Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive223

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Kww (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10 sep 2013 00:56
 * 2) 10 sep 2013 00:43‎
 * 3) 10 sep 2013 00:29‎
 * 4) 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Homeostasis07 has been edit warring against three different editors, apparently on the strange assumption that Nielsen, the worldwide standard in music sales statistics, is incompetent with regard to sales outside of the US.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And what is the problem? You just admitted yourself that neither Billboard nor Nielsen claim to count for Worldwide album sales. And, for the record, it's been two different users I've been disagreeing with in regards to Lady Gaga discography -- yourself, and someone with the username Gaga K$ Xtina. It's been the same argument for the past 8 months between random IP users (and Kww has been the contributor who has been archiving all the discussions about this subject). Anyone moderating over this debate should check the entire history before making any rash decisions. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is very simple, Homeostasis07: you reverted four times in 24 hours in opposition to three other editors, and don't seem to understand that edit-warring is a problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TWO other editors - yourself and Gaga K$ (Kesha) Xtina. IndianBio simply removed another source I included a long, long time ago - a source I included merely as a tactic to calm down all the IP's that swarmed this page. I may have reverted four times in the past 24 hours - but that was merely because you butted your head in. And look where we are now. Convenient, eh? :S Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment: the previous accusations that I have been "archiving all the discussions" is just bizarre. My last edit to the article was on Oct 19, 2011. My last edit to the talk page was on Oct 15, 2010.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Wiki hamze reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 5 September 20:40
 * 2) 6 September 12:38
 * 3) 9 September 10:34
 * 4) 9 September 10:51
 * 5) 9 September 12:03
 * 6) 9 September 13:18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was already advised by another admin, here another editor here and repeated this behavior today. Pass a Method  talk  15:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I am here to defend obvious accusations. FIRST I myself applied the changes not reverted back. it was also after a long discussion. it was also 2 times not 3 times revert. others were edit and adding some thing new. it is completely reasonable. If you refer to this talk under Abraham religions you will see there is no consensus about considering Bahai's faith beside other 3 big abrahamic religions. it is a obvious true fact. many guys presented their arguments there. absolutely there is no consensus about this in anywhere else. please respect the other people beliefs and observer what other people think. SECOND : you weren't active in related talk page yourself. please come there and present your arguments. THIRD : it seems that your behavior is going to violate 3-revert rule in side Abrahamic religion page. you can see in the talk page there is only on person agree with this idea and 5 person not.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting this user for not participating in talk and not offering any argument or reason for reverting other users changes. there is also many arguments against this user in related talk page by many other users. this user doesn't respect other user's opinion.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * for 2 days. Wiki hamze has not technically broken 3RR (consecutive edits by the same user count as 2 revert for the purposes of 3RR), so I'm not inclined to block. However, a read through the discussion on the talk page suggests to me that his attitude need to move from one of fighting a battle to one of collegial editing. I suggest that users continue the discussion on the page, and advise Wiki hamze to adopt a more collaborative approach to the discussion. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies reported by User:DD2K (Result: 24 hours & page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "clear OR/SYN, as cannot be verified by cited source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572392612 by Goethean (talk)I'm so sorry but your world view cant fix the fact your data doesn't support your retarded ass interpretation of cited refs"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 572394899 by DD2K (talk)consensus nononononononononono maybe you meant constupid"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 572395531 by DD2K (talk) I'm ready to accept how certain people blame human events for their nuttiness."


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


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


 * Comments:

Not only is the editor clearly edit warring, his comments(both in edit summaries and on the Talk page) are personal attacks. [I'll stay on the talk page unfortunately little girls outs wants war https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RealClearPolitics&diff=prev&oldid=572396263] [I'm so sorry but your world view cant fix the fact your data doesn't support your retarded ass interpretation of cited refs https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RealClearPolitics&diff=prev&oldid=572394631]. Plus 2 more. Dave Dial (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * for a specific violation of 3RR, and for 4 days to prevent further edit warring from other users. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:198.189.184.243 reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Perennial problem with this BLP of a controversial author. WP:FRINGE is to be applied, which I'm afraid isn't very good for Sheldrake. I believe the anonymous user is on about 5 reverts now and counting. Perennial complaints about this on the talk page. I'm out on 3 reverts, is on one. I'm going to bed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP broke 3RR, making four reverts in 24 hours starting at 22:14 on 9 September. They have never posted to the talk page. They've been blocked twice before. I'm leaving them a warning under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Antopandeth reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: BLP block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572264078 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572258303 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 572130990 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 571780597 by Salih (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Deepa Miriam. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Deepa Miriam. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor insists on inserting unsourced personal information. I've explained that they need a source, but all I've gotten so far is a YouTube video. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * for BLP violations. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:193.198.7.30 reported by User:109.227.24.180 (Result: 31 hours and one week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - section blanking
 * 2)  - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content (which was independently added between first and second revert)
 * 3)  - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content
 * 4)  - section blanking with removal of (probably unnoticed) off-section content

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

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

Comments:

Accusations by a minor group of extreme leftists (https://www.facebook.com/ndh.wikipedia?hc_location=stream) have no merit.--193.198.7.30 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

has also violated the 3 revert rule on the same article in following edits: --37.244.136.51 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * for 31 hours by User:Discospinster & Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Carelief1 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  and  count as the same revision, done in two edits
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Paatv reported by User:paul Barlow (Result: 1 week )
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: This user (who also edits as an IP and as User:WhiteQueen2013) has ignored all attempts to engage in discussion on the article talk page or his own user page, so this was not specifically raised on the article talk page, as it seemed pointless to do so. It was raised on his user talk page. User_talk:Paatv. Paul B (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing, edit warring, and socking. Additionally has been indef blocked as a ✅ sock.  Tiptoety  talk 20:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:MagicEagle67 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Fully protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572344123 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 572248470 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 572351524 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 572351701 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 572359640 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 572387940 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 572409550 by VanguardScot (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 572487614 by BadSynergy (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 572496344 by VanguardScot (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeat history of edit warring on this topic. Previously blocked 9 months ago.

Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is this? has VanguardScot not been reported for ALSO REVERTING? What a complete and utter farce.
 * . I've locked the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:LTblb reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Catalonia is a region of Spain. Catalan is no nationality; it wasn`t in the nineteenth century, and it is not today."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572535920 by Elizium23 (talk) WP:POV, WP:edit warring"
 * 3)  "Catalan is no nationality"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 571447558 by Elizium23 (talk) WP:POV WP:Edit warring"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user's talk page is suggestive of a history of Spain and Catalan related editing, with plenty of warnings. Jamesx12345 21:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Haberstr reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

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

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

(Page is under 1RR restriction)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Numerous at Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks

Comments:

Notified: VQuakr (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the examples, except for the first item below, I have not reverted anything.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * -- Reverted malicious edit which changed "veteran CIA analyst Ray McGovern" to "veteran CIA analyst and conspiracy theorist Ray McGovern." My edit summary stated: "Undid apparently malicious edit by Sopher99. Let's be nice, people!"Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * -- This was not a revert. My edits were not reverted, were non-controversial, and became the consensus. My edit shortly thereafter on the 'Western' and 'Eastern' semantic issue became the consensus.Haberstr (talk)


 * -- This was not a revert. I corrected POV bias. The huge preceding section, 'government attack', spent many paragraphs summarizing the circumstantial and alleged evidence for governmental responsibility for the alleged attack. In the tiny 'rebel attack' section I added the first and only RS expert summary of the circumstantial evidence pointing toward rebel responsibility for the attack.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This was not a revert. I added the RS French intelligence service's '281 or more' estimate of the number of victims. I don't understand why this was controversial.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This was not a revert. I moved the death estimates to the second sentence. My edit was reverted, and I have not 're-reverted'.Haberstr (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked Haberstr for a "normal" breach of WP:3RR. Although I could have blocked them under the sanctions, those sanctions are relatively new, so I chose not to. I did officially warn them. To make it clearer, in addition to the existing notice on the talk page, I will create an edit notice for the article. There's way too much battling going on in the article, and, strictly speaking, a warning is not required.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:PLNR reported by User:Podiaebba (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [N/A - removal of information]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:21 11 Sep
 * 2) 06:16 12 Sep
 * 3) 07:13 12 Sep

The first and second reverts remove information; the third undoes an unrelated change of ordering. The first and second relate to the discussion at Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks, where PLNR asserts the right to judge that this widely reported incident is not worth mentioning.

