Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive219

User:Martinvl reported by User:212.183.128.233 (Result: sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a long history of edit warring, including in this article and including being blocked previously for it, and is well aware that it is not the way Wikipedia works. He is quick to accuse others of wrongdoings, particularly if they are challenging his agenda, but never sees his own warring actions as wrong - and seems unable to learn. 212.183.128.233 (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User:212.183.128.233 is a suspected sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. The current SPI against him has been open for six days. Will an Admin please confirm what others have already written - namely that DeFacto is using IPs in the ranges 212.183.128.* and 212.183.140.* to disrupt Wikipedia. Martinvl (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked reporting IP as a sock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Both the reporter and the reportee seem to have violated 3RR. Zerotalk 13:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Janicar reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=564888589

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:37, 20 July 2013 by‎ Janicar
 * 2) 08:21, 21 July 2013 by‎ Janicar
 * 3) 10:54, 21 July 2013‎ by Janicar
 * 4) 11:25, 21 July 2013 by 188.245.108.195

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) talk page Janicar
 * 2) talk page 188.245.108.195

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (link to the section)

Comments:

I asked the other party to resolve this matter on the talk page and react to my arguments and counterarguments that I gave there, but they were not willing to do so. Instead, the other party continues to use their references as an argument that it should be 'turkic people', to which I already gave a counterargument on my three reverts (on 22:16, 20 July 2013; on 09:36, 21 July 2013‎ and on 11:05, 21 July 2013‎, on the history page): there are references that use ‘turkic speaking people’ as well. Also, I suspect that the last revert done by 188.245.108.195 is the user Janicar logged off, but I am not sure. Verdia25 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "diff" links you gave are not diff links but previous version links. Copy the URL from the "prev" link beside the edition in the history list. Zerotalk 13:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I adjusted it. The 'prev' button of the talk page of the user with the IP address was unclickable so that one is still a link.Verdia25 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Daufer (Result: 24 hours)
Right now vandalizing through random reverts (of my latest edits on them) multiple articles that I've been recently working on.

Examples:
 * Pyramid Head (history edit)
 * Jun Kazama (history edit)
 * Big Boss (history edit)

Everywhere it's his/her first edit there, he/she caming only to vandalize my work randomly. It all began with some dubious edits on the Italian resistance (he/she was removing text while adding random images), but now it's obviously trolling through reverting stuff completely at random.

Intervention plzkthx. --Niemti (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Also lol. It's just pathetic. --Niemti (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * , provided another admin doesn't swoop in and overturn my decision. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Zmaher reported by User:NeilN (Result:already protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Red Dawn (2012 film). using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Multiple warnings including  Neil N    talk to me  22:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Full protected by another admin, so at this point, a block would not be preventative. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:EnochBethany reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I think User:Snowded has been more than considerate with this user in regards to this POV-pushing edit war. Based on a cursory glance at this user's contributions, this isn't their first time creating heartburn on wiki. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this isn't a technical 3RR vio, as two of those diffs presented are consecutive, and thus count as one revert. I am, however, concerned about the edit warring here. I'm not convinced we're at the point of needing a block yet, but I think we could easily get there. Would be interested other admins' opinions, so not going to mark this closed now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sequence of edits to Catholic Church doesn't seem blockworthy by itself. Some of the other edits of this user are concerning though. I'd suggest proposing sanctions at ANI instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what appears to me to be dishonesty. I made one revert.  Editing is not reverting.  If I make an edit and someone reverts it, then I revert it once, that is not repetitive reverting.  I note that apparently some Roman Catholics are determined to perpetrate a violation of NPOV even if it requires dishonesty.  How does it come to be that my one revert is edit warring, but the 2 reverts of the RCCers is not edit-warring?  All I want is NPOV in this article.  It is an obvious violation of NPOV for Roman Catholics to insist in calling the Roman Catholic Church "The Church." (EnochBethany (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

User:Dylan Hunt reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just blocked a few days ago for edit warring on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Fresh off a block for editwarring on this article, editor continues to insert OR and synth against consensus of three other editors, reverting eleven times in the last three days, violating 3rr several times. Response is basically WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not about consensus on content, but the false impression that I am questioning the status of the concept of the human genome (what the other editors consider trivial philosophizing). As a result, they have called my quotes from primary and secondary sources "OR".  Many other Wikipedia articles have a "history of the term" section or otherwise providing historical concept.  Users Dominus Vobisdu, Boghog, and Agricolae have engaged in destructive edit-warring instead of making constructive changes.Dylan Hunt (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This issue here is that you were edit warring against consensus. Whether your edits are correct or not, you cannot continually revert other users. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Bigdou reported by User:Drm310 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is creating an article identically named to his username, which is entirely promotional in nature. As of the filing of this report he has reverted speedy deletion templates five times. Username has been reported to WP:UAA already but his editing continues unabated. --Drm310 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:108.27.79.130 reported by User:Kude90 (Result: 48 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Several users have been reverting this unwanted addition. It doesn't make sense to add. We've tried talking to him, by adding a message to his talk page, and the article talk page, with no response. Instead, he simply re-adds the section. Currently, he waits just long enough to subvert the 3RR rule. This is disruptive, and it has to stop. Kude90 (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:JLUKACS1 reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: One week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:21, 21 July 2013‎
 * 2) 22:31, 21 July 2013‎
 * 3) 23:38, 21 July 2013‎
 * 4) 23:50, 21 July 2013‎
 * 5) 00:28, 22 July 2013‎
 * 6) 03:19, 22 July 2013
 * 7) 16:27, 22 July 2013‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor just came off of a 24-hour block that had been extended for 70 hours for block evasion.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "fine even though YOU should discuss before reverting it. Its called the RAW All Starr MITB and then the SmackDown World title MITB"
 * 2)  "They represent the brands and we are currently discussing it"
 * 3)  "Its still the RAW and SmackDown briefcases respectively. If we have WM then we have RAW and SD. Lets discuss if you think differently"
 * 4)  "just because you dont like me, dont side with an IP. They were originally the RAW and SmackDown cases as only the stars are on it. Technically its the All Star and the other one. If the titles switched, then it wouldnt be correct, which is why it doesnt"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 565152515 by 24.187.49.254 (talk)"
 * 6)  "More IP Vandalism. It is the RAW and SmackDown MITB not World and WWE. We list years not Mania's which are already linked"
 * 7)  "Its the RAW and SmackDown cases. If the titles switched brands then it wouldnt be right as the cases arent just for those titles but the brand it represents"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling


 * Comments:

Continues to push point of view and WP:OR, reverted again after warning about 3RR.  STATic  message me!  23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to warn this user, as I have several times in the past, about disruptive editing and deliberately introducing factual errors (he was also pretty adamant about adding a pay-per-view template to an event he knows is not a PPV today). Then I noticed this. Not sure if I should bother posting the warnings, or if this counts. Anyway, I wish he'd stop, preferably on his own will. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You failed to mention Im the one who requested discussion. The last time I changed it, it didnt Include RAW or SmackDown, despite being correct, I add "all-star" because if were being picky, thats it correct name. Were discussing the edits on the WP, no to do it here. Besides I added the Hardcore Justice/Destination X Templates. It doesnt matter if there PPV or not there still Hardcore Justice and Destination X Black Dragon  00:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If I failed to mention it, you failed to read even the very first sentence in the attempt to resolve the problem. The reason you got a notification was because I mentioned your exact username, alongside the exact words "requested discussion". I'm not saying this to argue or insult, but as constructive criticism: You have to start paying closer attention to other editors and the facts, opinion and logic they offer. It's better to learn than to need to be right, if you want to have a productive and enjoyable time on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK reverts of Iraq war (Result: 12 hours)
Can anyone do anything about all the CJK reverts on the Iraq war? I thought there was a 3 revert limit, he has done at least 9. Here are the last three, each undone by a different editor.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

(cur | prev) 02:09, 21 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎. . (244,466 bytes) (+16,061)‎. . (Restoring my wrongfully deleted contributions) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:03, 20 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎. . (244,466 bytes) (+16,032)‎. . (Restoring my edits which have not been contested for days) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 17:17, 8 July 2013‎ CJK (talk | contribs)‎. . (244,466 bytes) (+16,580)‎. . (restoring my blanked edits) (undo | thank)

These are all reverts of the WP:Consensus version of the article to a version supported by CJK alone. Please see talk page under heading “WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV” for more details. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * So CJK can continue to do two 16000+ character reverts every twenty four hours the article is unlocked, and there is nothing the other editors can do except continue to undo his reverts? Truthwillneverdie (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . Sorry,, but you're probably not aware of the history of the article. Over the past month or two, CJK has been engaging in a slow-motion edit war pretty much whenever he has the opportunity to do so (when it's not protected). We need to start somewhere with stopping this increasingly disruptive pattern. Twelve hours is hopefully sufficient to get the message across. --  tariq abjotu  18:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverts are continuing after the block. Undoing CJK revert #10 now. Truthwillneverdie (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . It takes two to edit war. Even if you feel someone's being disruptive, that doesn't justify taking part in an edit war with them. Though I suppose you both should already understand this in light of your recent blocks for edit warring, so it appears another block is necessary at this point. Keep in mind this is an exceptionally lenient block considering both of your recent history, but any future edit warring will surely result in longer blocks from this point.  Swarm   X 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:94.194.155.125 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565233950 by Trlovejoy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565231908 by Trlovejoy (talk)- view: http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=iain+duncan+smith+bbc&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&redir_esc=&ei=kEXsUfjyFquf7AbVg4EY#q=ia"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565231466 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 565183501 by McSly (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 2 warning re. BBC (HG)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on BBC. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Level 4 warning re. BBC (HG)"


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

This is not fair, i've engaged with the administrator and he simply seeks to block me for no reason. I cite the following source: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293639/Iain-Duncan-Smiths-fury-BBC-adopting-language-Labour-calling-benefit-cut-bedroom-tax.html) A Uk Government Minster, in the UK's most read newspaper making claims against the BBC to support my post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Whether your changes were ideal or not, you continued edit warring after being warned not to do so. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Not a fair or justified decision, I engaged with the talk pages, Trovejoy effectively started the edit war, refused to engage and then mis-represented the position above. As such he was the one undertaking the editing war and should be banned as result. Also please note the additional page within the main frame of criticism supports my argument for the summary edit I submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.155.125 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565423997 by Jeff3000 (talk) so now that you lose the argument, you come up with this ´consensus version´ reason. alrighty, based on the talk page, there is no consensus at all"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565410133 by Jeff3000 (talk) if it was then our other article would say unity of humankind, not humanity as it currently does. see Bahá'í Faith and the unity of humanity"
 * 3)  "see talk"
 * 4)  "humankind is an unknown word to most readers"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Man" vs "Human" */ ce"
 * 2)   "/* "Man" vs "Human" */ replied"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TW★TW)"

Comments: Three different editors have commented on the talk page stating that humankind is appropriate, but this editor, and their IP account Special:Contributions/190.235.46.44 have been removing the word "Humankind" on multiple pages.

Also edit-warring on Mythology as sock. Warned multiple times about 3RR keeps blanking his talkpage. Disruptive editing. See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor notified of this report but subsequently blanked the notices: . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sock IP also attempted to blank my discussion about their edit-warring on talk Mythology. Please see my comments at the SPI: . Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor Edgth repeatedly (at least 6 times within 48 hrs) reverted good-faith edits even going so far as to falsely claim consensus for excluding "humankind". The article is the victim of edit-warring. ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Gu1dry reported by User:DrSeehas (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:23, 23 July 2013 hidden revert
 * 2) 08:19, 23 July 2013
 * 3) 08:37, 23 July 2013
 * 4) 08:42, 23 July 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Gu1dry removed my edits on User talk:Gu1dry without answering. (If it is important for the 4th revert): The first revert was a hidden revert. User:Gu1dry also repaired thankworthily a dead link in the same edit. Prove for the hidden revert: The blanks which I removed are again in their place after the hidden revert.

