, but after the account was blocked an IP reverted the article back to its previous version, which I'll again state had several things on it that went against several of our guidelines on WIkipedia and WP:BLP. It might be worth looking into to see if this IP belonged to that user and give him a warning accordingly. I don't know exactly how to search that and besides, I think it'd be better if a non-involved admin looked into this and took action to avoid any concerns about it being just one admin overstepping their bounds in something they're involved in.  Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User:46.7.236.155 reported by User:Yopie (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "they are not a royal house"
 * 2)  "They are not royal without a king or queen."
 * 3)  "they are still not royal without a king or a queen."
 * 1)  "they are still not royal without a king or a queen."


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


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


 * Comments:

He/she is still reverting against consensus of other editors Yopie (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:CONLIMITED. The fact that one set of editors wants to write an article a particular way doesn't change the fact that material has to be referenced to a reliable source. The statement that the house of Hanover is royal isn't referenced to any source, much less a reliable one. The house is no longer royal. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

User:31.59.168.230 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 564039596 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 564022554 by Folantin (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 564009134 by Folantin (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 563930151 by Folantin (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 563891387 by Soundofmusicals (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 562978986 by Soundofmusicals (talk)"
 * See also related IP edits
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 31.59.162.163
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on One Thousand and One Nights. (TW★TW)"


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


 * 
 * Comments:

Dynamic IP edit-warring in automated, unresponsive mode over weeks. Picked up the pace today and yesterday. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  02:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. This is a dynamic IP who is going to revert forever to impose his preferred transliteration of a Persian name. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree Ed. I asked for semiprotection but RFPP did not respond. Thank you for your assistance. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:08, 11 July 2013  (edit summary: "/* Rape */ Remove Duplicate information.  No argument for continued duplication.")
 * 2) 23:55, 11 July 2013  (edit summary: "I brought the duplicate information up on talk, and there has been no discussion, there is no reason to have duplicate information.")
 * 3) 04:14, 12 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 563894159 by CartoonDiablo (talk)I have started several discussions, yet you continue to include duplicate information with no discussion.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments:
 * Addressing Arzel's claims over a week ago
 * Attempt to go into talk after 3rd revert

Arzel has attempted to remove information he considers to be "duplicated" despite a lack of agreement from anyone else. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not passing judgement on either side, or who currently leads what may or may not be an edit war, duplicate text is present.

At the least, this is an which requires action. †TE†  Talk  09:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've locked the article for three days. Two comments. First, WP:BLP is a policy that covers all pages at Wikipedia, not just articles where the subject is a BLP. Second, this article is subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what ArbCom case or motion does this fall under? I see the notice on the talk page, but it doesn't say what ArbCom case.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that's a good question. The notice was added by Binksternet on May 8, 2012, because the article is related to abortion. The talk page of abortion has an identical notice. If you look at WP:AC/DS, you'll see that the abortion topic is listed. However, there's also a case WP:ARBAB, and any interrelationship between ARBAB and AC/DS is unclear to me. Still, as far as I can tell, the notice is legitimate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

FWIW see where the use of that blog site has very little support at all, other than from User:BullRangifer. Contentious claims not strongly RS-sourced about a living person are deletable on sight per WP:BLP as Bbb23 notes. Collect (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * That article has no contentious claims, so there are no BLP issues. POV and bias are not what we mean by "contentious" when discussing BLP issues. The article is professionally written by a serious journalist and expresses the same views found on many mainstream websites, with nothing even closely approaching BLP issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I started another a section on the duplicate information prior to this submission. This really needs to be addressed but CD seems unwilling to discuss other than to state that this was a topic that received criticism from two different points of view. I am not seeing that, but assuming that is true, whatever those points of view are could be put together, but having basically the same information in two sections seems to be a violation of weight. Arzel (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Can't the two of you discuss this on the article talk page rather than here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It takes two to discuss. CD seems unwilling to discuss.  Arzel (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. While I can understand the concerns about Arzel's editing, which extends as deletionism and protectionism across many right wing articles (he protects them very aggressively), there is no need for this thread quite yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This coming from the only editor defending PolicyMic as a reliable source in a BLP issue. Pot meet kettle.  Arzel (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Eisfbnore reported by User:Tammarlakkarus (Result: Reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