Comments:

Page is under 1RR due to being part of Syrian civil war. Note that probably a number of participants (including me, maybe) have violated the 1RR - it's very hard to stick to. But participants are mostly seeking compromise so I think it's fair to cut slack; PLNR is not. Podiaebba (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by PLNR:
 * The first two edits, have been made on separate days. They are part of BRD effort which have been discussed here, after Podiaebba initial edit.(who imo have been consistently adding material based on dubious sources, with nothing but accusations that everyone else are pushing western propaganda to support them) The discussion wasn't concluded, nor there was consensus for Podiaebba phrasing, all we got is a suggestion for alternative phrasing, however, @Podiaebba choose to go ahead and reinserted what he wanted, disregarding BRD process and thus Editing warring.
 * The third edit has nothing todo with first two, its in completely different section, where I done no other revert. Which I did due to my opinion that the death toll sentence flows better into the next/last sentence("If the death toll...). While the first two provide a good description of the subject i.e. what, where and who.

Overall there was no attempt at editing warring, in fact I started most of the threads on the talk page trying to discuss specific issues, in an effort to avoid the endless partisan edits by user to lead. With no new info, we should be able to reach a consensus over the discussion page and not in the edit summaries. Additionally, I would like to request @Podiaebba edit practices to be checked, this is not the first time he disregards discussion/consensus and does what he wants. (including this recent unrelated issue)--PLNR (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . Even before I read this report, I was scrutinizing PLNR's edits at the same time as I was evaluating the report above. I concluded that PLNR violated WP:3RR but decided not to block them. First, they had received no warning. Even Podiaebba did not warn them. Nor did Podiaebba notify them of this report, at least not on PLNR's talk page. Second, they are a relatively new account. Finally, they appear to have stopped reverting, certainly since this report was filed. Instead, I warned them of the sanctions in place for the future. More reverting will probably lead to a block. PLNR should also read more carefully the policy on edit warring, including the sections on 3RR and 1RR so they understand the definition of a revert. It doesn't matter whether you are obviously reverting another editor or if you are editing in the same area of the article. A revert is undoing (changing) another editor's content, which means making almost any changes to the article anywhere in the article. And that can include adding material if you are adding material that was previously removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:ChrisGualtieri (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Stable text pre-dispute text diff:
 * Original removal by TeenAngels on 09:07, 10 September 2013 :
 * Folken's alteration and reinsertion on 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ :
 * Folken's 2nd reinsertion on 08:09, 11 September 2013:
 * Folken's 3rd reinsertion on 13:32, 11 September 2013
 * My third revert under BLP grounds complete with policy link on 18:54, 11 September 2013:
 * Folken's 4th reinsertion on 11:59, 12 September 2013

This is not a 3RR breach, it is for continuing to edit war a contentious insertion and likely BLP violation during a discussion at BLPN. The original removal by TeenAngels was to remove a borderline to rather inaccurate reading of an interview by Hideaki Anno. TeenAngels gave the reason as it did not reflect the cultural impact and replacing/removing the inaccuracy he found. At 13:52, before Folken's alteration and reinsertion, I stated that while I did not have the Unofficial Guide to Neon Genesis Evangelion the text was not relevant and it was inaccurate and that I was already aware of Anno's comments, agreeing with the removal. A debate continues about it, Folken argues that Anno's response to fans is relevant and does not need to be NPOV. I disagree saying it is not relevant, neutral or accurate - noting it was out of context. Folken finds a brief editorial in Protoculture 41, (linked off of Gwern's English translation of the full text of the interview), and asserts it as fine before inserting. After some back and forth I give the full reason complete with the BLP matter and the inaccuracy in PA41 as it was written. After this post Folken reinserts, for the 3rd time, the text and I take it to BLPN. In the process of BLPN I assert WP:BLPREMOVE and point out that the original source is what must be used, and not this inaccurate third party account in the editorial which was paraphrased after being translated by a friend. Folken de Fanel reinserted it again and that is why I brought it here.

Lastly, this seems to be a continuation of the problems which lead to Folken's RFC/U. While I was not a party to that RFC/U or had contact with Folken, the behavior is the same. I have dozens of interviews with Hideaki Anno I can source and cite with ease, but I do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996. The content, by any measure including the extant translations found online, show that Folken's text is inaccurate and incorrect. For example the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to someone saying he was dead, not a response to fan's criticism. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bad faith report. That I modified my edits to incorporate other users' feedback (including ChrisGualtieri's) does not count as "revert warring" or whatever. Anyone can see the substancial differences between my first and last edits and I did not breach 3RR. My edit from 21:11, 10 September 2013‎ is a completely different text and source that TeenAngels's original and thus should not even be counted as a revert. I note, however, that ChrisGaltieri has reached the 3 reverts limit within 24 hours(02:01, 11 September 2013‎, 13:22, 11 September 2013, and 18:54, 11 September 2013‎). He tries to argue that his 3rd revert would somehow be allowed under WP:BLPREMOVE, but the policy states that "although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption". ChrisGualtieri opened a thread at the BLP noticeboard, but then he was told by two users that it wasn't a matter of BLP, but right after that he decided to revert anyway invoking BLPREMOVE. Considering he did not have consensus at BLPN, this 3rd revert was not only borderline 3RR, but borderline WP:DISRUPTIVE as he was specifically told wasn't a matter of BLP or libel justifying immediate revert.
 * I'll end on the fact that during this dispute, ChrisGualtieri received a comment on his talkpage from an uninvolved editor, who noted his tendency to get involved in disputes, with at least 3 different users recently, and which led to several reports at WP:ANI (here and here). I can only plead good faith for my edits when I tried to change and adapt my content as much as possible to ChrisGualtieri's remarks rather than purely reverting, but his 3rd self-proclaimed BLP revert shows was determined to have his own way, to the detriment of compromise and good-faith.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To break 3RR you need 4 reverts in 24 hours. And both I and TeenAngel have said the information was inaccurate even prior to your removal; and unlike TeenAngel - I have the source information and can attest that your edit is not accurate. As long as it is under discussion (especially at BLPN where it should be) the content is to remain out of the page and I have confirmed that your edit is inaccurate and I have provided the citation, but you reinserted the text anyways. Also refrain from your personal attacks; BLP is very serious and misusing sources to misquote Anno is a major concern for me. This is libelous and unlike the Akai's actual gaff, it is not supported by the original document. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have the source information, you have an unreliable fan-translation. I have a reliable publication. My edit is accurate. There is no misquote anywhere. This isn't a BLP matter, as you have been told by two different persons at BLPN and you had no justification to revert. My last edit states: "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"", which is accurate. How you can interpret that as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism" (per your report) is beyond me. There is nothing libelous, and implying that I could be libelling is a personal attack.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I have the source information. Secondly, let a volunteer deal with this. Folken's paraphrasing of the inaccurate editorial should not replace the original, even if the text is somehow relevant on that page. Message me on my talk page if requiring more details in the content matter, but I came here over Folken's edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You said in your report that you "do not have the original scan from Newtype in June 1996". I'm willing to let a volunteer deal with this, but not until I get to tell my view of the story. There is nothing inaccurate as the editorial says the same thing as your fan translation. I still have no answer as to how you interpret my edit "he compared offensive and anonymous online messages to "graffiti in a public toilet"" as meaning "the "toilet graffiti" comment was in response to fan's criticism". And I came here to report your own revert warring.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)}}

I note that ChrisGualtieri has just been warned by yet another user against "revert(ing) constructive editing without discussion" in a separate discussion. I think this can be relevant to this case.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The advice from Nick on RSN is to just remove the offending section. This is probably for the best and since no one has broken 3RR this should probably just stop. This way the dubious translation (either side) is moot and we can remove the irrelevant material or use one of the other sources instead. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . I'm not convinced that Folken did not breach WP:3RR, but I'm happy to close this and permit the content/policy dispute to continue in the other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Ann2013usa reported by User:Yintan (Result: Already blocked for 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572623802 by DoctorJoeE (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572625363 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 572625752 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 572625996 by Kirachinmoku (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 572626367 by Triplestop (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 572627335 by Dawn Bard (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 572627945 by Dawn Bard (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Note that user has already been blocked for 48 hours by Singularity42. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Singularity42 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Report filed and block issued within a minute of eachother. Great minds think alike .  Yinta n  14:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:188.96.192.14 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), including a racist personal attack against Sjö (apparently the attack was left unfinished, but I suppose the IP wanted to say that Sjö should go edit his "own" Wikipedia)
 * 2)
 * 3), including a racist personal attack against me (suggesting that I am not fit to edit this Wikipedia due to being "Russian or some other Slav"
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was never any indication that this would be properly discussed on the talk page. There is simply nothing to discuss; the IP claims that the world's best known empress (perhaps overshadowed only by Catherine the Great and Victoria) was never an empress. When I pointed out that, by her or his logic, the last 14 emperors were also not emperors, all discussion about her status ceased (though not the removal of her title) and personal attacks followed. Surtsicna (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected three days by another admin. The IP's edits make little sense. Let me know if he starts up anywhere else. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Spieden reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: NLT block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User refuses to discuss reverts, has now made legal threats. "Now... who are you? Come out of the shadows.  Or shut the fuck up. I have now engaged my attorneys to solve this problem.  You will need to step forward an identify yourself.  No more hiding behind your mouse." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that this user appears to be the subject of the biographical article in question. I am attempting to engage him to understand his objections to the material, but at first glance it appears to be well-sourced and not immediately a violation of any biographical policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The user has responded to my request to explain any issues he has with the article with another legal threat. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * for making legal threats. I've also posted a note on his talk page with advice. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Moonstarturk reported by 95.141.31.4 (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Please see Diffs and comment