--DrSeehas (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * for one day. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Rccachicago reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Indef )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "IB"
 * 2)  "IB INFO"
 * 3)  "Mission"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 2 warning re. Roberto Clemente Community Academy (HG)"
 * 2)   "Level 3 warning re. Roberto Clemente Community Academy (HG)"


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


 * Comments:
 * as a promotional/spam-only account. Tiptoety  talk 03:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Complex case, see diffs.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, user has been blocked numerous times for edit warring before.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: one of many throughout the page

Comments:

User was previously blocked for two weeks for edit warring at a different article. Plenty of NPA and editorial policy guideline problems as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think that Thargor's hands aren't completely clean here, either, but not to the point of 3RR. I've tried to point this out to Viriditas:, , . I've also tried to get full protection at WP:RFPP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am deeply disappointed by the behavior of User:Viriditas on the March Against Monsanto page, where he or she claims "consensus" to justify edit warring where no such consensus exists. I would suggest a temporary topic ban to help the editor cool off and consider some changes. If this doesn't happen or doesn't work, ANI would be appropriate to combat the long-term pattern of abuse that goes way beyond 3RR. SpectraValor (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have stayed away from this topic due to my strong feelings about paid editing, which I understand to be a factor here. Usually I am at the forefront of those urging sanctions on those with vios of 3RR, etc., but this is a complex case that merits deep study and includes possible socking by pro-Monsanto forces. Viriditas is on the cutting edge of pointing out some issues that are clouded by POV editing, and rather than issue a knee-jerk block or make statements about "long-term pattern of abuse" I suggest an in-depth conversation about the points Viriditas is attempting to make, which in my view are important in regards to the future of our popular volunteer encyclopedia. I do agree that this may not be the venue for that, because at its core this is a content dispute with implications for Wikipedia's future. Jus  da  fax   00:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jusdafax, you know me well enough to know that I am not a paid shill for Monsanto or for anyone else. I don't think that any of the other editors currently at the page are paid editors either. In fact, I'm pretty sure of it. But I agree with you that this is probably the wrong place to resolve the problems. The page has, thankfully and at my request, been full-protected, so further reverting is no longer an issue, for the time being at least. But Viriditas certainly is being a WP:DICK acting in ways that are making it much more difficult for everyone else to find a consensus, and I really can't say it any plainer than that. I suspect this dispute is going to find its way up the dispute resolution ladder. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But you don't seem above name calling. Come on Tryptofish, do you really think that elevated your argument here? Seriously?--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) Of course not you Trypto, but whatever your feelings about Viriditas I ask you not to descend into name-calling. I think his methods, including his willingness to be blocked, are useful to draw attention to some big-ticket issues, and it is not clear to me that we really understand the motivations of every editor on that page. What I am saying is that instead of another block, that we listen to him with an open mind, which may be difficult due to the heated rhetoric already bandied about. Frankly I believe it is possible that there are some WP:COI concerns among others, though I cheerfully confess I couldn't point to anything specific due to the fact that I am uninvolved in the page. Let me just say that I believe Viriditas to have integrity, if that means anything to you coming from me, and I am sorry that you two are at odds. Jus  da  fax   01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help but agree with Jusdafax in more than just spirit. I don't want to get into too much here but if you can't support your side of the issue in a manner that is respectful and neutral, many will doubt the strength of the argument.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mark Arsten's decision below, because the report here was indeed premature with respect to 3RR, and, as was my own position all along, the right way to deal with the situation was page protection. Were it not for the fact that I care about what Jusdafax thinks, I would not even bother to say what I am going to say here now. I didn't name-call, but linked to a meta essay about user conduct, and this is a noticeboard about user conduct. If you want to see real name-calling, look at the talk page in question, where I've gone out of my way to treat Viriditas fairly, and been on the receiving end of name-calling as my reward. Even granting that my wording here was flawed, it's intellectually lazy to focus on that, to the exclusion of the overall facts. Of course, any kind of POV pushing, including paid advocacy, is bad, but there's a world of difference between being on the "cutting edge" of watching out for that POV pushing, and simply tossing around unjustified aspersions in order to gain the upper hand in a POV dispute. There is no integrity in the latter, and WP:RGW is no excuse. I don't think this noticeboard is the place to continue this discussion further, but I would welcome anyone who wants to discuss anything more about this to contact me on my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has deleted that "Don't be a dick" page. It has always been the consensus of the community that linking to that page as you did, does indeed constitute name calling and a personal attack. Nice job of calling editors here "intellectually lazy" because they noted that. Jeesh.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to continue this discussion at my user talk. But I stand by what I said: I don't think it's intellectually lazy to note it, but I do think it's intellectually lazy to focus on it exclusively, as though that's the important thing here, apparently without any knowledge of what is actually happening at the page in question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to block Viriditas here, since 1. the page has been protected from editing so there's not threat of immediate disruption, and 2. it doesn't look to me like he technically broke 3RR (consecutive edits count as one revert). Concerns about a history of edit warring or paid editing are probably best dealt with in a different venue (WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, etc). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:174.24.217.65 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other visitors */"
 * 2)  "/* Other visitors */"
 * 3)  "/* Other visitors */"
 * 4)  "/* Other visitors */"
 * 1)  "/* Other visitors */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. List of Theodore Tugboat characters (HG)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Theodore Tugboat characters. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * / Please re-report if the user keeps reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:72.197.11.126 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "/* Premise */"
 * 3)  "/* Episodes */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
 * 2)   "Level 2 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
 * 3)   "Level 3 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
 * 4)   "Level 4 warning re. The Fosters (2013 TV series) (HG)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Fosters (2013 TV series). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * In the future, straightforward vandalism like this can be reported to WP:AIV for a faster response. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:86.19.115.227 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565427617 by Afterwriting (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565496783 by Afterwriting (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565533447 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 565544666 by Emarsee (talk) Constant vandalism by certain users instead of editing"


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussion:,  Neil N    talk to me  06:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * for 72 hours by User:Jauerback. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:EuropeanHistory2011 reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565635246 by FreeRangeFrog (talk) This is the UKExpat under another pseudonym.Why would anyone desperately repeat reverting articles because there aren't any biographies?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565633894 by Ukexpat (talk) You do not work for wikipedia, who are you? There are many articles on Wikipedia that you have been reverting. Stop now. Last warning."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565633360 by Ukexpat (talk) If you continue to revert articles on wikipedia,you will be banned from the website. You are desperately repeating your actions. Enough is enough."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 565632622 by Ukexpat (talk) Enough is enough, I am contacting Wikipedia now because you are cyber-stalking and removing articles from the internet for unnecessary reasons."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 565629578 by Ukexpat (talk)Dear UkExpat,can you stop reverting articles on wikipedia?There are many articles that don't have bibliographical information or any statements."
 * 6)  "See also"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User:Ukexpat warned user here § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to add to the above - rational discussion attempted.--ukexpat (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Katiebaumstein reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Charlie Walk. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Your edits at Charlie Walk */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "+COI tag"


 * Comments:

User with COI has repeatedly attempted to replace the current bio (such as it is) with promotional copy, as well as removing sourced negative information about the subject. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz reported by User:Hoppingalong (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and several other versions shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 5th - Removing material added by another editor.
 * This was just a terrible addition, making the caption so ridiculously convoluted, and needed to be removed. I will admit this is a revert, but a totally necessary one.
 * 4th - Edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by Hoppingalong (talk). (TW))"
 * This is a revert. As were both edits that you performed here and here.
 * 3rd - Changing the longstanding hatnote to remove particular mention.
 * "Longstanding"? The mention of the Census Bureau in the hatnote was less than 6 months old, and consensus is that this article is not just about the Census Bureau region. This is just editing, fits no definition that I've ever seen for a revert.
 * 2nd - Edit summary: "Reverted edits by 63.66.64.245 (talk) to last version by Maher-shalal-hashbaz" -- I actually agree with this edit, but it is still a revert.
 * While the action taken on this particular edit was technically a revert, my very next edit was incorporating the ill-advised addition into a better spot in the article. You said yourself you agreed with the revert, so it really doesn't enter into this so-called "edit war". I wouldn't go so far as to say it was clear vandalism, but it was definitely not a constructive edit that I reverted.
 * 1st - Changing some text and removing a Reliable Source.
 * I didn't remove a reliable source. In fact, I specifically mentioned the reliable source in the edit summary. It was left in the article where it belonged. I did take it away from a sentence that said something that wasn't at all supported by the reference. All the geography textbooks referenced in the article use a definition other than Census Bureau.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: where s/he was warned about ten days ago after reverting a fourth time back then.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , & , although the last several sections of Talk:Northeastern United States have been attempts, too.

Hoppingalong (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm actually really glad that this user has raised this issue here, because I think it will help clarify and hopefully resolve what I believe is a woefully inadequate understanding of WP:3RR. I hope that other editors will carefully evaluate the editing pattern in the links above, and then look at the editing patterns over the last year of the editor who reported this, and weigh which one's edits (A) have greater merit, and (B) are within wikipedia standards. I think it's important to note this discussion on the user talk page as well. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So which of the 5 was not a revert? The two you marked as reverts, the deletion of a Reliable Source, the removal of text, or the change in the hatnote to remove mention of the Census Bureau? Hoppingalong (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've responded to each one inline above, and just as before, you clearly have not a clue about what constitutes a "revert" in this context. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So you admit to three, though say one of them doesn't really count because it didn't revert me. Of course, whether it was me or a random IP (who was misguided but clearly not a vandal), doesn't matter. Then, the only question is whether either of the other two is a revert: this one (3rd), which you call "just editing" because the text you removed was less than six months old, or this one (1st), which you say was not the removal of a Reliable Source (but you say you "did take it away from a sentence"), as well as remove the phrase "textbooks and general". Neither of those are as significant as your three other very significant reverts, but both are edits "that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Hoppingalong (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether Maher-shalal-hashbaz is blocked or not, would an Administrator mind taking a look at the edits listed and comment on whether they are "reverts"? Just guidance there might help both of us. It seems clear enough to me that they are, but Maher-shalal-hashbaz notes s/he is just as certain they are not. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: Warned)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565505417

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565520629

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565536292

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565536391
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565538241
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565525252
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=565530195
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565529920
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_%28band%29&oldid=565524465

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565541697

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=565538131

Comments: User Winkelvi has been reverting every contribution I and other users (i.e. Spanglej) have made to numerous pages including the Dimensionaut and Genesis (band) pages, and has done so for several months, reverting each new piece of content I add to pages without ever asking for consensus regarding whether the reversions are appropriate or not. Rather, said user decides in most cases to simply revert with an authoritarian approach, forcing me and other contributors to require asking for consensus to add new content to the pages, slowing down the building process of these pages considerably. Any attempt to restore the lost material is accused by Winkelvi of being "edit warring" despite said user having provoked his/her fellow editors by removing content without any sort of agreement or consensus. We have several times, thus, asked for consensus to add material, and in each case multiple users have agreed that the content in question has been appropriate to add, though Winkelvi has often removed the material altogether (going against consensus) before asking, using harsh language towards said user's peers and, in the past, even arguing that WP:CONSENSUS is not a valid excuse to add material. Due to Winkelvi's insistence on removing material, consensus was even required for the article Dimensionaut to be created. This backwardness and insistence on removing material without even inquiring about consensus has made it impossible to contribute to these pages.