--Tammarlakkarus (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've indeffed Tammarlakkarus as a sock of User:Sju hav.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnnyleepeter reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Warned and stalish)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

user keeps adding gurage as "habesha people" but he has no rs..his rationale is or. Baboon43 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that you can't revert back three times in 24 hours and i accept that i am wrong for doing that. However, my reverting was right i have provided a reliable source on his talk page [1].He is making an argument just because it is not worded exactly the way he wanted it.The source i have provided shows that gurage fits with the definition of habesha on the wiki page of "habesha people".He is asking for a source that words it exactly as he wants it.Gurage speak Semitic language(from geez,related to amharic and tigrinya)[2 ] and also have an Axumite ancestry [3] ( a wiki page).i can also provide other sources if needed.Johnnyleepeter (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . @Johnnyleepeter, it's commendable of you to take responsbility for your conduct, but, to be clear, you did not breach WP:3RR. And it's not 3 times in 24 hours, it's 4 times (more than 3). This is what we call a slow-burning edit war, meaning it is taking place over more than one day. Baboon43 should have made that clear in their terse comment. Not to mention that Baboon43 is as "guilty" of edit warring as you are. This content dispute should be resolved in the usual ways, and it's not clear that it should have been brought here at all, unless neither of you is capable of such resolution and continue to battle in the article, in which case both of you may be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm closing this as warned (see my note above) and stalish.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The problem is in the addition of 2 words (most likely) to discredit some data. No discussion was conducted by me personally but the other user implicated in edit warring has invited him to talk - without success. At this moment, both users(User:Sutgol and User:Norden1990) have more than 6 reverts in 24 hours. I guess there is no point in making a separate report for User:Sutgol.

Comments:

I am reporting the violation of the 3RR, this user has reverted 6 times in the last 24 hours. Although this may also be an edit war, 3RR is violated with his reverts. The problem is the words "most likely" he tries to introduce. The stable version before this reverts did not have the "most likely" because this theory is accepted in academic circles. This version is established by a consensus between Romanian and Hungarian editors because this subject is sensitive to both this groups. User:Norden1990 tries to add controversial data to this article and disrupt this consensus. Adrian (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure User:Sutgol belongs to a well known sock puppet master therefore this is not a serious case in my opinion. Moreover User:Norden1990's contribution to the article was not controversial. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no SPI report, SPI admin comment, nothing. In this case the 3RR is valid. Also, this contribution is not controversial in your opinion... not in general. Adrian (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:The wind or breeze reported by User:Sitush (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: User_talk:The_wind_or_breeze

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are numerous discussions about the name versus caste issue and the BLP issue on the talk page, eg: Talk:List_of_Mudaliars, Talk:List_of_Mudaliars and Talk:List_of_Mudaliars

Comments:

There is a fundamental difficulty concerning this list, which purports to be a list of people bearing Mudaliar as a title rather than being members of the Mudaliar caste. There have been various discussions concerning this and also the implications for BLPs if associating a caste to a person, per the links given above. The 3RR violator is clearly familiar with Wikipedia, pointing out my inadvertent rollback error (Twinkle was playing up an hour or so ago, as reported at WP:VPT) and stressing in their edit summaries that they would provide (primary) sources if only they could. It is clear from their edit summaries that they had read mine, hence their note about my lack of explanation. I pointed them to the talk page and to WP:BLP but they are intent on reinstating BLP violations and names of people that do not appear to bear the Mudaliar title. Alas, their talk page indicates that this is not a new issue. I've backed off before overstepping the 3RR rule but the BLP additions really do need removing again. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . Blocked for edit warring and for making personal attacks, including filing a report against Sitush at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Vadim Kiev reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Please someone with authority, talk some to this guy who insists on reinserting an unreferenced dubious piece of text. - Altenmann >t 23:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned piece of text is correct and useful, and it does not seems to be dubious to other people. It is there for half of year, had plenty of visitors and nobody sad that it is dubious.Vadim Kiev (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Will McRoy reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 564298594 by Softlavender (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 4)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 5)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 6)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 7)  "/* Controversy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sri Chinmoy. using TW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Chinmoy. using TW"