Diffs of the user's reverts: Please note that the links below are not for 3RR violation but for the reasons explained in comments
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Links of North cyprus below the comments section. Main concerns are POV pusihing and edit warring

Comments: User is on a campaign of reversing the order of multiple North Cyprus places names (Changed to Turkish first and then Greek) ignoring any conventions that could exist (In most places the Greek name is first) and also did not provide an adequate explanation. Most of these kind of articles have titles in Greek.Informed the user that the common name is therefore the Greek one and should hence be first but the user ignored me, , and never used the talkpage before/after reverts. In addition edit warred on changing the map of North Cyprus in North Cyprus showing only the North. (Diffs below) and also used the talkpage of User:Lfdder to intimidate him/her .I believe that this user is here for POV pushing and edit warring.
 * Note: After report submission I got a sarcastic message containing a smily icon that I have been reported too . I think it is obvious that the user is not here for serious editing.


 * Diffs of North Cyprus edit War
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * Also 3RR violation since 4th revert in less than 24h
 * Now trying to intimidate an administrator threatening with a formal complaint to Wikipedia
 * Still changing names after this report. I reverted most of the names back as they were before and he/she reverted all of them ,, ,
 * Now posting unsubstantial messages on talkpage . Story continues and now I was called a fool. Action needed please 95.141.31.4 (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * indef by User:Bishonen. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:Kookoo Star (Result: Article fully protected; Stiarts erid warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (made after 4th revert but before 5th)

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

Edit warring, 3RR, and Incivility. There has been ongoing disruption caused by this editor over the past couple of months, though yesterday they breached 3RR and have made the same revert again today despite warnings. The main issue surrounds the section for the plot of the film which was, until a couple of months ago, too long and contained too much irrelevant detail, as per WP:FILMPLOT. After it was trimmed down to the maximum length of 700 words by the efforts of various editors, Stiarts erid proceeded to engage in edit warring with the other users to reinsert certain details back into the plot summary. These details were deemed by several users to be irrelevant to the plot, and only served to take the summary back over the maxmimum word limit. Discussions and considerable attempts to explain Wikipedia policies to Stiarts erid were made on the article talk page and Stiarts erid's own talk page by several users, but these were met with incivility by Stiarts erid who referred to other editors as "idiots", "saddo", "pathetic", "dull witted sod" and "Hitler" and that Wikipedia policies were "idiotic". By the end of July, the matter appeared to be resolved after various editors informed Stiarts erid of his problematic behaviour, and he eventually apologised for the incivility and promised no more edit warring, but he also deleted all of his parts of the conversation on the article talk page on 30 July 2013. However, within a couple of weeks the problem resurfaced after two single purpose sockpuppet accounts began making disruptive edits to the article (Senotsgnillor and Antifeminist2), which led to Stiarts erid then continuing with his previous behaviour of trying to reinsert their preferred version of the plot summary. On 11 Aug 2013, Stiarts erid attempted to delete all other users comments about the matter on the article talk page (complete with yet another insult in the edit summary calling other users "childish"), but this was reverted by User:Millahnna who correctly stated the talk page conversation should remain on the page. Stiarts erid then proceeded to delete the talk page discussion several more times, , , stating that Millahnna was "not part of the conversation" and that he was going to keep removing them regardless. Millahnna placed warnings on Stiart erid's talk page on 12 August and two more on 21 August. This is in addition to a previous warning Stiarts erid had from another editor about disruptive editing on this same article only a couple of weeks earlier. By the end of August, Stiarts erid's edit warring tendencies has resumed in full. I myself left a warning on his talk page today, which was met with more incivility and contempt. Despite this, Stiarts erid then continued to make another revert on the article in question, despite already breaking the 3RR rule yesterday. Stiarts erid flatly refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policies, refuses to listen to other editors, refuses to gain consensus, and refuses to cease their incivility towards other editors and Wikipedia in general. Multiple warnings have had absolutely no effect and he has made it clear that he has no intention of ceasing this kind of behaviour until he gets his way. Even his edit summaries are incivil, often being rude towards other users, and one edit summary he made yesterday stated "Until you lot take notice of what I want this will continue GOT THAT?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?". Today, he left a message on the article talk page saying "I have just one thing to say to all those people who got in my way, and I don't care if I get blocked for this. FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The offensive comment was removed by another user only to be reverted back by Stiarts erid a few minutes later. I believe Stiarts erid's account should therefore be blocked. Kookoo Star (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Engaged in personal attack, copied directly from my talk page:
 * Well it seems your group of bully editors are being as stubborn as you and won't let me contribute to the page even after saying both edits can stay or that my edit is allowed but modified to another editors interpretation so Thank you so bloody much.