Example below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dimensionaut#More_on_reviews

Editing with this user has been difficult, and little progress is made on these pages because every piece of information seems to require consensus or would be otherwise reverted by Winkelvi. I would much rather we try to reach consensus when deciding whether to remove material rather than when adding material. Though I provide justifications for keeping the material, Winkelvi has simply reverted the material. Upon trying to discuss this method of editing with Winkelvi on said user's talk page, my comments have been removed from the page and I have been threatened. This user wishes not to cooperate, and is unwilling to listen to a fellow user's comments. Said user points fingers at others for "edit warring" despite starting many of these edit wars, has made several threats, and has attempted to undermine the contributions of other users. Working with this user is very difficult. Winkelvi's edits have only prevented the progression of several articles, including Dimensionaut, Sound of Contact, amongst others. This ongoing hostility caused by Winkelvi has made the development of these pages very difficult, and said user's justifications for removing material without consensus are invalid. Winkelvi accuses me of "making bad edits," though I have contributed nearly all of the content on said pages while Winkelvi has been responsible for trying to remove it and challenge it -- said user's justifications for reverting is that my edits are "bad" and "contribute nothing," though nearly all of the content on these pages has been the product of my research and gathering of sources. I have even had to correct Winkelvi's revisions due to grammatical errors caused by said user's changes, rendering the "bad edit" argument quite invalid. Many of said user's accusations, as a result, are hypocritical. This process is frustrating and makes working with this user quite impossible. Something must be done, as said user contributed nothing to these pages and has only attempted to remove its content time and time again. Vuzor (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: User:Winkelvi has been reported before for breaking the three-revert rule (5 edits within 24 hours). That case was settled: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=561690390#User:Winkelvi_reported_by_User:Vuzor_.28Result:_No_action.29 Vuzor (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * It would appear User:Vuzor has come to this noticeboard for the reason(s) stated here in an edit summary: "Censorship of my messages to you? This is in regards to your insistence on edit warring and accusations of me as the instigator of the edit wars. If I can not respond, I have every reason to report your actions."  I had asked him to stop posting to my talk page and instead take issues and disagreements over article edits to the article talk page.  He then ignored my request, reverted my removal of his comments, and left the above edit summary.  This seems like harassment to me.


 * It further appears that Vuzor believes he has a right to edit articles as he sees fit and without regard for MOS and editing collegially. This conclusion is based on his own words found here : "I have contributed nearly everything to these articles in addition to much of the research involved...if I did not contribute to these pages, there would frankly be nothing at all."  This certainly seems to indicate he has ownership issues.


 * He admits his intentions of continuing to edit war here, stating, "reverting either one more time would place you at the three-edit limit for the article in question. As you have instigated this tug-of-war, we each have three opportunities to revert, and they will ultimately result in the content remaining lest you edit a fourth time." It seems clear to me with the words, "we each have three opportunities to revert", he would have continued reverting if I had not stopped reverting myself.  This certainly seems to indicate he is using a battleground mentality and if fine with disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point.


 * While he has suggested we get other opinions and discuss on article talk pages, he did not do so, opting instead to harass me on my talk page by continuing to post and edit war there and after I had asked him not to.


 * Last point: Reverting Vuzor's edits had nothing to do with edit warring. I have no intention of reverting further.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  23:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Winkelvi has always seemed intent on manipulating my words. He/she has done this in the past as well. Winkelvi has here claimed "ownership issues" as his/her defense, though he/she has taken the comment out of context. My comment was in response to his/her accusations of my edits being "bad." He/she said, " I'm reverting and changing your edits because... they are just really bad edits that don't enhance the article at all." The "bad edits" in question added additional information to the article with a new source.


 * Winkelvi removed the new source, and removed the additional information. When asked why, he/she stated "they are just really bad edits that don't enhance the article at all." He/she claims I do not edit collegially, but this seems to be his/her own opinion. I have already outlined his/her disregard for WP:CONSENSUS in the past and his/her insistence on editing every page. His/her authoritarian control of such articles suggests he/she has ownership issues, as I have many, many times asked for consensus and have worked with other users while User:Winkelvi refuses to cooperate. If anything, Winkelvi seems to have a sense of ownership of these articles and has reverted with a sense of entitlement while everyone else, myself included, has had to work around it to add content, even as miniscule as a sentence about an upcoming world tour (with a new source included). More damage is done to these articles than good, as material is often removed while new material is prevented from being added. Winkelvi has multiple times been confrontational and has used abusive language towards other editors as well. This is a battleground mentality, taken from :


 * Reverting all of it? Really? Looks like the start of an edit war to me. WP:UNDUE as well as comparison to other similar album articles most definitely addresses and refutes your edit summary, Spanglej. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not have consensus on this. Consensus is required. It seems neither Vuzor or I agree with your perceptions on this. Span (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors who aren't getting their way and start edit warring love to use the excuse: "we need consensus in order to make changes". Never expected an experienced editor like you to use such a lame, bullshit excuse and engage in edit warring. Aren't you a part of the Wikipedia kindness campaign or olive branch society or something like that? So much for expectations and thinking too highly of someone based on their experience and user page trinkets. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 


 * Winkelvi immediately concludes after User:Spanglej reverted his/her edits was that an edit war was being started. That is a battleground mentality, consistent with Winkelvi's hostility towards other editors.


 * In regards to "harassment," it's quite clear my initial comment on User:Winkelvi's page asked said user not to make any further reversions so that we could ask for an opinion regarding whether to remove the new content. I was accused of making "really bad edits" -- an accusation made simply to provoke another user. Considering past circumstances in which consensus had been reached on multiple occasions to add new material, the constant grammatical errors made by Winkelvi in numerous revisions, and the content myself and other editors have added to these pages (while Winkelvi served only to remove such content), this comment came out of the blue, had no basis to be made, and was unnecessary. This was simply an attack, consistent with Winkelvi's ongoing hostile approach to communicating with his/her fellow editors.


 * The previous report (viewable here: ) was regarding User:Winkelvi's entitlement to revert without consensus and aggressive removal of content. Said user violated the three-revert rule, making five reversions that time within a twenty-four hour span. The same issue of liberally removing content is being brought up again. This has become a recurring issue and may only continue to occur unless action is taken. Vuzor (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . Both users are warned that if I see even a hint of edit warring on either of these two articles in the near future, the warrior(s) will be blocked. Both of you are edit warring, particlarly at Dimensionaut. The only reason I'm not blocking both of you is because the warring ceased for the moment. One special warning for Winkelvi. In the last report against you in late June, the main reason you weren't blocked was because you promised to stop. Here, too, you promise to stop. That kind of promise becomes less credible when you break it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you would, help me understand specifically what you are saying, Bbb23: I'm never to revert at all at either article ever again? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea, but it's not what I'm saying. I intentionally made my warning a bit vague hoping both of you would exercise some judgment. But if you insist on parameters, I'd say you shouldn't revert the articles for one week. After that, I wouldn't revert more than once in a 24-hour period say for another three weeks. After that, I would indefinitely not revert more than twice in a 24-hour period. The goal is that you should be discussing content disputes on the article talk pages and seeking consensus, not battling in the articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand why you wouldn't want to be more than vague in this situation, and I appreciate your candid answer and suggestions, Bbb23. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * One suggestion I made in my report is that Winkelvi request consensus for the removal of content if he/she feels there is an issue that must be addressed. I encourage collaboration and invite more editors to work on these pages. If we discuss on the talk pages the removal of certain content, and other editors agree that something should be amended or removed, then that should be more than fair to everyone involved; it discourages reverting for the sake of reverting or making changes (such as to the grammatical structure of sentences) when unnecessary. If the removal of an item in an article is important enough to bring to attention, then it should be addressed on the talk page and be voted on. If it isn't important enough to involve everyone in a discussion about its removal, then I think it can be left alone. That prevents a lot of controversial or unnecessary reversions from occurring -- if something is important enough to remove (and at least one person disagrees), talk about it and vote; if not, leave it alone. Punctuation, I think, is something everyone would agree on, so such changes aren't going to be disputed. That's one example in which conflict is not to be expected. If there is a dispute, though, I recommend that the page contain the disputed content until (and unless) voted to be removed.


 * I think the addition of content should be encouraged, and for one person to remove it due to his/her own opinion would be unfair to those who contribute content to any article. I feel too many changes are made for the sake of making changes; I have had to amend some of Winkelvi's amendments because have contained grammatical errors or have changed the meaning of sentences, thus making the initial amendments redundant. I feel if Winkelvi wishes to remove or change content then it can be removed or changed through the process of discussion on the talk pages and through a subsequent vote for WP:CONSENSUS. This way, reverting also becomes less contentious as a majority would decide whether the disputed aspects of an article would remain or be removed. That would seem a lot fairer to everyone involved in the development of these pages. If removing something from the article improves its quality (and at least one other user disagrees), the reversion should be voted on. I think that's one way we can work together to eliminate edit warring and to validate one's decision to remove content when appropriate. Vuzor (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:1.115.192.198 reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 2 warning re. List of Watch Tower Society publications (HG)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Watch Tower Society publications. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . The user is editing from several IP addresses. It looks like the IP user and other editors have worked out the content issue on the talk page and the article has been left alone for about 12 hours now, so my inclination would be to close this with no action. However, if the IP user resumes, the best option is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:50.162.87.53 (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=prev&oldid=565767591
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=prev&oldid=565767131
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=prev&oldid=565766425
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=prev&oldid=565762969

User has inappropriately removed tags from the article and has made direct threats at me when I objected to his vandalism. My requests that he come to the talk page have been met with only more threats and his ignoring of the talk page.

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

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

Comments:

The IP was blocked for 36 hours by Barek. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:122.144.64.116 reported by User:Forward Unto Dawn (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 2)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 3)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 4)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 5)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 6)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 7)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 8)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 1)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 2)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 3)  "/* History of Tubod */"
 * 1)  "/* History of Tubod */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tubod, Surigao del Norte. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tubod, Surigao del Norte. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring by this user (has exceeded three reverts in 24 hr). Continues to insert their own original research into Tubod, Surigao del Norte. The nature of this IP's edits suggest that this is the same person who was blocked a month ago for the same reason. Has been warned repeatedly to stop. I can no longer revert their edits, otherwise I will be in violation of 3RR. -- Forward  Unto   Dawn  10:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not including last month's warnings, this user has also been warned by Capitalismojo and XLinkBot.-- Forward  Unto   Dawn  14:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Unknown Unknowns reported by User:SchroCat (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:

Unknown Unknowns has edit warred against two other editors, reverting a total of five times. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant lie - SchroCat is being abusive. I have edited completely in accordance with Wikipedia's rules.  Please see my edits, my comments and my talk page.  Unknown Unknowns (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the lie is, or where I am being abusive: please could you provide some evidence to support both those accusations? I have provided diffs to show your edit warring, the warning on your talk page and the attempt to start a discussion on the talk page. As such I am at a loss to see what is the lie here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The five edits were over a three day period, you could hardly describe this as an edit war. You falsely accused me of breaking the 3-Revert rule and you failed to tell me why you suddenly started editing the Albert Toft page (did someone tell you to?).  Then when you couldn't find a valid objection to the disambiguation link that I'd included you reported here.  What's going on?  Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You have reverted five times against two different editors: how is that not edit warring? I mentioned on your talk page that you needed to discuss rather than revert (and warned that you were in breach of WP:3RR) and yet you still went ahead with the revert, rather than just discussing. What did you expect? - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not in breach of the 3RR and you were one of the 'different editors'. You reverted three of my edits - why?  You never edited this page before or even a page in one of its categoreies.  What's going on?  Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you should check the history: I reverted two of your edits (and never claimed that I wasn't one of the two editors in question). Either way, you have edit warred without bothering to discuss, despite being warned of the consequences. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I included my reasons for the change on the Albert Toft talk page, like you did. If there is an edit war it's because you suddenly started reverting valid changes on a page that you never edited before.  Why?  Your behaviour verges on trolling.  I'm off now, I'll let the Administrators sort this one out. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There was no technical 3RR violation here, but Unknown Unknowns is advised that continually reverting is disruptive and may lead to blocks in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu reported by lori-m (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Dominus Vobisdu deletes the information and sources, --Lori-m (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Kude90 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is the second time we've had this argument. Drmargi couldn't properly source her side the first time, and I was unsure of my sources, so I went to the RS noticeboard, where I several users quickly jumped in and said I was right. Drmargi got angry, and left the page alone for a while. She recently came back, got rid of several things in the rticle that had consensus, including what she was warring about just not. WP:CONLIMITED says she doesn't have consensus, but she just won't listen.