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


 * Comments:
 * Comment (from another editor, not the nominator): Major disruptive editor who has repeatedly ignored warnings on his and the article's Talk pages that uncited opinion is not allowed in Wikipedia articles and that removal of agreed-upon WP:RS sourced content is not allowed without consensus. Is bent on denying or deleting mention of a book written about Sri Chinmoy that is mentioned in that article's Controversy section. Has been in a massive continuing edit war about it with four different editors. Repeatedly completely removed the mention or gutted the mention and reposted his unsourced denial opinion about the book . In my opinion this apparent SPA really needs to be blocked or banned. Nearly his entire posting history is disruptive and non-constructive. Softlavender (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * --  tariq abjotu  04:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tumandokkangcabatuan reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 48 hours for edit warring. This editor has persistently reverted the 'cities served' field in the infobox since 20 June. While he knows how to use the talk page, he seems to feel no need to get consensus for his views. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:JLUKACS1 reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Note: I am not requesting a block.  See below.)
 * 1) 21:14, 13 July 2013‎
 * 2) 18:17, 14 July 2013
 * 3) 23:50, 14 July 2013
 * 4) 04:22, 15 July 2013‎
 * 5) 05:35, 15 July 2013
 * 6) 05:37, 15 July 2013
 * 7) 05:40, 15 July 2013
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am not requesting a block. This is an new user who appears to have written his own biographical article and has made most of the mistakes that new users make. However, he has not been responsive to discussing how to improve the article and based on this (self-reverted) comment I don't think any additional communication from me is going to be effective. I'd like an uninvolved editor to step in and offer an opinion. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Update: Just added four more reverts above. At this point I'd consider the behavior disruptive. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment (not from nominator): The user has written (or in any case re-written or substantially contributed to) his own article, and needs to be given a COI warning and advised not to edit the article further, nor add information about himself or his books to other Wikipedia articles. He has apparently been notified of this yet is still continuing even now to edit his own article and add bloated info sourced only to his own website/blog. In my opinion, needs an out-and-out topic ban, plus a timed edit block because he is indeed edit-warring and not observing any sort of protocol or responding to Talk page messages/warnings. Softlavender (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours by User:Beetstra. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Heyheyhey222333 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

All timestamps 15 July 2013 (UTC).

Previous version reverted to: 06:11

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:36
 * 2) 06:51 + 06:54 (future reverts to this point)
 * 3) 07:03
 * 4) 07:10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:54

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't done this. Comments: Other warnings made about COI and posting information sourced to blogs here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:83.71.102.49 reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Asked for citation for addition, also gave the "soft" warning for edit warring. IP editor hasnt cummincated back. They keep editing content in without reference, it is dubious and has been removed by several edtitors, myself included.Murry1975 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:88RIK and User:Carringtonb reported by User:Ericoides (Result: Blocked and Protected)
Page: Lynton Crosby

User being reported: User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lynton_Crosby&oldid=564201960 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: see comment in article history. Also comment on talk page

Comments:


 * and, both done by User:2over0. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * and see header. If the probable sockpuppetry and COI editing continue after the lock expires, a request at WP:RFPP may help, or put a note on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Anviltops reported by User:Cyclonebiskit (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Includes "both" sides of the argument of the controversy, where previous edit was one sided."
 * 2)  "reverted vandalism edit by United States Man"
 * 3)  "reverted continuous vandalism edits by Cyclonebiskit, who only provides one favorable side of the controversy"
 * 4)  "Undid previous vandalism edit by United States Man"
 * 5)  "Latest Edit"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2013 */ my message as well, gives some clarification"
 * 2)   "/* 2013 El Reno tornado */ please do not continue that course of action"


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


 * Comments:

User continues to add material that is redundant to previously stated information and unnecessary overall as well as breaks the syntax for a section header. Refuses to cooperate despite attempts to discuss the situation at his talk page. In addition to the attempted verbal resolution by myself, provided the proper warnings to him. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts, was warned prior to last revert. Kuru   (talk)  11:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Dylan Hunt reported by User:Agricolae (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (in edit summary);  (on User page); (edit summary of this edit shows user saw the warning and went ahead and made 4RR anyhow)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As much as I hate to bring a mundane content dispute here, the user has knowingly flouted 3RR. Agricolae (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 05:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Some guy reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

A user name Some guy and I have been engaging a edit war in the article List of Call of Duty characters. While the article does need a huge clean up and such, Some guy has been removing characters that did appeared on those games, which he said that they are unsourced. While I do admit that we need sources on those characters, they did appear on those games and some of them are important to the storyline of those games. We need to settle this before it becomes a 3RR problem for us. We also have a talk page about this issue here.