He even called me a bully and an illiterate, and quoting his words "and truth hurts does it," proves that he deliberately sending offensive messages. I admits that I have learning disability, but that does not give him a right to call me illiterate.NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually let me put my point across before we all take sides. Yes it was wrong of me to make comments that caused offense but you must realise it was heat of the moment type things that most people would brush off quickly. I made several attempts for editors to discuss the matter with me but they refused so they could have their own way without taking notice of me. Millahnna actually was able to calm me down and made me see her point of view just by having a reasonable disscussion with me more than the other lot. Also whether one editor likes it or not his grammar is in fact partially illiterate that's a fact not insult, and without being harsh is it really wise to edit on here if you have that disability? None of the editors would listen to my point of view only their own and have bullied me to get their own way. I disagree with some of wikipedias policies but none of them say one editore has over riding say on things which some of these people think they have. I was quite happy for both mine and other edits to be included or for mine to be included but worded differently. Actually all the editors did was call me child ish and that I was wrong to edit because to them it was irrelevant. That word irrelevant is a matter of opinion no one can say it is irrelevant you can say in your opinion it is irrelevant. They will not leave me alone either please tell them to go away and not to talk to me please it is driving me mad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Also the quotations above other editors have used or not in full and taken out of context to make me sound worse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your abusive attitude towards other Wikipedians has been going on for months now which proves this is not a "heat of the moment" issue as you claim, this is clearly your normal behaviour. It is not acceptable under any circumstances to hurl abuse at other editors, and trying to delete the evidence of your abusive attitude will not work either. And as for your claim that you have not been listened to, I can see from the edit history of the article's talk page not to mention your own talk page and those of other editors, that several people have gone to great lengths to explain Wikipedia's policies to you and why your edits are inappropriate. But you have ignored all of this purely because you want to have your own way. People have tried to engage with you but you simply refuse to listen. You agreed to stop being abusive and edit warring at the end of July, only to resume the same behaviour a couple of weeks later. Clearly you thought there would be no consequences for your actions. If you cannot abide by Wikipedia's policies then you have no business editing it. Kookoo Star (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Even when I edits some Back to the Future film articles, some editor reverted some of my changes and I would respect that, and I would not use profanity and name calling.  Clearly, Stiarts erid has no respect of others and wants things his own ways.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No heat of the moment as I called them a name only about twice after the editor had wound me up. And again this is falling on deaf ears. But the fact one editor was able to calm me and see her view proves that it was handeled very badly by the other editors, if she could get me to see her point why couldn't the others. She is now trying to help me unlike the others which were just in it for themselves. You still miss the point I was willing for BOTH edits to be included OR my edit worderd DIFFERENTLY so it would flow better, this suggestion was ignored. I never promised to stop anything I said I was bored odf fighting and I had put it behind me which the other editor didn't believe and when I tried putting my point across again, I was told I was doing it again without being given a chance. If you can't handle a minor insult then you can't handle much most people could easily brush it off. Some editors have persistently wound me up and then wonder why I retaliate after giving them chances to discuss it. And saying youre wrong blah blah is not trying to reason it's just being biggoted in my opinion without giving it as much as a chance. But what ever I put on here is wrong so what's the point? i said to one editor on here about reaching a comprimise on their talk page but have refused to reply and they call me childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Also I noticed that I can admit I did things wrong but the other editors on here can not seem to admit to doing anything wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly did everyone do to you? We did not use name calling and profanity, you did!!!!!!!!  Trying to undo your message for getting rid of the evidences of your offense on our talk pages did not help either, because we can restore them, as I already did.  --NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not taking on board my contribution. Why exactly did you ignore my suggestion of letting both mine and your v=contributions stay or editing mine in a way it would be better then? Go ahead I have nothing to hide that I don't want people to see only that it makes you look even more unreasonable of course and winding me up but have fun with that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can anyone get a sense of this editor's erratic behavior from this message? I think he just prove my point: want things his own ways without considering of others.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question as to why you wouldn't consider my suggestion of both edits being allowed or mine just being worded differently??
 * It is not the job of other Wikipedians to "calm you down". You should behave in a civilised manner at all times. You obviously can't do that. And your edits to the article were considered by several editors but were deemed inappropriate by each of them. Attempts were made to show you why, highlighting the relevant policies and guidelines that we must operate in. But this wasn't good enough for you, and so you just continued with your rampage stating that the rules were "idiotic" and that nobody was going to stop you. Well think again. Kookoo Star (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is not our responsibility to "calm [him] down."  We tried to explain the rule, but obviously failed.  He should've read the Wikipedia's rules and regulations, including No personal attacks.  He made personal attacks on ME, by calling me a bully and an illiterate!!!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah um my question is still not answered, WHY COULDN'T BOTH MINE AND THE OTHER EDITORS CONTRIBUTIONS BE LEFT OR MINE JUST ALTERED SLIGHTLY? like I said everything I do is wrong on here so what's the point in even trying to talk to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiarts erid (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your question has been answered, several times on the various talk pages, but because you don't like the answer, you persist in disruptive and abusive behaviour. You were continually adding incorrect and irrelevant details to the article and deliberately taking the plot summary section over the maximum word count, flatly refusing to follow the guidelines or the consensus made by other editors. There is no justification for your actions. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Note to administrators: Yet more incivility. The reported user has just written "PISS OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!" on my talk page. Kookoo Star (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and call me insane, saying "I do not leave him alone" yet he's following my posting like glue.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . The article has been fully protected by I have warned Stiarts erid about the personal attacks. I can't believe this battle is over a film plot.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And that's it? He's been edit warring for months, broken 3RR, and continued to be abusive even after this report was filed. The abusive language alone (including writing "fuck off" on the article talk page and "piss off" on my talk page) should be enough to have his account blocked, let alone the rest. Furthermore, the article was currently protected after he reverted yet again to his preferred edits which is against consensus, so all you have done is reward him for his behaviour. Additionally, any report of edit warring can be trivialised based on the content of the article, but this report was filed because of the blatant and ongoing behaviour of a highly disruptive and abusive editor. You are about the sixth editor to give him a warning about his conduct. Do you honestly think he takes such warnings seriously? Kookoo Star (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just block him. He's been acting like he owns Wikipedia, and we had to bow down his superior wisdom.  With his incivility, I doubt anyone like him outside the Internet. Not to mention, he's following my posts like a stalker!!!!!!!!!!!--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you all should stop bickering like school children. And, NeoBatfreak, you should remove the exclamation point from your keyboard.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read Talk Page comments from User Talk Pages as well as the one for The Fog (and the page's Edit History) and I think it's a question of Stiarts erid AND NeoBatfreak edit warring. Although it was wrong for Stiarts erid to delete any Talk Page content both Editors have behaved poorly toward each other, throwing insults and accusations that just continue to escalate.
 * I think NeoBatfreak has been working on this article page longer and might be protective over it. I looked at the edit Stiarts erid wanted to make and it was not even a full sentence. If it did push the plot word summary over 700 words, it couldn't have been more than 710 words. I think Stiarts erid handled the situation badly (especially refusing to talk about the substance of the change on the article Talk Page) but it really was a minor edit, not vandalism. The proposed edit was similar to ones that happen thousands of times a day on Wikipedia and it's unfortunate that this simple edit escalated to civil war between two users.
 * I don't understand the significance of why this plot summary is so important to the Editors and I think they have just become entrenched in their positions where one Editor is the winner and the other is the loser. It's unfortunate that neither party could just walk away and that, because of frustration, this dispute brought out the worst in those involved. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He tried to add irrelevant name like "Brandi" on the character Jennider played by Meghan Heffern repeatedly. Just because the other character Spooner made an identity mistake, does it has to be included?  Kookoo Star and other users are also frustrated by Stiarts erid's actions and behaviors.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was talking about two phrases Stiarts erid wanted to add to the plot summary. And when I see that User:Kookoo Star hadn't edited since April and then jumped right into the middle of the dispute on The Fog a few days ago, I wonder what the connection is between you two.
 * Again, I'm not defending the way any Editor reacted in this messy dispute. It's just wrong to make it seem like this was all Stiarts erid's problem. This is not a black/white situation. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no connections with User:Kookoo Star, instead we both find Stiarts erid irritating and abusive, using profanity and all.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I have no connection with Neobatfreak, nor to my knowledge do any of the many other editors who disagreed with Stiarts erid's behaviour in this entire matter. To be quite honest Liz, I resent the suggestion. You have only to look at Stiarts erid's talk page and the article talk page (including all the edits he removed) to see the volume of warnings about his conduct. To me, this issue is solely about making the article a decent article, not about winners and losers. In recent months, various editors have attempted to make it a decent article. The wording was poor, the cast list was inaccurate, and the plot summary was too long and far too cluttered with irrelevant details that are not plot points. Looking at the edit history, considerable work has gone into addressing these problems, especially paring down the plot summary so that it fell to exactly 700 words while keeping it concise. But Stiarts erid refused to accept this, and flatly refused to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and began edit warring, reverting the work of other editors for no good reason. When they were pointed out to him, he called Wikipedia's rules and guidelines "idiotic" and made it clear he had no intention of following them. In August, two single purpose accounts were created to either vandalise the article or assist Stiarts erid in his edit warring. It's hard not to notice that "Stairts erid" is "Dire Straits" written backwards, and "Senotsgnillor" is "Rolling Stones" backwards. Coincidence? Most importantly, I would like to point out that this report was not made because of a content dispute (there are different noticeboards for that), it was made because of his deliberately disruptive and abusive behaviour. We should be concentrating solely on that, not getting sidetracked into debating whether or not a film's plot summary means the end of civilisation as we know it. As well as his personal attacks on other editors, it is frankly outrageous that he has been allowed to write "piss off" and "fuck off" on talk pages and get away with it. And as for suggesting that Stiarts erid was not the only one at fault here, I would like to point out to you that neither myself, Neobatfreak, or any of the other editors involved in the matter have broken 3RR or used abusive language. Kookoo Star (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that he called me a bully, an illiterate, and used profanity. He rudely said "get over it" without even apologize his behavior.  Also, he comment that if someone have an disability, should he be allow to be on Wikipedia?  I have admitted that I have a learning disability, which results my grammar issues, but that does not give him a right to discriminate other people.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:76.164.103.108 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:116.68.72.34 reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: Blocked and protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572877543 by Jamesx12345 (talk)the soure says The movie got excellent reports"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572877313 by Jamesx12345 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572877543 by Jamesx12345 (talk)the soure says The movie got excellent reports"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572877313 by Jamesx12345 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572877543 by Jamesx12345 (talk)the soure says The movie got excellent reports"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572877313 by Jamesx12345 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. Daivathinte Swantham Cleetus (HG)"


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


 * Comments:

Adding biased information. I've reached my revert limit, so they have the current edit atm. Jamesx12345 12:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked the IP and User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody for 72 hours. I've semi-protected the article for a week. I believe the IP address is being used by Nobody. There is also an extended pattern of disuption by Nobody across many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:89.248.18.62 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Five additions, four today, of vague allegations of impropriety about the subject of a BLP. No details or sources. Now posting to user talk pages. Also vague mentions of "getting the police involved" that may be WP:NLT.

I have no idea what this is about and I don't care. But uncited crazytalk has no place on BLPs, no matter how many times they post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Six additions, five today. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Zzuuzz. I've semiprotected the article for a month as a precaution. The IP's protestations are mystifying because there is no hint of anything defamatory in the article. There is nothing for us to remove. EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Gaga690 reported by User:Rybec (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this is not especially pertinent since edits consist of removing an entire section. A version before the section was added is here.

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Note: the third warning is from today and there hasn't been a section deletion after it.