Kude90 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Kude has mis-counted the number of reverts, mis-represented the sequence of events, and mis-applied CONLIMITED. Moreover, he is claiming consensus on the article that was never reached, as pointed out to him by another, neutral editor. He is also ignoring current, reliable sources and continues to revert changes by other editors since our interaction based on dated sources, despite a source from the show's writers themselves having confirmed the correct name for the character in question (see link in the article.) Kude is a single, highly uncivil voice clinging to an erroneous name in the face of current sources indicating another name is correct, while defending his position with a series of very aggressive edit summaries and discussion the talk page that indicates a troubling sense of WP:OWN while demonstrating a worrying lack of understanding of policy. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and not to put to fine a point on it, but I wasn't warned, and he know how because he's received warnings himself. Meanwhile, discussion continues.  --Drmargi (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I am the "neutral editor" who got involved and tried to sort out the mess. While this is not the place for a content dispute here's the nutshell: At one point CBS said the character's name is Tobias and then later a different branch of CBS and a writer said Thomas. I proposed three compromise solutions to deal with the issue. Drmargi agreed with one of them, Kude90 refused (so far) to engage in that particular conversation instead claiming that a consensus had been reached before (not as far as I could tell) and by misapplying CONLIMITED. It would have been better if more editors would have gotten involved but that hasn't happened. In the meantime the compromise solution (which mentions both names with the older one only mentioned in a note) works well and I would think should make most people happy. If Kude90 has any specific complaints against this or the other proposed compromise solutions then they should express that on the talk page at which point we'll take the next step in the resolution process. So yes, there has been edit-warring but a good solution that makes sense has been agreed upon by the only two editors who have attempted to participate constructively in the discussion. If Kude90 and Drmargi need a time-out in order to cool-off then so be it, but the current state of the article is close to how it should be. SQGibbon (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

my last edit was my attempt at a compromise. I removed the first name altogether. Drmagri still removed it, against the consensus. No more argument. The first name really isn't that important anyway. Drmargi still reverted mine and added her own back in. She deleted sources in a typical america centric way because they were "foreign," and used her own, some of which are, according to wikipedia, not to be used ever. She ignored consensus several times in fact.Kude90 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Kude, we've pointed out to you a number of times that you did not have consensus as you've unilaterally tried to claim, and making yet another change before engaging in any sort of discussion of it simply inflamed the situation, as do your continuously uncivil edit summaries. Moreover, Twitter sites from TV shows are now accepted as reliable sources, and you've mis-applied the policy regarding press releases as primary sources; we can use them, but they have to be attributed correctly.  SQGibbons has pointed out more than once that there is no policy to support your claims.  Additionally, there is no policy that states that they are "not to be used ever"; in fact they are routinely used on TV articles.  The network is the seminal source for information about a TV show, and it updated its media site in the last 48 hours, with the character's name listed as Thomas on its main page, on the actor's bio in addition to roughly 20 press releases, all more current than the sources you provided.  Meanwhile, you've never made an attempt to offer a current source to counter the sources I've presented.  All this discussion belongs on the talk page, where we've gone around and around on this before.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . User:Kude90 and User:Drmargi are warned that if they continue to battle over the character's name on the article, they risk being blocked without notice. I don't care who's right. I don't care about press releases vs. tweets vs. official websites. I don't care about a discussion at RSN from apparerently last April (I assumed it was more recent - whatever happened to diffs?). Oh, and the two of you should listen to User:SQGibbon. They seem to be a voice of reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you had cared enough to read the discussion, you'd see SQGibbons and I have discussed calmly and collaboratively, and are in agreement. It's Kude ignoring what SQ has to say and brushing all contrary views aside, not me. --Drmargi (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jujhar.pannu reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 565675199 by Jujhar.pannu: Removal of details. (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Bhindran Taksal */  Added citation to prove he was refereed to as Baba Thakur Singh"
 * 3)  "/* History */"
 * 1)  "/* History */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "honest or earnest?"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Damdami Taksal. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Re: WP:Weasel */ new section"
 * 2)   "it doesn't matter what I think"
 * 3)   "Edit Warring"


 * . With one exception, the editors I see warring are the two of you, and it's a very slow dance (since about July 14). No one comes close to breaching WP:3RR. You're going to have to get other editors involved if you want to resolve the disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Dusti reported by User:99.251.120.150 (Result: IP blocked)
Page: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

User being reported:User:Dusti

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  1st revert Note the lie in the  history comments used as a common technique to exaggerate the claim
 * 2)  1st replacement
 * 3)  Warning on user's talk page. I asked nicely.
 * 4)  2nd revert
 * 5)  2nd replacement
 * 6)  3rd revert

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

I was blocked without any prior discussion, explanation or warning by User:NuclearWarfare and labeled as a troll for my opinion. This is the usual action in a dispute between an IP and a anonymous user hiding their IP address and it's exposure.

99.251.120.150 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think it takes much of an explanation to show the IP was trolling AN/I and was being reverted until User:NuclearWarfare was able to come along and block.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 03:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP as it's still being used by a blocked editor to disrupt and troll.--<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Capitals00 blocked for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and several other versions shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1st - Removed the sourced material without even reading it.
 * 2nd - Removed the sourced material under 2 minutes this time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I heavily doubt that if this user has to do anything with this page, this user is concerned about editing my talk page with useless warnings, but won't discuss any of the changes made by him/her. As you can see, in the talks of this page, this user is no where backing up there points but always ready to revert the edits without giving any explanation in the edit summary either. Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And in return claims that information is "unsourced" "personal analysis", where in actual, this complicated matter has been explained by the personality himself in his autobiography.Capitals00 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * User is attempting to remove exhaustively sourced information and insert unsourced information based on his own personal analysis, which I've explained to him on the talk page; disregard frivolous complaint. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Capitals00 has just been blocked for one week for "renewed disruptive editing on religion topics, this time on Jawaharlal Nehru". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've had a similar experience with Roscelese. I don't know the specifics of this particular incident, but rather than rehash what I've already written my thoughts on her editorial behavior can be viewed on the ANI noticeboard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=44Lordvolton (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts; and please stop forum shopping in this egregious way. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer I cut and paste several pages of material here? You're the one who brought his system ban to my attention as evidence of his lack of credibility, which I find problematic. Simply because a user is banned does not mean they were not mistreated and their complaints should be ignored. As I stated on the ANI noticeboard, separate from the legitimacy of a revert is the tone and manner in which they're carried out. When there is no discourse and a user makes an effort to improve the article they can feel offended when those efforts are reverted without a dialogue. It's more offensive when the revert is wholly unjustified -- I know from personal experience some of Roscelese's edits fall within this category. Again, I don't feel the need to rehash it a second time here when most of my thoughts have already been outlined.


 * BTW, this is the forum for complaints. I'm sharing thoughts with respect to my experiences with Roscelese. Although Capital00 has been banned he was not alone. You have used his banishment as evidence against him in another forum where he was not there to defend himself. And that's also problematic.Lordvolton (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Capitals00 has been blocked (not banned) for disruptive editing of the article on Nehru. As far as pro-life issues are concerned, WP:discretionary sanctions are in force for WP:ARBAB. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Fareed30 reported by User:Saladin1987 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#.7B.7BUser.7CSaladin1987.7D.7D:

Saladin1987 04:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted that page 2 times, and my reason for both of those times was reverting obvious vandalism which was made by User:Saladin1987 (the reporter of this incident). The first was to revert a disruptive banned editor (User:PISCOSOUR786).--Fareed30 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 reported by User:Fareed30 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Nearly all of this extreme POV pusher's edits are vandalism-related, removing important and well-sourced content from famous Bollywood actors. He is particularly erasing Pashtun/Afghan references from their pages so that not even a trace of that is left in them. I warned her/him and advised her that this is forgery and that he/she should stop but I don't think he will listen. What's strange is that she's always active on Wikipedia but not editing like us normal editors.--Fareed30 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Saladin1987: thats it first answer my questions .i wil kepp reverting it ...
 * Saladin1987: this time i will change it to peshawari hindko if u revert it to pashtun . u r so ignorant, pathan is the word that is known all over the world not pashtun . he is indian in india people dont know what pashtun is

Your own sources are flawed because you are writing those things from your sources which are not even there meaning you are just writing the info that you want to publish. I would request the admin to prove from his sources that he is right and prove from my sources that i am wrong. i have given authentic sources but he has given the sources in which there is alot of false information. in most cases he is using britannica encyclopedia as a source. i have asked him questions on talk page but he hasnt replied to them. Whats the point of talk if he doesnt wana talk.Saladin1987 04:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)


 * You're disruptive; you're willfully and deliberatly falsifying people's ethnicity, with intention to mislead readers; you're removing well-sourced relevant information from pages which is against Wikipedia's rules; you're avoiding discussion in the talk pages of the articles; you're pushing your personal strange point of view which goes against all the reliable sources; you're attacking other editors based on their race or nationality; you're edit-warring for fun and violating other rules. I think that if you get blocked then you'll stop doing these things.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * All the reliable sources, including his own children, revealed that Prithviraj Kapoor was a Pathan/Pashtun and spoke Pashto. See Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor. User:Saladin1987, however, disagrees and keeps replacing Pathan with Punjabi and in the process he deletes all sources that support Pathan. He does not believe that Prithviraj was Pathan, he rather wants to force readers to believe that Prithviraj was Punjabi by ethnicity and cites the following 3 web links to support his theory. 1 2 3. The number 1 is a mirror site (www.iloveindia.com) and it is basically an older version of Prithviraj Kapoor's Wikipedia article. That is clearly not a reliable source. Number 2 and 3 are short gossip stories about Kareena Kapoor Khan and her sister Karizma Kapoor in which each of them mentioned "I am a Punjabi". What do these girls have to do with Prithviraj's ethnicity? Plus, "I'm a Punjabi" is not a fact but just an expression, like "I'm king of the world".--Fareed30 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked Saladin for a combination of edit warring and POV-pushing. A note to User:Fareed30. The third diff listed above is not a revert because it is part of a consecutive series of edits. Saladin did not breach WP:3RR as they made only three reverts. Also, "your version" of the article has quite a few problems, mainly a lack of sources. Ironically, the best-sourced part of the article is the part that was in dispute. If you have time, you might want to add references to the article, e.g, much of the Personal life section and all of the Death and legacy section. The Legacy section is already tagged as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First, your reason for blocking him is justified. Second, he did breach 3RR.   And third, this is not the case in which X says he's Pathan and Y says he's Punjabi. It is A-Z say he's Pathan but only Saladin1987 says he's Punjabi and he used mirror/forks to support his theory. The only sources for Pathan/Pashtun that I found are listed at Talk:Prithviraj_Kapoor, which includes his own son (Shammi Kapoor) explaining to Wafaa' Al-Nathema that his father was Pathan. It makes no sense in erasing "Pathan" from the article.--Fareed30 (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CJK reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 13:23, 21 July 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  20:08, 24 July 2013 (re-adds POV tag)
 * 2)  18:45, 25 July 2013 (Adds "dubious" tags)
 * 3)  13:01, 26 July 2013 (Re-adds POV & "dubious" tags)
 * 4)  23:14, 26 July 2013 (Adds "failed verification" tags)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 00:53, 21 July 2013

05:58, 26 July 2013

Comments:

CJK was blocked 18:05 21 July and 19:06, 23 July 2013 for edit-warring on this article. His tagging has been reversed by myself, Truthwillneverdie, and Thucydides411, and no editors have shown support for keeping them. TFD (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute currently under discussion in the article talk page in question, so tagging is appropriate. The last "revert" was actually explicitly recommended by TFD despite his cynical use of it (see here ).