 * Let's see
 * 3RR hasn't been violated
 * BattleshipMan is trying to inhibit page maintenance. The material in question was deleted for a reason: the article has been tagged for several problems for over six months, has never been sourced, and there is no assertion the characters are notable. At this point the burden is on him to provide sources/demonstrate the material is notable enough for inclusion.
 * I left a note on the talk page about deleting the material several weeks before deleting it, and no one responded nor made any attempt to source the material
 * BattleshipMan's reasons for keeping the material are extremely weak and not supported by any Wikipedia policy. If he seriously intends to try to find sources, which we've seen no evidence of and is doubtful, he can restore any characters he can reliably demonstrate are important enough to keep in the article
 * BattleshipMan has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to understand and follow Wikipedia's policies
 * BattleshipMan is an extremely hardcore fan of the series and has repeatedly expressed opinions and editing behaviors in opposition to overwhelming community consensus
 * BattleshipMan seems to have poor English skills which might affect his competency as an editor


 * Overall I would say this notice is frivolous, although it's probably good he's drawing attention to the fact that he is reverting page maintenance for poor reasons. Some guy (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * We maybe at editing war over this, but you also the one with the problem. Those characters have appeared in those games, whatever or not they needed to be sourced. You haven't played those games to understand that, whatever it policy to source them or not. There are other video game series that have characters that have no citing material and not supported by any Wikipedia policy. That's what many editors have been doing. Don't think I not the only one who does that. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Also you we're blocked once for personal attack and harassment. Unblocked after a few hours. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You need to discuss this at the talk page, which you are doing. The links you provided show you both edit warring. Rather than protect or block I will comment on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Phoenix and Winslow (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