The material in the section has been discussed at Talk:Applause_(song). There doesn't appear to be a consensus to remove it entirely. Neither I nor Gaga690 participated in the discussion. My one reversion is here.

Comments: There were similar edits by SilverKeith and Saadkhan04.

&mdash; rybec   20:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Encourage Gaga690 to start discussing her/his reversions on the talk page before undertaking them. Leave a note to that effect on their talk page. In case, after the note, the editor again undertakes a unilateral blanking of the section/material without discussions, come back, the editor will be blocked. Wifione  Message 20:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

User:71.167.144.190 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Both users warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

User talk:71.167.144.190 is engaged in edit warring and in threatening me. This apparent newby IP editor left me a message calling my edits "destructive" and threatening to get me blocked. He/she left another message indicating that there is a discussion regarding myself at ANI but I have found no such discussion, and the IP vandal (as I call him/her)'s contribution history does not indicate any activity on any pages other than the Letitia James page and my talk page unless he/she is inappropriately using other IPs or usernames. I stand by my edits (see ) and hope an experienced editor will review them, if necessary.

This IP editor has also violated 3RR despite my pointing out a warning on his/her talkpage. I have no agenda regarding Letitia James and have notified the IP editor of this notice (see, ). Quis separabit? 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What a total crock. Here he is threatening me. And you can see here and here that he absolutely has an agenda. These are telling Freudian slips here and here. He's been blocked in the past whereas I have no such record. Anyone that's moronic enough to claim objectivity (as above) while so zealously trying a new format for Wikipedia introducing an as-of-yet unelected successor into a politician's intro and erasing record of her political work while having years of experience on Wikipedia is a liar and deserves a good ban for a week. A month would be even better. Thanks!--71.167.144.190 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For an apparent newby editor, he/she is throwing around blocking threats mighty suspiciously. There is no POV here nor here, merely, respectively, very minor MOS differences, and public info added. I have no interest in James, while I do admit there are topics I have interest in. After eight years I think I have learned how to avoid committing intentional POV, and spend more of my time cleaning up others' POV, as well as avoiding areas I cannot edit dispassionately. Quis separabit?  17:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like both sides are edit warring and being threatening. The warning left by Rms that includes "If you ever threaten me again I will have your IP blocked at ANI from editing Wikipedia. When you have been editing for 8 years (as I have been) then I'll cut you some slack." is clearly entirely inappropriate. You don't have that kind of power, and your threat is not part of WP:DR. An editor of 8 years should know better. Both of you should stop edit warring and go to the talk page. (Yes, IP, you at least made it there after this report was filed. An improvement, but it shouldn't have gotten this far.) Rms, if you have socking concerns, please be very specific or stop throwing shit at the wall hoping it will stick. They might not be new...but that doesn't mean that edits coming from this IP today are problematic. --Onorem (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Onorem: with all due respect, my message to this IP editor was made after I read the following comment which he/she left on my talkpage. And what I meant was that I was going to report it at ANI if he/she continued to threaten or started harrassing me. How would you have handled it? Quis separabit?  18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)"Your edits are destructive POV-based ones. And please stop trying to shoehorn Laurie Cumbo in there before she's even in or I will get you blocked. --71.167.144.190 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)"
 * Also I don't quite understand what the first part of "They might not be new" ... but that doesn't mean that edits coming from this IP today are problematic means. Thanks, Quis separabit?  18:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Onorem, how come you made no mention of civility regarding the following IP comment on this very page, to wit: "Anyone that's moronic enough to claim objectivity (as above) while so zealously trying a new format for Wikipedia introducing an as-of-yet unelected successor into a politician's intro and erasing record of her political work while having years of experience on Wikipedia is a liar and deserves a good ban for a week. A month would be even better."?? Quis separabit?  18:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How would I handle their empty threat? I would simply call them on it. I would say 'good luck with getting me blocked' over a content dispute. The second part is easy. It means we don't require people to use an account and nothing prevents an IP from changing. It doesn't matter if they are new or not unless you have some reason to think that they are being evasive in their use of changing IPs. As far as the civility goes...I didn't notice it. That's why I made no mention of it. --Onorem (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, didn't notice it. Quis separabit?  18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * (Why so much indentation? NVM) No. I didn't notice it. I saw they'd replied, but was looking more at the history of the article and interaction away from this page when I was initially replying. What difference does it make? Does their lack of civility here have anything at all to do with what happened before this topic showed up on this page? --Onorem (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . @Rms, if you're going to file a report here, at least do it right. I see an edit war between you and the IP and a lot of sniping at each other. Any breach of WP:3RR by both of you is relatively technical, but you're both disrupting the article. From a BLP content standpoint, @Rms, you're doing worse as you're adding rather important material to the article, including your opinion, with no source to back it up. I think you should both back off editing the article. Looks like another editor has cleaned up your material in the body (the infobox is still unsourced).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to backing off for a while, as long as the IP does the same. I readded the Laurie Cumbo info with an impeccable source/reflink to back it up (see ), so I am good. Quis separabit?  18:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't some sort of negotiable deal. You continue editing the article, and you risk being blocked, regardless of what the IP does. As it happens, at least for the moment, the IP has backed off. You're the one who hasn't. I'm not going to block you for re-adding the Cumbo material (awkwardly worded, but no matter), but you really should have let someone else do it, and you're pushing the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. I left a reply on your talk page before reading this last message here. Yours, Quis separabit?  19:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Onorem and Bbb23, thank you for arguing with RMS on his edits to Letitia James while I took some time to cool off. Here, here, and here you will see unfortunately that he violated 3RR and pushed the same POV since engaging with you. Since he's been blocked before and claims 8 years of editing experience, perhaps a month would be good this time? He writes that he "gets it" (just above) before doing this which means at this point, he can't help himself, so we might have to help him. Thank you;)--100.2.12.154 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the last edits by Rms, we had a dialogue on my talk page because it wasn't clear what the rules were for Rms going forward. At that point, I said and Rms agreed that they would not edit the article for five days. They have not violated that agreement. After that, the IP and I had a conversation, and I told the IP the same thing, that they should not edit the article for 5 days. I'm now closing this as warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kcarlson1999 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

I don't know where this person is obtaining that Prism is captalized other than the cover album, but neither reference use allcaps. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * by --Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

User:61.195.237.17 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: blocked--but not for edit warring)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes ‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Previously blocked editor, every edit made to date has been reverted. Takes no notice of requests to stop edit warring ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   00:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say you all are lucky--especially, who is just as guilty as the IP. The luck here is that the previous block was for block evasion, and the next block is for the same, with the indefinite extended to as a new and improved version of . But this is, let me make this clear, not really a block for edit warring, because you don't seem to realize that your partner was just as guilty: edit warring is edit warring even if you're right, and this was a simple content dispute. Will you please think about this next time? Drmies (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I admit that I could have taken it to the talkpage my edits did not break 3RR with the IP though as 3RR stops with the 3rd revert in 24 hours. After the warring the discussion was taken to the talkpage, in retrospect though I should have taken it to the talkpage sooner. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's something, but please look at the top of this noticeboard. It does not say "3RR noticeboard"; it says "Edit warring", and that's not bound by the (rather silly) requirement of "within 24 hours". That technicality should never save someone from a block for edit warring. Yes, talk page please, then report it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Veronica19 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: WP:BLP block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572837334 by Euryalus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572864295 by Elekhh (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 573101802 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision which removed sourced information"
 * 6)  "Removed subjective word "progressive" (one person's view of progress can be entirely different to another's) and provided more information about what Emily's List stands for. Simply saying it supports women is deceptive")
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573101802 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision which removed sourced information"
 * 4)  "Removed subjective word "progressive" (one person's view of progress can be entirely different to another's) and provided more information about what Emily's List stands for. Simply saying it supports women is deceptive")

,. Previously warned over this material as well: (included an invitation to participate in a discussion on the talk page) and )
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Thread at Talk:Tanya Plibersek
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has been asked a few times to participate in the talk page discussion &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  03:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The two editors (Euryalus and I) who have discussed this material on the article's talk page agree that it is POV. The most recent edit warring by Veronica19 is also blatantly POV pushing around Plibersek's husband - while he was convicted for drug dealing in his youth, he's since held a number of very senior public service positions yet this was excluded (it's since been added by an IP account). As such, this appears to be a POV-pushing only account. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked this editor for an indefinite period after seeing these changes to the Penny Wong article. As this is a BLP violation-only account, the block has been made under the provision for "involved" admins to respond to clear BLP violations at WP:BLPREMOVE. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Antopandeth reported by User:FreeRangeFrog (Result: blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573092037 by EuroCarGT (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 573084934 by EuroCarGT (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 572966171 by Tbhotch (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572966171 by Tbhotch (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Already blocked for 3RR before, went back to it as soon as it expired. No amount of explanations will help here, apparently. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Antopandeth is possibly the husband of the article subject. He adds the assertion to the article and supplies Youtube videos as confirmation. However we still have no reliable source for this change in a BLP article, and it looks like he is going to revert forever, since he didn't miss a beat after the previous block. My suggestion is an indefinite block until he takes on board the point that we need a WP:RS. If this is a famous singer, her marriage should have been covered by at least one reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * per Ed Johnston for continuous violation of our BLP regulations and repeated edit warring. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Urməvi reported by User:Proudbolsahye (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and with edit-summaries  and