 * CJK (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * In your reply to me you do not explain why you think these sentences "fail verification", but instead continue your discussion of why you think the article is biased. You do not explain how what is written in the article differs from what is in the source.  So whether you add back your original edits, or put in "POV", "dubious" or "failed verification" tags, you are just continuing the same thing.  No other editors accept the changes you wish to make.  TFD (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It was explained here and you never responded. I don't see how you missed it.

CJK (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your link is to a discussion thread set up by another editor, Hohum, who removed your cleanup tag and moved your comments to the talk page 18:12 July 26 2013. After that you replaced tags on the article page three more times.  TFD (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So what? I followed what he indicated and did not restore the clean-up tag. You removed the dubious tags and said I should use different tags, which I did. Now you are complaining because I followed your and his advice.

CJK (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Request: As one of the several editors who CJK is opposing on the article, instead of another short block, could we please have a requirement to participate in dispute resolution aimed towards building compromise versions which add alternative POVs instead of replacing one with another? EllenCT (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:MrOllie and User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: MesaBoy blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts by User: :
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=564347042
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=543848792
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=542114853

Reverts by User: :
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=566028303
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=565968206
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=471411498

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User: : # https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User: : # https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Comments:

The page Page: contains information related to various forms of multifactor authentication (MFA). There are numerous forms of MFA, including hardware tokens, software tokens, virtual tokens, and so on. For some reason, MrOllie and Vipersnake151 have both repeatedly objected to the inclusion of information related to one form of MFA called "virtual tokens". They claim that the term "virtual token" refers to some specific vendor or product, that the section on virtual token is not properly sourced, or that the sources are not relevant. I have reviewed the section in question. It does not refer to any specific product nor vendor, it is properly sourced, and the sources are relevant.

Virtual token does not refer to any specific vendor, any more than "software token" or "hardware token" refers to any specific vendor. These are "TYPES" of MFA, not products or vendors. There are numerous companies offering "virtual token" forms of MFA, just as there are numerous companies offering "software token" and "hardware token" forms of MFA. The fact that certain vendors may refer to their products as "software tokens", "hardware tokens", or "virtual tokens", or even trademark similar phrases should not be a reason to arbitrarily erase an entire class of authentication technology from discussion on this page. I have searched and discovered numerous companies now referring to their products as "virtual" tokens, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have attempted to query both editors regarding their repeated censorship of this information on their personal talk pages, but they refuse to respond. They have simply erased the section, offering as their excuse their ill-informed and inaccurate belief that the section promotes some specific vendor's product, or is not properly sourced. This issue has been discussed for several years by other editors who have reached a consensus that information related to "virtual tokens" belong on this page, just as information related to "software tokens" and "hardware tokens" belong on this page. The section in question does not name nor promote any specific company nor any specific product and is properly sourced.

The page  is currently "semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it." Please remove this semi-protection and restore the pertinent section. If MrOllie or Vipersnake151 object to any content on this page, they should discuss the matter with other editors on their talk pages, rather than repeatedly erasing entire sections. Thank you. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article concerned is in fact Multifactor authentication (note capitalisation). See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for clarification on this dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Andy, I just noticed that and have corrected the page name accordingly. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional note Andy: I reverted the content that had been removed by the above editor so the content-in-question can be more easily viewed in the context of the page.  Note: I previously queried the  editor on their Talk page to explain their objections to this content, but they simply erased by query from their Talk page.  See: See: # http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566108814&oldid=566037281
 * MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is entirely unnecessary to revert the content - it is readily accessible in the article history. I would strongly advise you to self-revert and remove it again, as otherwise you may yourself be accused of edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right Andy. I self-reverted, pending a resolution on this topic. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why you are using the term "censorship" to refer to this is completely bonkers. Additionally, you claimed I erased your query; I only erased a query from an IP editor. If this is the case, I am now going to presume you are connected to the IP editor who has also been involved in this dispute. I work under the assumption that there is a COI going on primarily because of this [earlier revision] (and this related edit by an unrelated user on Security token, who described it as a "vendor's trademarked minor variation") that actually did read like advertising. I need reliable sources that indicate your assertion that "virtual token" is now a generic term and not just a Sestus product ViperSnake151   Talk  06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Censorship: Definition = "to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor". As an editor, you have the ability to remove content from a page, which is the dictionary definition of "censoring". Don't take offense to the word "censor".  As editors, we are all censors.
 * Regarding your accusation and apparent objection: I am the original editor that REMOVED all vendor references from the section on "virtual" forms of MFA. A simple review of history will show that.  So why do you keep alleging I am affiliated with some specific company, and why do you keep erasing an entire class of MFA from this page when numerous companies now refer to various forms of "virtual" MFA?  Is it that you want additional citations added?  I tried to include only citations of an academic nature rather than those offered by the various commercial vendors, but I can certainly add those if you prefer. In short, what is your objection?  A simple review of the term on Google.com shows a number of companies using the term "virtual" in reference to MFA, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on.  MesaBoy77 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've blocked MesaBoy77 for one week for edit warring and for socking. For a fuller explanation, see the report at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:TomPointTwo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Discussion of stupidity starts here: Talk:Steve_King

Comments: Single editor is intent on adding content contrary to RS and BLP. Unwilling to bend to consensus and in violation of 3RR. Issue was erroneously taken to a page protection request instead of here.TomPointTwo (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:TomPointTwo, per WP:EW, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." I would still consider your behavior WP:EW and you are not following WP:Civil with a new user. This could be easily fixed in a less hostile manner. Casprings (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note
 * , who is a newbie, once warned by me on the talkpage of Steve King has stopped edit-warring. The reporter also reached 3RR. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first part is unsubstantiated. The second is demonstrably untrue. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are your 3RR:, , . Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh oh, super awkward. I think you need to read 3RR again. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an admin can advise you better. I know I've got nothing to read in that regard. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My warning given at :26 past the hour:, Miles's last revert was :21 past the hour: . TomPointTwo also baited the other editor in his edit summaries: . Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, reread 3RR, I'm not in violation of it. As for baiting, it was much more a general mocking of his presumptuousness. Rude but not leading. WP:DICK has long been consigned to the nether regions of wiki-land, a move I'm rather torn over. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please reread my comments to you and don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you went over 3RR. I said you are at 3RR. But as you know you can still be blocked even if you don't violate 3RR. That's all. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  09:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you were saying on the 3RR noticeboard that I'm at 3RR not over 3RR. Well, you're a clever little wordsmith, here I was thinking you were actually complaining about something. Or at least something other than my not taking you seriously which, last I checked, is not a BFD. That or you actually bothered to read 3RR just now and are feeling dumb. Dumb because you're tossing policies around you're not familiar with. Don't sweat it, I'll assume the former. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If despite all my explanations you resort to comments like that and personal attacks on an admin noticeboard after you made a report while you yourself came within a hair's breadth of breaking 3RR, then I can't help you further. Good luck to you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   09:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's awful big of you. Thanks buddy. TomPointTwo (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Boomright reported by User:SqueakBox (result: Blocked 24 hours)
User has reverted his own edit on numerous occasions against at least 3 other editors in very quick succession, my informal warning did not stop the user at all.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Either him or someone else had done the same edit the other day and the consensus on the talk page is thta this is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP but editor hasnt contributed to any discussion. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Has now been blocked for 24 hours, no further action needed. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Kubigula (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 565824264 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Not the only article with linking problems."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 565750593 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)what's wrong with this?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 565717177 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Nothing wrong with that is only a single liking there's no double"


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


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


 * Comments:

User was reported previously at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive217 and temporarily blocked. Despite this user has continued behaviour at Fast & Furious 6 and now has begun doing the same thing at Fast Five, refusing to discuss, ignoring anything brought up and repeatedly editing to get his way, has no intention of stopping or acknowledging why he was initially blocked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles with linking issues. You can show me a linking right or wrong reality it's not something you have to use, there can be double linking or linking a name second instants instead of first. User:Shookallen88 July 26. —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . Just a clarification. Shookallen88 was not blocked based on the previous report. He was warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jdremix540 reported by User:Suzuku (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and continuously made this same revision more than 5 times despite being to ld to take his concerns to the talk page and wait for a consensus.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * As you can see user repeatedly made the same revision over and over despite being told by two users (myself and another) to go to the talk page to voice his concerns and wait for a consensus. Instead of engaging in conversation, he chose this route and simply makes the same statement over and over no matter how many times myself or another presents logic against his claims. Keep in mind we had already had a debate about which poster to use in the article weeks before and came to the general consensus that the artistic poster should be used for several reasons.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

*Unfortunately that is as far as the conversation with him went for me because he didn't bother to respond after that, until I told him I was reporting him.


 * . Looks like they stoppped editing. If it recurs, you can add to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * He's at it again. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Jonathan.bluestein (Result: No violation)

 * Page: []
 * User being reported:

Hi folks. Sorry for not using the acceptable 'codes of report' - it looks kinda complex and I wasn't sure how to do this right. I did put the "Edit Warring Notice" tag on the reported user's page.

I wish to report user Chesdovi for his continuous pursuit of altering the page [] in favour of his view of the subject matter. He has been deleting contents off that page, by myself and others, every day, for at least several days now. He dismisses any claims on the talk page and would not reach compromise. Whenever an additional reference is added, he dismisses it as well, with claims such as: "advertisement", "state-funded conspircay against Haredi Jews", "illegal under Israeli copyright law", etc. His common method of action is deleting the parts he wishes to delete slowly, bit by bit. He'd wait a few hours to a day after discussion on the talk page, and would then start deleting again. Sometimes he'd appear to have agreed to keep some material, but would delete them two days later. I myself have refrained from deleting any of his materials (!), and have only edited small parts of them - slightly changing phrasing or providing additional content - also mentioning the reasons and discussing matters on the talk page... Which he had refrained from doing. Whenever I have myself undone any of his deletions, I kept his added materials and made sure to mention it. His presence on the page is somewhat vandalistic. I have no means with dealing with his excessive deletions, which are heavily based on his own self-proclaimed agenda ("to act against those harassing and spreading hatred towards Haredim"). Even when he discusses, he later ignores. =\ The talk page and edit notes on the page's history would easily reveal the nature of the problem. I thereby wish to request some form of intervention on the matter. Thank you.