The article is under 1RR probation.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Xenophrenic has violated 1RR. Please review those two diffs and focus on the first seven words, "The Tea Party movement focuses on reform." He reverted the same content twice within 25 minutes. With the 1RR restriction, that all by itself is sufficient grounds for a block. There was some other content that was removed for a second time a few minutes later.  This demonstrates that it wasn't a fluke or a mistake. Accordingly, since I was blocked for 24 hours for violating 1RR, in spite of my honest belief that I was removing a BLP violation, I respectfully suggest that Xenophrenic should be blocked for editwarring. His most recent block for editwarring was 48 hours in February, so this one should be longer. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is frozen pending arbcom rulings in which both parties are named. Suggest this is closed and/or WP:Boomerang is applied. Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 13:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummm, no. I'm not the one who violated 1RR this time. And who knows what ArbCom is going to do, or how long that's going to take? This evidence is very straightforward and conclusive, and should be acted upon immediately. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is now fully-protected due to edit warring. If not this noticeboard, then where? †TE†   Talk  14:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Xenophrenic is blatantly edit-warring here -- making deliberate and repeated non-consensus edits, and then making a rash of edits which the prior moderator has specifically stated that were improper, and the current non-admin moderator would block Xenophrenic if it were possible -- issuing a non-admin "topic-ban" at this point. The concept of "moderation" is "discuss first, gain consensus, then edit after a clear consensus is found"  which appears to be grossly violated repeatedly by the sinle editor.  sorry Snowded - Xenophrenic is caught red-handed here.  As for "Waiting for Godot" - that is about as silly a suggestion as is imaginable -- the fact is that the block is essential to stop damage and is not punitive here.  Collect (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, the article has been fully protected due to the editwar that Xenophrenic started. But what about the many other articles on U.S. political subjects that Xenophrenic edits? Should all of them be fully protected to avoid blocking him? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is frozen so the request is not preventative its intent is punative, and the three of you want an editor you disagree with punished. At least one of you also has a history of edit warring.  Sorry its with arbcom, hopefully they will settle it.  If the Arbcom member who froze the article chooses to repeat for Xenophrnic what s/he did for Phonix and Wilson then all well and good, they are fully aware of the situation <font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded  <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullcrap. If you will note my last edit on the TPm article was fully agreed with by Xenophrenic, and at no point was I predisposed to "have him punished."  Such an example of assuming bad faith ill-suits this noticeboard.  On the RfC/U, I specifically made a very mild comment about Xenophrenic, and it is clear that your comment here is far from either being accurate nor in keeping with the needs of this noticeboard. Collect (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had no idea the existence of ArbCom provided immunity from actions of administrators not currently engaged in ArbCom. Per my diff, said ArbCom member says they're "[n]ot fully aware of what is happening." Furthermore, they are concerned of a "chill effect" on administrative actions due to ArbCom, or worse, disinterest by sysops. †TE†   Talk  16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * by User:SilkTork as an Arbcom action. I don't see a need for blocking at this point as it would be punitive, not preventative, but User:Xenophrenic should consider this a final warning. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Mark Austin: as one of the participants in what was fast developing into an ugly edit war, I accept the warning. I didn't violate the 1RR on the article, but since many Admins will block editors "just for being there", I thank you very much for not blocking.
 * @Phoenix and Winslow: You began the editwar with this edit, claiming: (Since there weren't four "votes" in favor of this massive edit, consensus could not be claimed under the new rules that a strong consensus agreed to on the Moderated Discussion page) Noticing your mistake (a "four votes" consensus was never claimed by me or ThinkEnemies, whos edits you had undone), I reverted your edit. Just once. The many edits I and ThinkEnemies and Collect and Capitalismojo and ArtifexMayhem recently implemented were not made pursuant to a '4 votes new rule' as you claim.  It is very revealing that of all these editors making productive edits to the article, without consensus and without "4 votes", you decide to zero in on edits proposed by me. Collect's edit was twice as "massive", no less.  The fact is I proposed on the discussion page first to add content, I asked for objections, we discussed those objections, and then 5 days later I added the content (minus the content where objections remained). There was only 1 revert by me. In your examples, where you say "focus on the first seven words", you need to look closer - that's not two reverts. In the first edit, I add two words ("generally" and "government"); in the second edit, I remove seven completely different words, which isn't another revert, according to the particuliar stipulations set up by the Admin who imposed that 1RR. Your other examples are also not 2nd reverts, as they "remove uncontroversially untrue statements". If I wanted to revert you a second time, I simply would have.
 * @Collect: After your request to have our current Moderator take action as he sees fit, and your request to have our past Moderator delete my edits and lock them out, and your statement above that Xenophrenic is "caught red-handed" and a block is "essential" -- there is absolutely no "bad faith" in Snowded's spot-on assessment that you have joined in the seeking of punishment. No "bullcrap" there. (BTW, you did correctly assess that I didn't disagree with your mass deletion of the CfA bullet-points. I also acknowledge that you have given spirited comment against sanctioning any editors at the TPm ArbCom case ... at least I think that was you ... but Snowded's comment here is 100% justifiable.) Xenophrenic (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if your post were actually accurate. As it is not (I specifically did not ask for any actions against you at the RfC/U), etc.  making it hard to take your post here seriously.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My post is accurate. I said not a word about your comments at RfC/U, so you are criticizing up the wrong tree. Were you addressing someone else? Applause. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you guys spent half the effort on resolving content disputes that you waste on trying to burn your fellow editors, we'd have a Featured Article already. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the fact of the matter is that we invest about 75-100 times as much effort dealing with a tendentious editor on the Moderated Discussion page, as we've just invested trying to protect the article from that tendentious editor. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Considering that the Tea Party article doesn't even mention Karl Denninger, it's nowhere near "featured" quality (whether it's awarded with that label or not). The real story of the Tea Party movement, which the article doesn't even hint at currently, is how it was hijacked by the political establishment into being just one more tired yammerfest between Democrats and Republicans which drowned out the original bipartisan grassroots outrage over the paramount rip-off of the century (TARP, which receives but one mention in the article). (Sorry to digress....)--Froglich (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I agree with everything that you just said, but it sounds like you would be a good editor there. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:26oo reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "This is now blatant Wikipedia:Vandalism, instead of moving to a preferred section, you blanked it"
 * 2)  "Wikipedia:Disruptive editing violates Wikipedia:Rules, separate your opinions from facts given during trial without objections"
 * 3)  "It doesn't violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Zimmerman refused medical attention at hospital 3 times as stated in the article; WP:BALASPS"
 * 4)  "Chief medical examiner's scientific opinion and witness testify facts observed, not opinion which are objected"

And another diff, after this report http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin&diff=564561359&oldid=564558905


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* 3rr Zimmerman's injuries */ new section"
 * 2)   "merging sections, reply"