Comments:

He/she repeatedly calls the edit-warring information "Armenian vandalism" and refuses to cooperate. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:200.164.223.179 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:76.164.103.108 reported by User:Lesion (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Medical uses */"
 * 2)  "/* Medical uses */"
 * 3)  "/* Medical uses */"
 * 1)  "/* Medical uses */"
 * 2)  "/* Medical uses */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* edit war */ ce"
 * 2)   "/* edit war */ ce"


 * Comments:

Repeated warnings, temporary block and now still edit warring+ Not willing to discuss on talk page of article. Lesion ( talk ) 16:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Please also look through this IP editors' User Talk history, including my comment to them that they overwrote. This editor seems to have stated that they are uninterested and/or unwilling to work within Wikipedia's rules toward its stated goals, and may be a WP:NOTHERE problem. 17:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the users second go round. There does not seem to be any indication that he will begin using refs rather than personal experience. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:62.168.13.98 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 3 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "helpful substitutions"
 * 2)  "Yopie, the lover of geographical names, excluding Czechia :-) The geographical name of the Czech Republic is prohibited by Yopie! Yopie is a king of logic."
 * 3)  "Vandalism of Yopie"
 * 4)  "Vandalism!"
 * 5)  "You are (unintentionally?) vandal! (see Beograd)"
 * 1)  "Yopie, the lover of geographical names, excluding Czechia :-) The geographical name of the Czech Republic is prohibited by Yopie! Yopie is a king of logic."
 * 2)  "Vandalism of Yopie"
 * 3)  "Vandalism!"
 * 4)  "You are (unintentionally?) vandal! (see Beograd)"
 * 1)  "You are (unintentionally?) vandal! (see Beograd)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Tried on his talk page, without any substantial result.


 * Comments:


 * Warned before
 * Personal attacks to other editors
 * Edit warring in other article - Prague, Yopie (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

User:No such user reported by User:Iadrian yu (Result: No action taken for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  - I think this is 4th revert in 24 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The problem is about additional pushpin map of Vojvodina. At Novi Sad article, since it is the Capital of the province I believe it should be presented on the province map too. The map was added on March 2, and after 1 month it was contested by User:No such user. We asked for a third opinion but without a solution. I asked User:No such user several times to provide valid reason why should we delete this map but no success. Lately, this user has engaged in a slow edit war, and today he violated the WP:3RR. Adrian (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure about revert count, though it's plausibly fourth. I plead guilty to the edit warring, though the behavior of my opponent is no better whatsoever, and he apparently plans to gain upper hand by reverting just enough times to get his way; I do not plan to further engage in the edit war, but the issue remains unsolved. I also acknowledge that it's rather WP:LAME, but I can't help but notice that no amount of rational argument (amply provided on the talk page by myself) can cause Adrian to even give a thought about the issue. No such user (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is a case of WP:LAME, please bare in mind that the article was fine until this dispute was created. Adrian (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We seem to have different notions when the dispute was created. No such user (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a heck of a lot of reverts you've both done, and I can see no way to justify blocking only one of you when both of you are clearly edit warring. So it comes to me blocking both or neither of you, and I'd really prefer the latter, leaving both of your block logs untouched at least for the past three years. I suppose I could full protect, but I really don't see why anyone else should be locked out of the article for your sakes. So is there any chance I could get you two to just decide not to revert anymore? I would really advise getting some more eyes on the article. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but No such user violated the 3RR. For me the current version of the article is unacceptable. It is a simple pushpin map, don`t see why is this such a problem. Until this user appeared, the map did`t bothered nobody. However I would accept a solution provided by an uninvolved party, whatever the solution might be. Adrian (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * both users. Why don't you try out dispute resolution (again)? If there's another revert war (and even if it doesn't reach 3RR, you both may be blocked. So please continue discussing on the talk page and constructively contributing to the article. Wifione  Message 17:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the point? The current version of the article is according to No Such User. So I have to revert ? And get blocked? What about the violation of the 3RR ? One user want a map to be included, one doesn`t. How to solve this?Adrian (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adrian, both of you have already violated 3RR. Heimstern has been quite lenient in allowing you both a chance for further discussions. Have you gone through dispute resolution appropriately? Please follow the steps listed out there and kindly do note that there is a high possibility of either of you getting block if another revert war ensues. Thanks. Wifione  Message 19:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:79.22.0.23 reported by User:Insulam Simia (Result: 31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
 * 2)  "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
 * 3)  "here you write the truth, invented things, and the sources do not count the personal opinions"
 * 4)  "this is not the common name, but a made-up name, it is a not a railway station, read the sources"
 * 5)  "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
 * 6)  "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
 * 7)  "is its official name, read the source: http://www.eavcampania.it/web/content/la-linea-napoli-giugliano-aversa"
 * 8)  "removed  no reason, is a subway not a railway"
 * 9)  "removed  no reason, is a subway not a railway"
 * 10)  "removed  no reason, is a subway not a railway"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:FS Italia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Unfortunately, nobody has actually explained why these edits were reverted until I came around. But anyway, this user has attempted to change the name of a link to something different. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 15:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DonQuixote reported by User:41.132.116.122 (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:DonQuixote considers himself an authority. We had a disagreement earlier on another article. Here, after I'd made 2 reverts he alerted me to the 3RR. Later, he started editing the article List of Doctor Who villains, making the same edit 4 times. After his second and third  revisions I pointed out the 3RR in my edit sumamries(as he himself had done on the previous article mere hours before). However, he would have none of it, almost immediately making a fourth revision. He claims WP:SYNTHESIS, yet this is clearly untrue. Even if it were true, he has still made the same revision 4 times on one article, after being warned twice, and after having warned me of the same thing on the previous article just a few hours earlier(I stopped editing the other article after 2 revisions and his own 3RR warning). 41.132.116.122 (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Why haven't you informed Don that you're discussing him here? Wifione  Message 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Technically, I only reverted 3 times (I just copyedited the first time and removed the part that quoted one source saying one thing, quoted a second source saying a second thing, and implied a connection that wasn't stated explicitly). Anyway, this has already been discuss at talk:Master (Doctor Who). Anonymous dynamic IP is ignoring the talk page, and the people who agree that this is synthesis, and refusing to provide any new arguments on talk page. Was going to bring this up here myself, thanks for getting the ball rolling. DonQuixote (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don, you've crossed the 3RR line. You have a clean block log. I'm going to block you in the next few minutes unless you show, through a statement here, a clarity of policy and an understanding of why you transgressed 3RR. Wifione  Message 17:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I should have started a discussion on the dynamic IP's talk page, even if he ignored the ones I started on his other IPs. No excuse on my part, really. I apologise. DonQuixote (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Kindly self-revert your last revert yourself. Take the discussion to the talk page. Let any other editor revert back to your (or the ip's) version for now. In the next 24 hours, please don't undertake any other revert (apart from the self-revert I expect you to be making in the next few minutes). Wifione  Message 18:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say that I think it's a bit unfair that only one of the editors cops for the block here. Both editors have made the same edit four times each, but since one editor was actually removing content then that counts as a 3RR violiation, but the other editor slips the net on a technicality because he was adding content? Let's not ignore it is the editor adding content who is attempting to introduce a controversial edit. They should both get blocked, or both let off with a stern warning. The article should go back to the status quo and the issue resolved on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one editor has made a revert four times in the past 24 hours. The ip has reverted only three times. But I think rather than discuss this particular technicality, it's important to note that there is not going to be any block. Don's move to self-revert is a clear pointer to the fact that he may have made the fourth revert without realizing that he's crossing the line; and would keep a check in the future. So closing the discussion here with a no action taken note. Thanks. Wifione  Message 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * and no action taken. Wifione  Message 18:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

User:JTBX reported by User:Capitalismojo (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