 * There appears to be a content dispute on the page though. Consider dispute resolution (WP:DR).Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Whiteswanlake reported by User:Bonkers The Clown (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This page is not simply advertising for a court case, either. Cut it out."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 566253743 by Bonkers The Clown (talk)"
 * 3)  "Provided full company background with sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '==TWG Tea== Anyone is welcome to edit this article, but please remain neutral and please do not remove legitimate and encyclopaedic content, i.e. the lawsuits. I...'"
 * 2)   "/* TWG Tea */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 1st revert in face of blatant advertising
 * 2) 2nd revert in face of blatant advertising


 * Comments:

First and only edits (with exception to one) were to this article. He or she is clearly out to advertise the subject in a non-neutral way and has removed all the DYK-worthy content that I added. By doing so he is affecting my work. He has ignored my warning(s) and continued to revert. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I only informally warned him, not wanting to slap a boilerplate warning on his face. Perhaps that's what he should get, though. ☯ Bonkers The Clown  \(^_^)/  Nonsensical Babble  ☯ 09:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * . The user has not edited the article in a while and has not attempted to restore the promotional material. Therefore, I've given them a warning that any inappropriate edit will result in a block. @Bonkers, I agree with your conclusion about the user's motives, but your warnings are, albeit entertaining, rather flamboyant, e.g. "I am seething in rage" and "you'll see blocks being flung at you". You might consider being more serious when you're in a serious setting.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:207.38.225.26 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

IP-user fighting to keep a CV-style (self)promotional article that has been nominated for deletion for being about a non-notable individual, also removing maintenance templates indicating that the article is suspected of being an autobiography. Thomas.W  talk to me  09:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Tranquil Pepere reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:64.237.226.40 reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I don't need to prove to you anything. What YOU need to do is play the game, and pay the fuck attention!"
 * 2)  "You want proof? Play the fucking game, you moron. The whole game revolves around Bowser's action and situation."
 * 3)  "Unsoursed? Nintendo and video game critics constantly kept saying he is, you fucking retards!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 566484021 by ThomasO1989 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Here's a better idea: Fuck you, moron."
 * 6)  "There is nothing to discuss."
 * 7)  "YES, it is. And clearly, you're an even bigger waste of air than the pollution, if you can't even tell who's role is who."
 * 8)  "It is, because they're supporting him. They're just the title characters here."
 * 9)  "As THE main character, not A main character."
 * 1)  "As THE main character, not A main character."
 * 1)  "As THE main character, not A main character."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 2 warning re. Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story (HG)"


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


 * Comments:

Resolution was attempted on article's talk page; Repeated edit warring after warning and personal attacks towards another editor via edit summary. Revision 566482943 perhaps should be suppressed via oversight for language. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 21:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Revision 566488111 should also be suppressed for the same reason. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Comment: This user has been trolling me because of my opposing !votes against his proposed move requests in multiple articles. If you see, I had re-inserted all the references added by the user. I have only reverted the edits of the User:Nborkakoty, who had either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions. Lastly, those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article. Instead of trying to correct those, the concerned editor Darkness Shines went in to a behavior of ownership and ordering, which may be seen from the edit summaries themselves. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done for resorting to personal attacks, and your restoration of the references only means those references were then being misrepresented, as I had added them to support the content you had reverted in the first place. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What about your edit summaries? And, by the way, as I said, all edits by Nbarkakoty were either redundant or personal opinions. So, the references are good to support the existing content, if you care to see. And, regarding personal attacks, have you not indulged in the same type of behavior against other editors who were opposed to your POV in articles related to Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Godhra train burning? I will leave it up to the admins to decide. Shovon (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The references to not support the existing content at all, this one you readded was to support the fact that the tea was being planted in eastern not upper assam. this reference was to support the content that there are four oil refinarys in Assam, you have used it to support "Assam has few industries of significance." which is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the wiki link that I provided about upper Assam? Regarding the 4 oil refineries, the same can still be found in the current version of the article. As I said, you are picking up personal fights against editors who oppose your POV in some other articles. Shovon (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, please see User:Darkness Shines' reversals in the article & his edit summaries too -
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3 Shovon (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I look at a wiki link? I reverted you because you removed sourced content and then misrepresented the sources, what exactly is wrong with the edit summaries? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would not be saying anything more here and would leave it to the closing admin to decide on the whole issue! Shovon (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I am a new user, I am quite surprised to find that this user Shovon has reverted all my edits to the page Assam. I do stand by whatever edits I made to this page. It is clear that this user Shovon is less informed about the latest developments in the industrial front in Assam. Moreover, using 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' to mean regions/administrative divisions inside Assam sometimes generate undesirable sentiments. So, knowledgeable circles, of late, preferred using 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam' to mean the same, which is more logical and hence scientific and more clearly understood even by a foreigner. As 'Gauhati' was changed to 'Guwahati', 'Madras' was changed to 'Chennai', there is no reason, why 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' cannot be changed to 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam'. According to 2012 data, Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport at Guwahati is the 12th busiest airport of India. Dibrugarh is presently not the 2nd highest revenue yielding district of India. I had updated these and other important and relevant information on the page. Anybody can point out if a single piece of information I had updated on the page was wrong! Unfortunately users/readers of wikipedia will now be deprived of all these updated information on the page. Thanks to Shovon. This user reverted all my edits by making generalized statements '...either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions' and '...those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article.' Such statements are not specific to any information/sentence and hence superficial and do amount to personal attack on me. This may be due to the information I had updated/supplemented in the article goes against Shovon's prejudice. At last I again do stand by whatever edits I made to the page and hope that the administrators would do justice to me by over-ruling the reverts to my edits done by the user Shovon. --Nborkakoty (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that I would not comment here again till it is resolved, but the accusations prompted me to write something. Ghits for upper Assam gives 133,000 results while that for eastern Assam throws up 61,500 results. Btw, all edits by the above user were without any references. Anyone may check the article history to understand the same. At the same time, I do agree that I should have waited for a third party's opinion post User:Darkness Shines' reverts, but probably I was carried away by his acerbic edit summaries. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Shovon76 has made four reverts in 24.5 hours. Per the standards used here, this is enough to justify a block. He could avoid admin action if he will agree to stay off the article for seven days and limit his edits to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I do agree to abide by your suggested action. I also accept that it was purely wrong on my part to revert the article so many times. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Shovon76 is warned for edit warring. There is no block because he has responded here and agreed not to edit the article for a week. He may still edit the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:201.215.187.159 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 566520095 by ViperSnake151 (talk) the image is still not relevant to the article."
 * 2)  "No, this image is not relevant.  The article is about a joke.  The image does not illustrate the joke in any way."
 * 3)  ""Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic".  This image is not."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) You have two cows and For sale: baby shoes, never worn


 * Comments:

Is being confrontational, using very strict interpretations of content guidelines instead of being flexible and bold. Has consented to an open proxy check. Is edit warring in a similar fashion on For sale: baby shoes, never worn, considered my warning about it to be "clumsy intervention". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This IP does not appear to be an open proxy. Whether to include the picture at You have two cows is open to further discussion. Since three different editors have restored the picture, consensus seems to favor including it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Smithelen2013 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "it was a lie"
 * 3)  "Names"
 * 1)  "it was a lie"
 * 2)  "Names"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ typo"

Now an obvious sock has continued the edit war: I suggest they both be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:GenQuest reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 12 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

withing two hours he reverts twice. There is a 1 revert per 24 hours rule at all Arab-Israeli articles:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ARBPIA I told him at his talkpage and he didnt care:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GenQuest&oldid=566560567#1rr --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:132.3.33.78 reported by User:Texas141 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is using unofficial U.S. Census Bureau data to represent a population number that is not referenced using official 2010 U.S. Census data. This user will not participate in civil discussion and has been warned several times of edit warring and personal attacks.Texas141 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for five days as the IP uses different addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:32cllou reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and  with many more visible on the users talk page.

This user has been making similar changes to as the above over the past number of weeks. On July 24/25th he made a 6th revert and self reverted here after being warned on his talk page.


 * 1) Removed fish
 * 2) Removed fish again
 * 3) Removed fish again
 * 4) Adjusted the lead sentence
 * 5) Adjusted the lead sentence again
 * 6) Adjusted the lead sentence again and moved discussion of fish

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been ongoing discussion on the talk page and multiple requests for this user to get consensus before continueing to make the changes in question

Comments:

Please see the extensive discussion in Talk. I did not know that small discussed changes constituted a "revert". My changes today are different from prior, and were carefully discussed. I conceded the requirement for "only."[] Note that all the references cited find that recommendations are made (not "proposed").[]  Note that the best references (American Cancer Society 2006 and 2012 do not recommend fish to reduce the risk of cancer; Jmh649's text is not accurate.[]32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take this argument to Rfc. Wikipedia currently misleads compared to the American Cancer Society references (reviews).32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is your continued insistence on re-making the same challenged changes over and over without consensus on the Talk page, while the Talk page discussions are still ongoing and unresolved--as I tried to explain to you on your User Talk page. You've been doing this all afternoon.   21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The 2012 ACS does recommend fish (as opposed to red meat) as part of a diet to prevent cancer. As does another 2011 review article and the Australian Cancer Council. But this is an issue of continuous reinserting contention changes to the article. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The ACS (2012) recommends fish 'as an alternative to red meats. They do not include fish (at all) in their primary recommendations, Table I.  The Australian Cancer Council was not cited or referenced in the Subject text, and I've looked over the research studies reviewed and almost all the findings are relative (IF you eat fish instead of red meat).
 * Today and only once did I edit to remove the recommendation to eat fish. I thought we were near consensus saying recommendations are made compared to recommendations are proposed.  They are in fact made.  They are made based on observational and prospective studies, but less than definitive clinical research.
 * I will give this subject a long rest, so there shouldn't be a need for some sanction.32cllou (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that this difficulty has existed with other articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page

Note that Jmh649 also possibly violated the 3RR rules in other articles, and that most of the subjects are now better than before my involvement. Also, please note the same group of editors (like a flash mob) who come into a discussion and immediately (they are unlikely to have been able to read the talk discussion) side with Jmh649 and find "consensus". Looking at their User pages, I'd say the group looks like a mutual admiration society. Can editors bring in friends explicitly to support their edits by thus created consensus?32cllou (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is recommended that one post at the appropriate Wiki Project such as I did here to request furtehr opinions when there is a content dispute. If you are going to claim that I surpassed 3RR you should provide evidence  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * From my contributions history, it looks like I reported your actions in a 3RR report on this page April 8th because of problems you were causing with my trying to make Cochrane Collaboration statement additions [] to Breast Cancer. Look at the associated Talk, and see how much effort was required on my part to make an (another) obvious improvement.  I am alarmed to hear you requested the opinions of others, because that serves to confirm my suspicions that there are few active editors left in Wikipedia.  Bad behaviors and wasted efforts, for example my wasted time and efforts in mammography and cancer, have driven them away.32cllou (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey 32cllou you keep making unsupported comments about me. You claim I have edit warred yet when asked to provide evidence you do not. The dif is here it states "no violation"


 * The issues we had at breast cancer are interesting. You attempted to claim that a leaflet was an update of a Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta Analysis.,, and a bunch more. You did this multiple times despite being explained by many editors that this was not true.and . In your most recent attempt you finally admit that it was not a Cochrane review . A Wikipedia who is also an expert removed it in the next edit as we should be citing the Cochrane review not a leaflet derived from it.