I believe I may also be in violation of 3rr on this article, and so am stepping away from further edits today, however I do not think any of the 3rr contributing edits I have made are in the current version, so I have nothing I can undo to come back into compliance. There are several other editors who have also attempted to revert 2600's contribution on this, and his preferred version is current (as of this writing). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Full protected for one day. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "26oo has been active on Wikipedia for 7 years, 6 months, and 15 days." He knows better than to edit war.  You didn't block him for that, but instead protected his version of the page, which consensus is against.  Please at least protect a version without that undue bias bit added.   D r e a m Focus  22:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, all you have done is reward his bad behavior on this issue. Arzel (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * When I do that, I get blocked. Period. End of story. When Arzel does that, he gets blocked. But when editors with a demonstrable political bias of a particular stripe, who push a POV consistently, and repeatedly violate WP:3RR to the point of violating WP:TE do that, the page gets protected so that they don't get blocked. A year from now, when they run for adminship, will Mark Arsten write glowing endorsements for them because they don't have very many blocks in their block logs? And always, ALWAYS the POV-pusher's favored version is the one preserved in Wikipedia amber. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, I've never blocked you or Arzel, so it's a bit unfair to accuse me of being biased against you. Secondly, I have no plans to nominate 26oo for admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Chiming in with the others. In addition, I am unhappy with 26oo's bullying tactics in edit commentaries. I was accused of "vandalism" for a simple revert of material which lacked consensus, then later I was insultingly admonished to "See talk page for consensus" as if I were a child, even though it's clear from the Talk page that 26oo not only lacks consensus on the particular issue which brought this about, but has no participation at all on the Talk page prior to this incident (aside from perhaps the archives, which I have not browsed).--Froglich (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * To explain my rationale, I did consider blocking User:26oo, but I noticed that two editors who reverted him had technically broken 3RR, as well. It wouldn't have been fair of me to block one party in an edit war without blocking the others, and the thought of blocking three established users was unpalatable to me. I figured it was better to let the three users remain unblocked so they could try to come to a consensus on the talk page. If 26oo reverts against consensus when the page is unprotected, I will certainly be willing to block then. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see where anyone broke that rule. Froglich, Gaijin42, Arzel, and me, Dream Focus, all reverted him.  He got reverted 6 times by four different editors, with additional ones stating in the talk page discussion they didn't think he should put it in there.  No one broke the rule but him.   D r e a m Focus  12:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:86.168.47.41 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv vandalism"
 * 2)  "A mid-season exhibition game, nothing more. Please stop vandalizing the page."
 * 3)  "Can't argue with someone who doesn't know the difference between an opinion and a fact"
 * 4)  "Wikipedia is not a Reliable Source. The UEFA Super Cup is considered an official match by UEFA."
 * 5)  "Who cares about some arbitrary label? No one seriously considers Corinthians 'Champions of the world'. The Super Cup is recognized as an official title by UEFA"
 * 6)  "Yes I don't care what you consider the champions of CWC or SC to be. What are the champions of the Capital One Cup?"
 * 7)  ""secondary cup champions of England" LOL And the Super Cup winners are the Super Cup champions of Europe!"
 * 8)  "My point, which you've missed, is you cannot distinguish between the Super Cup and Club World Cup. Include one and you have to include the other. You're simultaneously building one up and trashing the other, which is absurd."
 * 9)  "Multi-game tournament? In practice, it's 2 games. The SC is played mid-season too. UEFA counts it as an official title. It's at least on a par with the CWC."
 * 10)  "There is one 'glorified exhibition' in the article already and you're happy to keep it, so why not this one? No I'm not a Liverpool supporter, are you a Man U supporter?"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 564673741 by 86.10.235.16 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of football clubs in England by major honours won. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Tiptoety talk 00:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Turkishhistorian reported by User:Cavann (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: The user adds the same incoherent blog material once or twice a month. Multiple warnings from multiple editors. Same material being added without any discussion or response:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 19:27, 17 July 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 17:50, 30 April 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 22:08, 7 April 2013
 * 4) Revision as of 13:21, 20 March 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about adding the same blog material:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. The editor is unresponsive, without even edit summaries.
 * . The edits by Turkishhistorian are problematic. However, this is one of the slower edit wars I've seen. TH edits only sporadically. Before the consecutive July 17 edits, they hadn't edited the article since April 30, Nor had they edited at all at Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I have warned them on their talk page that if they again add disruptive material to the article, even if it's not soon, they risk being blocked. However, if they do so, you (Cavann) - or some other editor - is going to have to contact me or some other admin and point back to this discussion or the warning on TH's talk page for any sanctions to be imposed. BTW, just because TH doesn't talk much doesn't mean you shouldn't try to open up a discussion about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