,. 
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 18:16, 18 September 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 18:11, 18 September 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 17:54, 18 September 2013
 * 4) Revision as of 17:46, 18 September 2013
 * 5) Revision as of 16:35, 18 September 2013
 * 6) Revision as of 07:04, 18 September 2013
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Thread at [Smedley Butler Lede Discussion BRD.]
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has been asked a few times to participate in the talk page discussion. He hasn't, although he dropped in to my talk page to threaten sanctions my of edit. The two editors who have discussed this material on the article's talk page have mostly agreed about the recent lede changes.  The user (JTBX) has not engaged in discussion at talk and has taken an aggressive and dismissive tone in the edit summaries of his mass reverts. I note that this is an editor has had very similar problems at other articles this year.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted both Rjensen and Capitalismojo's (CM's) edits and changes to my minor fix up for the lead because if anyone with a clear conscience looks through them, beginning with his edit here for example, it is obvious they are engaging in censorship of views hostile to them. Information regarding the Business plot which happens to confirm some of the events as true is removed and changed and there were several times that words like "purported, supposedly" were used in sentences which made it almost laughable to read through. I tried to present a more neutral POV. CM also stated that the business plot was mentioned twice in the lead, yet his own addition added it twice

In addition to all of this, there is no mention of Smedley Butler sharing left-wing or socialist views in the article, yet under the guise of ["tweaks" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smedley_Butler&diff=572605077&oldid=572592941] Rjensen and Capitalismojo both have added or readded words such as "Butler was a Socialist, left-wing speaker" simply because he happens to share some views, and a minority unknown historian's book who labelled him as such was dug up by Capitalismojo and reinstated by Rjensen in the lead using an amazon link as a reference, which coming from an apparent student of Yale that Rjsensen claims to be, is amazing. I pointed out to CM on his page that refs shouldn't be in the lead and should be moved elsewhere below, let alone the fact that the opinion is of little use. I believe CM and to a lesser extent Rjensen are engaging in slander by putting these labels in the lead without proper referencing and mentions throughout the article. For example, if "right-wing" is used in the lede for Hitler, it makes more sense than using the same descriptive for George Bush, who we know shares some views but wouldn't look proper in his lede. I believe it is they who are edit warring and this is just complete hypocrisy if you look the page history. I beleieve Wikipedia has plenty of editors like this and I do not mean it in an insulting manner, with political POVs pushing agendas whether they even know it or not (RE good faith) and I have dealt with this before, but not to this extent. I do not know what CM is referring to when he says I have had problems with other users this year. --JTBX (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought I should add that I have only realized there was a discussion at the talk of Smedley Butler now, if I was even contacted regarding this discussion then maybe we could have had a break through, but Rjensen and CM didn't contact me in anyway.--JTBX (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately for that theory, the diffs that prove that wrong are above. I posted edit summary requests that you acknowledged and dismissed. I posted at your talk page, my talk page, and the article talk page. Your edits speak for themselves. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the first part of your sentence is about, but in regards to contacting, no you did not, you only posted on my talk when you reported me. And since I was editing the article and you came along and began these changes with Rjensen, which I had to revert, it is you who should have come to me to talk about your changes, instead I had to write to you when you would not stop your actions on the article and that is partly why I made a warning when I wrote to you regarding that. --JTBX (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Not true as the time stamp and the diffs show. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More to the point. What is the reason for your rash of edit warring? I took my proposed changes to talk (which jensen responded to), you dismissed the idea of talking and went on a rash of reverting another editor. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:1scruffy1 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "small edition"
 * 1)  "small edition"
 * 1)  "small edition"
 * 1)  "small edition"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Remington Model 870. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Remington 870. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly trying to add text about murders where the Remington 870 is said to have been used, in spite of warnings. And the user obviously has no intention of stopping, see communication with the user on User talk:Thomas.W where s/he claims that the article is just "an outrageous attempt to sell more firearms". Thomas.W  talk to me  21:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . The account is new. You warned them after three reverts. They haven't reverted since that warning, so they haven't breached WP:3RR. They talked to you on your talk page, and you responded. Come back if they persist, but I don't believe a block is warranted now.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The account is not new, it was created in 2009 and has been used fairly regularly since then even though they haven't accumulated many edits. They have also been regularly warned for other edits so they ought to have some clue about what's acceptable and what's not. So they don't deserve extra leeway for being newcomers. Thomas.W   talk to me  08:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The user stopped edit warring after being warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Esoglou reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

I notified Esoglou on his talkpage Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

With Esoglou adding Roman Catholic POV comments directly into Wikipedia articles like this one.


 * Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil.

How is this appropriate? How can this comment not be POV pushing which is very much a part of what is called edit warring here? Esoglou has added a very long section in the article theoria of his own speculations and interpretations of the works of the Orthodox theologian John S. Romanides. It has been noted to Esoglou even recently that this term thoeria and its concept is not academically connected the Roman Catholic church (since the Roman Catholic church embraces scholasticism instead) and Esoglou rather than listen has went forward with fabricating from various sources his own attack on John S. Romanides and continues to do so now. Esoglou has edited the article to the point of sections of it becoming an attack piece on John S. Romanides and any Orthodox theologian that Esoglou's interpretation of Orthodox theology does not agree with. Here is an example. As I can find no valid source that would tie this comment to Romanides that Esoglou added into the article. So far Esoglou has engaged in copyright violation by posting directly into the body of the article a very long section of one of Romanides books and then attacking it at the end of the section by stringing together his own opinion and sourcing his opinion by sourcing that make no mention of Orthodoxy theology and or John S. Romanides or the subject of the article or that section of the article. .
 * "And again, the understanding of the problem of universals that prevails in the West is that of Aristotelian realism, which understands universals as existing only in the things that instance them, not in God."

Esoglou has along history of posting about Eastern Orthodox subjects in various Wikipedia articles making all kinds of speculations without actually acknowledging what sources he has read that inform him of his opinion about Eastern Orthodox subjects, he for a time was put under topic editing restrictions. LoveMonkey 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Though I prefer not to close this report myself, I'd like to draw attention to Esoglou's restriction in WP:RESTRICT which says "Esoglou will not make article edits... regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice." Now John S. Romanides (1928-2001) was an Orthodox priest. Perhaps Esoglou can explain how [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theoria&diff=573607772&oldid=573606905 this edit] of 19 September, where he moves around and reorganizes the text of Romanides' comments, conforms to his restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston has asked me to reply here. I didn't think it necessary.  The accusation, as LoveMonkey stated also on my Talk page, is of  edit-warring.  I have difficulty in seeing what basis there is for this accusation.  See also this comment.  Esoglou (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wrote the above before reading what EdJohnston wrote here. (I did note what he wrote on my Talk page, but did not realize that it was here also.)  That is another accusation, that perhaps deserves a more profound reply, but I had better give a quick answer first, lest it be thought that I chose to ignore it.  All I can say in brief is that I did not consider that, in bringing up from footnotes to text the views of Romanides, I was making an edit about Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice.  If I was mistaken, I plead guilty to this new accusation.  Of course, LoveMonkey more clearly violated his restriction, editing information in the section on heaven and hell information not only of Westerners writing on theological questions but teaching of the Catholic Church itself, and altering the section headed "Roman Catholic Church".  Esoglou (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey I am all for being restricted from editing theological articles if the same applied to Esoglou. Ban us both. There is no excuse for Esoglou yet again violating his restrictions since I did a revert and refuse to edit on Wikipedia because of Esoglou's horrible behavior I will accept a ban for both us since Esoglou states that he should be allowed to attack John Romanides and somehow blame me. Ban us both. LoveMonkey 18:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a particularly generous offer by one who has declared himself retired and until today has for months done little or no editing. But never mind.  There's more to life than Wikipedia.  Esoglou (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Some it's ok for Esoglou to just continue YET again. For another said amount of time and just keep on edit warring and hijacking articles and reverting, deleting and rewriting other editor's contributions. Its OK because Esoglou is all about getting other people in trouble and running them off from wikipedia however Esoglou should never be held accountable for what Esoglou does. LoveMonkey 19:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I just want to know on top of what is being stated how it is OK and NOT, POV pushing for Esoglou to write into a Wikipedia article an attack on Romanides like this sentence............


 * Contrary to what Romanides said, it is Roman Catholic teaching that God loves all, even those who choose against him, such as the devil.