 * You state "I value independent current review references most of all" yet you keep mentioning primary sources such as in this edit and you have mentioned this popular press peice both above and twice on the cancer talk page . In the beast cancer issue above you attempted many times to add a leaflet rather than the proper review article.


 * You continue to attempt to edit war content and wording changes into an article despite no consensus to add it and multiple requests that you get consensus first. You have made many personal attacks against me and you have been warnned a number of times for the same. Yes these sorts of activities are getting frustrating.


 * One more interesting bit. 32cllou states "PS you might be interested to know that mammography is not recommended at any age?" How does one deal with an editor like this? The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every two years in women between 50 and 75. Screening is also recommended in Canada. Yes a Cochrane Review does not recommend screening at any age. But our article mentioned ALL this before 32 came along. Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ejordens reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: Indefinite block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed libel with malicious intent of private person"
 * 2)  "deleting malicious intent libel of private party"
 * 3)  "malicious intent in libeling private person"
 * 4)  "malicious libel"
 * 5)  "remove libel posted with malicious intent"
 * 6)  "delete malicious libel of private party. delete attacks in automated attack page by bot."


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


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


 * Comments:

no policy-based reason given for deletion. clear violation of WP:3RR Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * indefinitely for legal threats by User:Gamaliel. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DeputyBob reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "KEPT SOME OLD STUFF, DESCRIBED SHAHEED AS BEST AS I COULD AS ALLAH DEFINED IT IN QURAN"
 * 2)  "discerned between the religious and secular meaning of the word martyr..... for NEUTRALITY :) . DO NOT UNDO THIS, THIS IS THE TRUTH, READ THE TORAH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN"
 * 3)  "what are you doing???"
 * 4)  "why are you destroying my work,... can you not see the subsections on hinduism judaism islam etc.  The word God can not be secular, so the word martyr is also not secular, what is wrong with you, how the water in Georgia :)"
 * 5)  "edit my work, don't destroy it."
 * 6)  "whatever dude, this is my new hobby untill you start editing and not destroying"
 * 7)  "DISCUSS THE REVERT BEFORE YOU DESTROY MY PAGE, AND ALSO READ WHAT I HAVE WROTE??? DO YOU PEOPLE NOT READ???"


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


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


 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Србија је православна reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On my talk page:

Comments:

I have reported this user for violating the WP:3RR. As you can notice, this user is removing and changing referenced data while adding some problematic statements like "mainly the Romanian nationalists from Moldova" without any sources. Also many problematic statements like "Predrag Balašević, president of the pro-Romanian so called "Vlach party of Serbia"" - adding the "pro-Romanian so called" - and others. I have asked to stop him but he refuses and continued to remove referenced data from the article. I have tried to resolve this problem on the talk page but without any success. Adrian (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy the Grump violating 3RR (Rsult: Blocked Bootyshorts71 for 24 hours)
User "Andy the Grump" has violated 3RR, having made several edit warring type edits within minutes. See here: Special:Contributions/AndyTheGrump.

Andy the Grump I feel is somehow stalking me and reverting my edits out of spite. Andy the Grump also has a long history of blocks on this site, and a history of harassing and stalking users. Thank you. Bootyshorts71 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Obvious troll is obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious stalking is obvious. AGF and BITE.  Leave me alone. Bootyshorts71 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pathetic. Most likely Technoquat again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a boomerang about to hit.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup - starts at the Kate Garvey article, per Technoquat. When nobody bites, moves on elsewhere. So predictable. So pathetic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Have blocked Bootyshorts71 for edit warring here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's the boomerang. Should someone open up a SPI?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I just did that, actually. See Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:SpectraValor (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6) This may not be a classic case of constant reversion to a single version, but representative of an ongoing pattern of combative editing and disrespect for other editors, starting as early as May 28. I respect Petrarchan's wishes to defend Wikipedia against paid editors, of which I am absolutely not one, but I don't agree that a praiseworthy cause justifies this style of editing and continual reversion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been reams of discussions on the talk page, which has been a maelstrom since the article was created.

Comments: Petrarchan47 is one of several editors who might benefit from a break from the page, and one of the most frequent reverters. Personally, I do not intend to edit the article again, at least until the editing climate is brought under control. The whole situation, but mostly the defense of edit warring as an admirable activity by editors who should know better, leaves a very bad impression. As several editors have said, editing this page has been one of their more frustrating experiences at Wikipedia. There are a few editors with a clear POV and editing history revolving around just a few topics who are constantly edit warring and attacking anyone who disagrees with them with a disappointing failure of civility. Dishearteningly representative was the hostile response to my good-faith warning to the user here. An anti-corporation and anti-paid editing stance might be praiseworthy, but does it justify this? SpectraValor (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I haven't worked on this page in a very long time, until just yesterday. This situation is being discussed at ANI and is perhaps on its way to ArbCom. Please check the revision history to see who exactly "needs a break".  petrarchan47  t  c   00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to point out that SpectorValor, shortly after filing this complaint, tried to blame me (after a mere 24 hours of our interacting) for his inability to tolerate working on the MAM page, and his reason for walking away. This followed his volunteer admission at the AN/I that he is not being paid by Monsanto, but has probably used other accounts, accidentally. User:Alexbrn, who also works on the MAM article, suggested the night before this 3RR case was filed that I revert his (groundless) edit for a third time. It feels like possible games are being played with this noticeboard. This is the second time I've been taken to a noticeboard of any type - and both times were for trumped up 3RR charges while working on the MAM article. (Is there no boomerang for this behaviour? It's getting old.)  petrarchan47  t  c   18:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, I may have misread Spector at the ANI, he said he may have "edited some of the same articles as them", referring to family and colleagues, but I read "as them" as 'using their identity' (socking). .  petrarchan47  t  c   22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . I suggest that no action be taken on this report pending the outcome of the discussion at WP:ANI. The reported user here has not reverted - or even edited - the article in almost 24 hours. Good advice to Petrarchan47 is to leave the article alone for the time being. Any other admin is, of course, free to take action here if they believe it's warranted, but you first have to undergo a trial by fire: read the report at ANI (good luck).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment. I'm guilty of starting that ANI thread, so I'm pretty well-roasted by now. I don't see any of this as an AN3 issue, really, so it should probably be closed with no action. That's not to say that Petrarchan47 has been a model of civility either. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was alerted to this comment by Wikipedia's new notification system. User:Petrarchan47 is referring to a Talk page discussion about a completely different article (Foie gras) (after he had had, it seems, followed me there to revert an an edit of mine) in order to try and make a point about "games being played". Oh the irony. Why can't I edit Wikipedia without being attacked with these dumb insults and conspiracism? Alexbrn talk 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, please reread the diff. We were discussing two separate articles. Regarding the MAM article, I asked you to revert yourself pending a ref to support your recent change there. You, for whatever reason, suggested that I could could go ahead and revert you myself, since I only had two reverts. I find that strange in light of this case filed against me, with at least two of the diffs supplied above being my reverts of your inappropriate and unsupported changes to the article. Why would you make a change without a reference? And why did you not revert yourself when you agreed on my talk that you had no supporting ref, but instead suggest I do it (again)? As for the Foie Gras article, it is on my watch list and you can see I've made contributions there somewhat recently.  petrarchan47  t  c   22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Better yet, here the exact phrasing from my talk page that in hindsight, concerned me:
 * Petrarchan47 "...Also, at the MAM article, you have just attributed the protest, partially, to a reaction to Monsanto's statements without any source for this. I would self-revert if I were you, until you do have a source making this connection. I have already reverted you twice so cannot correct it myself."
 * Alexbrn: "I think you can revert me again if you want (3RR? it's so easy to overstep by mistake)"   petrarchan47  t  c   23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * &mdash; right, so I didn't "suggest" you do the revert, I just pointed out that I thought you could if you wanted. I then made subsequent edits on the MaM article that addressed the issue that concerned you, while also addressing the issue that concerned me (which a straight undo would not have achieved). And it is not me who filed the case here (it doesn't look to me as if you are edit-warring). Are you trying to imply that I am acting in league SpectraValor to try and "trick" you into violating 3RR? Because that would be very silly. Alexbrn talk 05:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You know, I've asked you a very specific question multiple times, and I notice that you never answer me. Why did you repeatedly make an edit which suggested a cause for the MAM protest was Monsanto's comments a few days prior to the event without any source whatsoever to support your claim? I hear you dodging around saying either way wasn't quite right, but editing Wiki without any sourcing puts you in the wrong, according to my understanding of the guidelines. I tried to correct your edits which put the article in the position of essentially telling an untruth, for which I got taken to a noticeboard. If someone pointed out to me that I had made such an error, I would focus on correcting my side of the street immediately and go from there.  I wouldnt ask you to do it for me, and I wouldn't ignore the most basic requirement of adding a fricking source to support my edits. So I have no way of understanding how your behavior is in keeping with WIkipedia guidelines. Please reply more directly to my query.   petrarchan47  t  c   00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:96.248.15.44 reported by User:AsceticRose (Result:36 hr block )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 566838059 by AsceticRose (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 566835787 by AsceticRose (talk) it's not either"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 566791604 by 72.43.229.66 (talk) what's the other?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 566680647 by Daffydavid (talk) that's why it's not cited by the ref"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 566420991 by Deli nk (talk) clarification is always useful. information on wikipedia should be presented clearly, and not rely on innuendo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

engaged in edit war; constantly adding unsourced ugly content; warned several time with no effect. Ascetic Rosé   11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the "ugly content" explains the innuendo implied by the sourced article in clearer terms. there is no doubt that the "suggestive exercise" of women "pumping away" at a "phallic-shaped device" described in the article is suggestive because it looks like a handjob. nobody would challenge this. no additional sources are needed. understand that this is a nonissue inflated by an alarmist who started this "edit war" herself due to an oversensitivity to explicit language. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now reverted this "hand job" content twice as well. It's vandalism, in my view. Jus  da  fax   12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 36 hours. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:69.2.54.200 reported by User:Zaqwert (Result: protected)
Page:

Comments:

An annonymous IP has been making a repeated unconstructive edit without justification. I have brought it up on the talk page. I keep reverting it but I don't wanna be accused of edit warring so I'm bring the issue here. Zaqwert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Truthwillneverdie reported by User:CJK (Result: Protected)
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)

Has already been warned and blocked.

Talk:Iraq War

Comments: User simply blanks 100% of my contributions to the article, while refusing to discuss any problems he has on the talk page. He posted a few vague sentences and then gave up. Other users have discussed the changes, and their complaints are confined to a minority of the proposed changes, which does not justify mass blanking. CJK (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note I am only one of six editors who have been removing CJK's non-NPOV original research version of the article and returning it to the NPOV version of the article supported by WP:Consensus. CJK's slow edit war reverts the article twice almost every 24 hours that the article is not blocked.  No other editor has ever supported CJK's version on the talk page, and no other editor has ever changed the article to the CJK version other than CJK.  Six editors have been involved in changing it back to the WP:Consensus version, including me.  Please see the Iraq war talk page under the heading "WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV" for more information. -Truthwillneverdie (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . The article has been fully protected for a month by User:Tariqabjotu.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reversion by Gunbirddriver
 * 2) Another reversion by Gunbirddriver

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

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage section

Attempt to resolve dispute on DRN: Report

Comments:

The context of this dispute goes back some months. The issue of whether blitzkrieg should be excluded from the article or not has been thoroughly debated. A DRN report was filed about a month ago and it ended without any solution about a day ago.