User:220.245.146.235 reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:48, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Edits unneeded. Season 6 is showing, so there should be info on it. A single table row for a season that WILL show isn't an "entire section", and is needed. Does it really matter if it's there or not, seriously?")
 * 2) 07:23, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Too bad. It's gonna air, so it can be there. "Section 6: (2013)" was there before I put the section in the table anyways. You're not God - other people can edit pages as well.")
 * 3) 08:09, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Read my talk page for a message to you and AussieLegend. Thank you for your consideration.")
 * 4) 08:59, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 564896517 by Drmargi (talk)")
 * 5) 12:29, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 564914648 by 101.169.127.227 (talk) Who cares? :3")
 * 6) 14:41, 19 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 564928561 by 101.169.127.227 (talk) I saw the talk page. ^^")

The editor previously reverted as, which they acknowledged on their talk page is a work IP.
 * 1) 12:02, 18 July 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 564777137 by AussieLegend (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are multiple 3RR warnings on the editor's talk page, involving not only Castle but a Doctor Who episode as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No response from either IP on the article talk page; warnings did get a defiant response on the editor's talk page, referred to in an edit summary, he/she was asked to discuss in the appropriate place. --Drmargi (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Despite the warnings and other comments on the user's talk page, he/she is continuing to edit war. Another IP subsequently edited the article after this report was opened, but was later reverted with the edit summary "Who cares? :3". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

And yet another revert by this editor just appeared on my watchlist. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC) As Drmargi has indicated, attempts to engage the IP have resulted in defiant responses on the editor's talk page. These have now degenerated into puerile responses. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi gaiz. :3 220.245.146.235 (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tritomex reported by User:MVictorP (Result: Protected)
Page: Khazars

User being reported: Tritomex

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khazars&diff=564783598&oldid=564782947

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khazars#The_New_Edits_Just_Won.27t_Do

Comments:

Tritomex, repeatedly ignoring all forms of prior consensus, went on and added a section that is judged subjective by many, and that goes against many WP guidelines such as POV, UNDUE, FRINGE plus many other offenses regarding the handling of his sources, usage of well-known fallacies and the editorial treatment he practices. Furthermore, his added part is structurally abominable. I am filled with shame at the thought of the people who will visit the "Khazars" page and read such propaganda. It reduces Wikipedia's credibility, hence the urgency of my request.

Tritomex has been warned, both on his page and on the article's talk page, and given a 24-h period to rectify his edit himself - nothing has been done, not a iota of edits has been changed. As of this moment, the page is locked with his last edit still on: What I request, is to delete the last litigious part he added, and that the user is to be warned, notably about his visible bias, and lack of good will.

The "talk: Khazars" page speaks eloquently about this case; Please contact me for any additional details. Pardon me for the rather poor submission - I am a newb, learning everyday about WP procedures and synthax. With some time and your indulgence I will get good at this.

Thanks in advance. MVictorP (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not provide any diffs. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 13:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edited, a few times, to try and comply to demands. Sorry it looks sloppy still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MVictorP (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I was not even informed about this action of MVictorP, as per WP rules and I found this page accidentally.

I had a content dispute with Nishidni on the same page, originating from long time ago and MVictorP took his side. MVictorP created his page on 13 th of July and immediately came to the unfortunately famous (due to numerous sockpuppets) Khazar page reverting huge portion of the text written by another user Galassi.(on the same place and subject that 4 sockpuppets did previously) After Galassi restored his/her edition, MVictorP repeated the same actions against her/him, and again  that was the point when I entered the debate however MVictorP did again the same to me. I remanded MVictorP that 4 sockpupets of one user were caught on this page, editing same claims without references, the last one was called historylover4, previously this sockpuppet and previously this sockppuet. All of them wrote regarding Elhaik genetic analysis where he claimed that modern Ashkenazi jews are descendans of Turkic Khazars. I remanded MVictorP " that for revert/edits he needs references. I also stressed that I do not associate him with sockpuppets, but that he simply can not destroy other people work without references,especially as he is on Wikipedia only few days. I explained to him that instead of self published articles he needs academic sources, however he replied with Eklhaik, later calling me "Zio agent" He claimed he will reject my edits "no matter how well sourced they are"  and finally I received a 24h ultimatum to make the page as he wish and he will not discuss anything with me  I was accused of being "Crusader" etc. We were all warned by administrator for our behavior and I must say that I am sorry for some of my reverts.--Tritomex (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * for one week by User:KTC. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

User:72.89.108.122 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565088552 by Glane23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565088638 by Lugia2453 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565088788 by Lugia2453 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 565088920 by Ginsuloft (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 565089115 by Lugia2453 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No talk page discussion has taken place


 * Comments:
 * 1 day semi-protection applied to page while this is sorted out. — xaosflux  <sup style="color:#00FF00;">Talk  19:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Grapesoda22 reported by User:Archcaster (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565014863 by Archcaster (talk)"
 * 3)  "Tell me exactly whats wrong with these edits"
 * 4)  "The see also category under the seasons list unnecessary, infromation in parenthises small to match others, Starting in 2014 seems better clarified"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on American Dad. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on American Dad. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on American Dad!. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user is constantly adding false categories on American Dad and removing content after warning user several times. <span style="font-family: 'Segoe UI', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; text-shadow: 2px 2px 10px rgba(0,0,0,1); color: green;"> 拱連鑄機 談話  22:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * None of these edits were intended to be vandalism. None of these edits were over the top or unreasonable. I made a point of explaining my edits when asked I did, when they were reverted I never received a straight answer on what exactly was wrong. I attempted reaching the user reporting me on his talk page to discuss these changes however the user just deleted the message and resumed deleting my work with out explanation . Grapesoda22 (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why did you add Category:Television series revived after cancellation to the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was technically cancelled but was shortly picked up by TBS soon after. . Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that stated and supported in the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The move to TBS is only mentioned in the opening and infobox without out mentioning it was cancelled. But there are several reliable articles found on Google (including the one I linked) that confirmed it was quietly cancelled and picked up by TBS. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories should not be added to an article unless there is something in the article that supports the addition of the cat. I believe this is what Archcaster was upset about, although they were overstating it. The two of you should have never gotten to this point. Neither of you discussed the problem(s), and, as far as I can tell, they are fairly trivial. Both of you risk being blocked if you continue to edit-war. And edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did try to talk, I messaged him on his talk page and continued to revert me. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but I still suggest the best place is the article talk page (they can't revert that). If there is no response, at least you tried. At this point, your edit is the last edit to the article. I don't intend to sanction anyone unless the battle continues in the article. If you don't want to try again to discuss the content dispute, that's your prerogative, but it doesn't give you license to revert later if they revert you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What if this keeps up? I don't want to get into a dissuasion for every single edit. These edits alone were very minor. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to tell you. Archcaster is now blocked for a few days (see below), so it's unlikely anything will happen soon. You have to handle content disputes on articles in the proper way. If there's a dispute, it needs to be discussed. I'm going to close this now as warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll continue make general changes, mainly mentioning the brief cancellation to justify the category. If things happen again I'll make a point to sort it out besides edit warring. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Archcaster reported by User:Beerest355 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reverted 1 edit by Grapesoda22 (talk) to last revision by Archcaster. (TW
 * 2) Reverted 1 edit by Grapesoda22 (talk): WP:TOOSOON. (TW))
 * 3) Reverted 1 edit by Beerest355 (talk): too early. (TW)
 * 4) Reverted 1 edit by Beerest355 (talk): WP:TOOSOON. (TW)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I contacted Archcaster on his talk page, however, he stands by the fact that he has done nothing wrong. He then blanked his talk page.

Comments: Archcaster has repeatedly chosen to remove cited info about an upcoming season of American Dad!, claiming it is too early. However, since this info is cited it belongs in the article, which I have explained. However, he still continues to claim it is too soon for no reason. He recently warned me for being disruptive, despite the fact that removing cited content is almost as disruptive. <span style="font-family: Verdana, monospace;letter-spacing:1px;color:#ECCA61;padding-left:5px;">Beerest355 Talk 01:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Holmes4212 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565087544 by Nymf (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565089481 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565096004 by Nymf (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 565100689 by Dismas (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 565126819 by Dismas (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 565128611 by Morbidthoughts (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edits violate WP:BLP and WP:V Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)