The consensus of secondary sources are in favour of characterizing the plan for Citadel as a blitzkrieg (see the DRN report titled "Battle of Kursk"). Editor consensus, however, are divided (see the DRN report). Initially Gunbirddriver (and two other editors) claimed the editor consensus with 3 against 1. Well after the DRN report, it is now primarily two editors that are still staunchly against it, whereas there are at least 4 editors now in support for it (see the DRN report).

The real problem here is that:

Gunbirddriver refuses to see this as a content-dispute. For the DRN report, he summarily categorized the dispute as a mere case of edit warring and misconduct, and showed little interest in participating in the resolution of this dispute from the perspective of a content-dispute. OK granted, I once fell short of the MOS on wikilinks and even questioned those trying to correct me, but I later learned and concurred. However, I've had enough with Gunbirddriver to the extent that I can't help but become dismissive of anything he says unless they are explicitly backed up by a secondary or primary source. But then he thinks that is condescending. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, an opinion an opinion. I just think I've seen enough from Gunbirddriver to consider any secondary source superior to any his personal opinions. In this context, his accusation of rudeness and misconduct may have a grain of truth from his own perspective.

Anyways, the irresolution of this dispute is completely to his advantage, since irrespective of whatever is discussed, he can simply report any edit I make to WP:ANI as edit warring, and cite rudeness and misconduct to support his case. He already did it before and I was warned not to go against the (initial) 3 against 1 consensus until the DRN case is concluded. The DRN case concluded without reaching a solution, but the editor-consensus (based on numbers) shifted in favour of including blitzkrieg (see the DRN report). But it is not like that matters as much as what secondary sources say anyways. And there is a lot of support from secondary sources (see the DRN report). In the DRN, Gunbirddriver did not recognize it as a true content-dispute, which only helped to hinder the dispute resolution by practically making it impossible to discuss the real problem with him. I recently edited the article to reflect a somewhat more neutral ground on the issue – for example, I reduced "classic blitzkrieg" to just "blitzkrieg" and added more citations – but Gunbirddriver has continued to removed it. He refuses to deal with the issue in DRN and now insists on making reversions. I'm nearly out of options. I will also open up a discussion on the article talkpage and see if anything can be discussed. EyeTruth (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors are warned not to continue reverting or blocks may be issued. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Latest revision as of 23:27, 30 July 2013 that only matters if it´s ambiguous as to what it´s referring to, it´s not though. see talk page on the long discussion that resulted in humanity. dr.k, feel free to edit the terminology section, per the agreement only including the lead
 * 2)  "/* Terminology */ avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough"
 * 3)  "doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 566359180 by Dr.K. (talk) stop edit warring"
 * 5)  "resolved via the talk page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 566358743 by Dr.K. (talk) reverting your disruption. there´s nothing wrong with this edit"
 * 7)  "sock investigation went well"
 * 1)  "sock investigation went well"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ replied"

A few days after his edit-warring block this editor is back at it edit-warring at Mythology and showing no signs of abiding by consensus. Notice his edit summary sock investigation went well. He seems to enjoy all this disruption and shows no signs of stopping: I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. . I thought we had an agreement and withdrew my report yesterday. But he started again today trying to eliminate all occurrences of the word "humankind" from the mythology article. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Please see also recent edit-warring report which resulted in a 24 hour block. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * He is also resorting to personal attacks: . Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * So have you reached an agreement? Is any administrative action needed at this stage? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Edgth has now performed a sixth revert. It is clear he will not stop.   He also does not appear to understand the concept of 3RR. I recommend a block to stop this ongoing disruption. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις   23:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Buster seems to be happy with humanity, judging by his talk page comment. I´ve reinstated humanity and am inviting you to edit the terminology section again if you´re not happy with its current state. Edgth (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the wrong move. You now have six reverts. I struck my comments about leniency to Alex. I now recommend a block for Edgth. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I stuck to the agreement on the talk page that you, buster and I support? Stop being annoying and move on. Edgth (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter. Paul was not part of the agreement and he reverted you. The 3RR is a bright line. You should not have reverted his edits. Period. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  23:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC).
 * He went against the talk page consensus so he didn´t just revert me. Since we´ve been editing all over the article trying to reach a suitable version, most of your accused reverts are not even reverts anyway and you´ve done more than a fair share of them. Edgth (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No amount of justifications justify going over 3RR. I had my timing wrong and when I realised the time in history was not UTC I self-reverted and did not edit since. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I´ll list them then. The ´resolved via the talk page´ isn´t one as I was implementing our agreement. The ´avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough´ isn´t one, as we were both editing the article several times like that trying to come up with a sutable version. The ´doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok´ isn´t one as I was implementing the agreement again, minus some of the confusion. Edgth (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth/Archive. Well-meaning advice does not seem to have made much of an impression on this editor (see "Stop boring me with your templates" on his talk page). This is the second time in a week that he has been at AN3, and his account was newly created on 20 July. He ought to read WP:EW to get clear on the definition of a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As soon as he got unblocked after the 48 hour block he started the edit-war again, including attacks in the edit-summary: . Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  02:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Why is it an edit war by me but not you? After all, you´re the one edit warring against the talk page consensus. Edgth (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor Edgth. Consensus is like the weather. It's always changing. If you are here to assist in positive editing of the encyclopedia, you are welcome. If you are here for other reasons, your stay may be a short one. It's always up to you. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  07:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""jeez it's just a list of characters. These don't require that much sourcing." It was announced via Nintendo Direct. Try to find a source before you revert. Ill add one in a little while if you dont."
 * 2)  "If you know its real just add a source and stop warring I will in a little bit"
 * 3)  "/* Ōrotto */"
 * 4)  "I didnt change the romanization. It was revealed on the eShop which was the one at the end of the movie. The legs on him resemble a spider and its a tree-like cyclops creature"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* July 2013 */"


 * Comments:

Black60dragon was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on another page and after his block had expired he had resumed this practice but on yet another page. I have made multiple attempts to discuss this and other edits to this article with him on his talk page but he outright refuses to acknowledge anything I've said to him and has also resorted to personal attacks and adding contentious information that I had previously argued with him about on this article to another article (see Talk:List of Pokémon introduced in Generation VI for more detail). Black60dragon will not listen to reason or acknowledge arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines and instead edits based on what he thinks is right and nothing else. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. This is not edit warring. If it was then you are just as responsible. I havent re-reverted it, like you continue to do. You revert every little thing I add. Im aloud to add stuff. You cant control the page. I have done a lot for that page. Black Dragon  15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed edit warring because you refuse to communicate when all I do is attempt to communicate and you refuse to acknowledge my point of view.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Um Dude Im communicating right now so I dont know what your talking about. If you remember right "I" am the one that add "Both" of the versions in one which you wouldnt do. If you continue doing it too, your also to blame. Black Dragon  18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . You are both edit warring. However, am I correct that you're reached an agreement on what should be on the article with respect to this one character (or whatever it is)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Things have settled down, yes.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This case should be closed as nonsense. The supplied diffs do not support Ryulong's allegations. Most of them are confused and rambling. Please note [| this] another recent complaint by User:Ryulong where he attempted to rid himself of another editor modifying his articles. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP has done nothing on Wikipedia except attempt to implicate me in whatever trouble he thinks exists. Black60dragon was edit warring and I was making several attempts at communication but he outright refused to respond. Exactly what about these diffs (I formatted the template wrong before, my apologies) are "confused and rambling"? They show he's been warned and that I attempted to resolve the dispute, but he ignored me and continued to revert on the assumption that he was right and I was wrong. That is edit warring. Now 99.251.120.60 kindly buzz off.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your diffs supplied only show your rambling complaints to other editors. Similar to your last disorganized [| complaint], against another editor, you don't show diffs to prove the other editor did anything incorrectly. The Ryulong named account has been used since 2006. Did it belong to somebody else previously? You seem to lack experience in this process and your history shows many, repeated complaints against you for being rude, using demanding and insulting language against other editors. This behavior drives away editors from the Wikipedia project. It becomes hard to take complaints from your account seriously with all those factors. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In my final comment to that thread on ANI I showed every single instance of deleterious editing by the IP hopping editor that I reported. In my comments to Black60dragon you call them "rambling complaints" due to the multiple issues I have to constantly bring up to him regarding his editing practices. I clearly ask him to cease edit warring due to the various reasons, and I warn him that he is edit warring. What more do you require and why do you ask of me these things?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 13:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Based on Ryulong's response to my note, I'm closing this as withdrawn. The conversation after that between the IP and Ryulong is singularly unhelpful, and I don't expect it to continue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (specifically pre-dubious tag)

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 has not edited the talk page of the article yet, and claims to have been canvassed to edit the article by phone. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is four edits in three days. The dubious tag is used wrongly. The tag was placed on a direct quote by the media. There is nothing dubious about the fact they made the statement. If the statement they made is dubious to others then the sentence should be re-worded to reflect that. See: Template:Dubious, incorrect use 1, "to directly challenge a sourced statement as being incorrect". This article is an incredible mess of POV by editors that are trying to fight the entire GMO controversy in one article about one protest. Editors have been accused of editing on the behalf of Monsanto, creating socks, etc. The phone call I got merely wondered why the material was flip-flopping every time the caller read it. He thought there may be outside influences trying to control a Wikipedia article. I didn't record the call but did receive permission to paraphrase it here. I will take it off my watchlist and not edit it further. It is doomed to remain a mess until Arbcom makes a decision. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. I don't care about GMO in my food as I get free greens left at cemeteries and free meat from the SPCA. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Might be a good idea for Thargor Orlando to review what canvassing is. Off wiki canvassing, one isn't really an issue that can be violated and even Jimbo Wales says that such offwiki canvassing just brings in more eyes to the article and...just receiving a phone call is not canvassing anyway.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Highlighting more as more about how this user has chosen not to engage at the talk page for an interesting reason. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now someone has replaced 'dubious' with Template:Better source. The source is http://www.bostonmagazine.com/about/ Do they consider it as "insufficiently supported by sources that are lacking in quality"? I am tempted to email them and see if we can, once again, get smeared in the media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes note never to accept dinner invitations to Canoe's house -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * By my count that's four reverts in less than 24 hours, not three days. This is how the user responded to a warning on their talk page.  a13ean (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ooops. Sorry for my bad math. Are you going to justify why others tag-teamed re-adding a wrong use template back into the article after ignoring my edit summaries as to why it was wrong? You may also wish to justify calling a 40 year old magazine a lame source using the tag you replaced it with. Should I email editor@bostonmagazine.com for their input of your opinion on them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. There are 4 reverts starting at 13:18, 1 August 2013 another at 00:44, 2 August 2013 and another at 11:41, 2 August 2013, ending with the 4th revert at 11:49, 2 August 2013. All of them continued to remove the same content, a tag.--Mark Miller Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 22:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 3RR applies to tags just as it does to changes in the text. It appears that User:Canoe1967 has reverted four times in 24 hours. This would normally call for a block. If the issue is so important that (in their mind) it justifies breaking 3RR it is unclear why they have not participated on the talk page. If Canoe1967 will agree to stay off the article for seven days, a sanction might be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will agree to that. I think the article needs to go to Arbcom before it can be cleaned up anyways as was mentioned at ANI by more than one of us. You may wish to look over the talk page to see why many may wish to avoid it. I didn't get the call on the article until it was at ANI. I discussed it there at length.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Canoe1967 is warned for edit warring. They have agreed not to edit the March Against Monsanto article for 7 days but may still participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I still think the GMO articles have issues but I will avoid trying to push it until Arbcom has made a decision.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)