 * And that not being POV pushing which is also a form of edit warring Editing policy. I mean it's just Esoglou again doing what he was told not to do in the first place. LoveMonkey 18:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I see at most two reverts by Esoglou and one by LoveMonkey so this is not a 3RR violation. The closing admin will probably have to decide (a) whether this is edit warring, or (b) whether Esoglou violated his restriction by making edits regarding Eastern Orthodox teaching or practice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To block for edit warring. Whether he violated his restriction is a difficult question probably better suited for WP:ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Soundofair reported by User:Insulam Simia (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * (same user, logged out)


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573673336 by Alrofficial (talk) Removed improper citation, false information by user Alrofficial."
 * 2)  "/* Early life and education */ Removed unofficial, inaccurate "resume" cited by Alrofficial. This is not an official document, is totally inaccurate and unauthorized, and cannot be used as a source."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 573673080 by Alrofficial (talk)Fixed unexplained reversion."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 573672947 by Alrofficial (talk) These are NOT reliable sources. Reverted, once again."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 573671676 by MusikAnimal (talk)I have removed inaccurate, improperly-sourced content."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 573671143 by Alrofficial (talk) Fixed vandalism by Alrofficial."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 573644954 by Alrofficial (talk) Removed improperly sourced, false material from Wikipedia. User Alrofficial is vandalizing this page by posting false information."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 573670858 by Soundofair (talk)"
 * 9)  "/* Early life and education */ Removed improperly-sourced, false information. User Alrofficial is vandalizing this entry with incorrect information."
 * 10)  "Removed redundant citation."
 * 11)  "/* Early life and education */ Removed information cited from inappropriate, unofficial sources (Tumblr, blogs, etc.) All inaccurate information from said sources removed."
 * 12)  "Fixed birthday - 5/12/89 is the only date given by reliable sources. Other dates inaccurate / from unreliable sources."
 * 1)  "/* Early life and education */ Removed information cited from inappropriate, unofficial sources (Tumblr, blogs, etc.) All inaccurate information from said sources removed."
 * 2)  "Fixed birthday - 5/12/89 is the only date given by reliable sources. Other dates inaccurate / from unreliable sources."
 * 1)  "Fixed birthday - 5/12/89 is the only date given by reliable sources. Other dates inaccurate / from unreliable sources."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * No discussion has taken place on the talk page. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I advised the user to take the issue to WP:RSN, but they aren't exactly listening. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 18:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Aoidh reported by User:Kevjonesin (Result: Warning Issued )
Pages: &

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: &

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


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

An admin's attention and consideration would be greatly appreciated in dealing with Aoidh. I'm pretty much at my wits end.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The warning diff is supposed to be a diff of the Edit warring warning issued to the Reported Editor, the editor has not been recently warned, and the notification about your report here does not count. Monty  845  04:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all there is no WP:3RR violation at any point. Secondly, there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page and the diffs from the AfD are from moving Kevjonesin's newer comment to the bottom per WP:TOPPOST and then discussing it with him on his talk page, in keeping with WP:BRD. This diff isn't a revert of any kind, so this just looks like flinging mud and hoping something sticks. While I didn't notice I had reverted at Chakra (operating system) four times, those four edits were from 13 September through today, and the "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" given given above was placed right before opening this report, and the last diff given was about 3 1/2 hours prior. Kevjonesin, the point of the spot for the warning is that you're supposed to show that you've notified the editor that they were edit warring, and that they continued to do so after the fact, which obviously wasn't the case here. - Aoidh (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By my count, you added the notability tag, and then restored it 4 times. You are correct that you have not violated the 3rr rule, but a violation of the 3rr rule is not required to conclude that you were edit warring. Repeatedly adding the tag, regardless of the state of the discussion on the talk page, does constitute edit warring. As you were not warned, I warned you, and as long as you don't add it again (if anyone removes it), there shouldn't be any further action. Monty  845  04:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already acknowledged the number of reverts in the comment you responded to just now, and see your talk page concerning the warning, but you are right regarding edit-warring, I was just clarifying that the edits weren't WP:3RR, when Kevjonesin specifically referred to it as such, that's all. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Zabranos reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573718451 by AsceticRose There are sections are blatantly Sunni influenced and you cant quote a work without giving the source or reference. Therefore it sould be under a sub section called Sunni View. Like the shia view subsection."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 573688148 by Wiqi55 (talk)All of it does not come from one source"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 573686666 by Wiqi55 (talk)made the correction"
 * 4)  "/* Reign as a Caliph */ added new sub section called Abu Bakr Ruling"

3RR warning issued by User:Wiqi55
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Involved in edit-war in a couple of articles (see Fatima for example; reverts: and ) without community consensus. The problem is he is moving unilaterally, and making controversial changes without waiting for community response. Ascetic Rosé   06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Srich32977 (Result:Warning)
Page: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

User being reported: User:MilesMoney

Previous version: Version prior to reverts by MilesMoney.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  MilesMoney hatted section of discussion (no hat summary or edit summary comment, but did add discussion commentary)
 * 2)  User:Binksternet unhatted, with edit summary
 * 3)  MilesMoney re-hatted, no edit summary but did add hat comment
 * 4)  User:srich32977 (OP) unhatted table with edit summary about refactoring other editor talk page comments
 * 5)  MilesMoney removed the table with the edit comment "do not misquote editors"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  Message left on MilesMoney talk page about disruptive removal of material.
 * 2)  MilesMoney removed talkpage message with edit summary WP:BOOMERANG

Comments:

When the table was originally posted on the RSN editors were invited to post concerns about changes needed. (The table endeavors to summarize editor comments in the RSN.) MilesMoney did post some comments, and changes were made by me. When the changes were made, I again asked for comments about needed changes. At that stage MilesMoney did the removal of the table. – S. Rich (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I restored the table a few minutes ago, then I noticed the existence of this 3RR discussion. It appears to me that MilesMoney did not like the table because it showed all too plainly that his position was in the minority. Of course, the purpose of the table was to show that a clear majority had been reached. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you want to see the blow-by-blow action, I've listed the relevant versions. But then I hatted it, because I realized that it's a distraction from the bottom line, which is that I haven't violated WP:3RR and Rich's initial report is full of errors. This is where WP:BOOMERANG comes in. MilesMoney (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * S. Rich makes chart incorrectly attributing views to editors *
 * One of the editors affected, SPECIFICO, objects to the chart as inaccurate *
 * I also point out that it's inaccurate and try to refocus on core issue *
 * Rich tries to shift conversation to his chart, and misapplies WP:SPS and WP:QS
 * I refute this and state that he is obstructing this discussion
 * SPECIFICO comments on the issue
 * Rich repeats refuted argument
 * Rich updated "my" entry in his chart with an inaccurate, weak version of my view *
 * Rich admits that "my" entry omits parts of my actual argument *
 * SPECIFICO reminds Rich that his argument have been refuted and links to where
 * Rich refuses to read what was linked to him, repeats refuted argument some more
 * Blinkersnet updated table
 * Blinkersnet makes the argument
 * SPECIFICO states that Blinkersnet's arguments are irrelevant
 * Blinkersnet tries to explain the error away
 * SPECIFICO replies tersely
 * Blinkersnet tries to intimidate SPECIFICO with false accusation and personal attack
 * SPECIFICO tactfully redirects back to issue
 * Blinkersnet is rude, then argues for deleting criticism based on WP:UNDUE
 * I notice the updated chart, and respond by hatting it, with explanation. *
 * Blinkersnet reverts without explanation *
 * I restore hat *
 * Rich removes hat, claiming it's disruptive *
 * I remove the table and leave behind "*removed*"; comment says "Do not misquote editors"
 * Blinkersnet restores inaccurate table *

So, what we have here is collusion between Rich and Blinkersnet, tag-teaming to edit-war so as to keep a table that inaccurately attributes views to other editors. Now they're here, complaining about me, despite their very dirty hands. The relevant policy is WP:BOOMERANG. MilesMoney (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also point out that Rich's initial summary is inaccurate. He claims that I did not add a hat comment initially. That's false, as his own link shows. MilesMoney (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigh... I posted this AN3 after MilesMoney did the "hat — re-hat — removal" of the table. My alternatives were to restore and/or post a WP:ANI. Given the fact that Miles' "blow by blow", seeks to argue the RSN by claiming rudeness, dirty-hands, inaccuracy, false accusation, intimidation, mis-quotations, etc., I am more inclined to go with an ANI based on WP:TE. Please feel free to close this AN3 with no action. – S. Rich (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User Srich has been tendentiously pursuing various minor issues on several articles recently. After having requested guidance on/removal of certain blog-sourced content on RSN, Srich declined to respond to various dissents and requests for clarification from other editors, including MilesMoney.  Srich then abruptly posted a request for closure at AN and posted the disputed table on the RSN thread.  The table misrepresents the views of editors who disagree with Srich in violation of WP policy not to misrepresent other editors.  The RSN thread itself is long, convoluted unfocused and inconclusive. The timing and content of Srich's posting of this table has the unfortunate appearance of a tactic to unduly influence the decision of the closing Admin toward Srich's point of view in this matter.  I pointed this out and asked Srich to strike through the table, but he declined to do so -- instead, he responded as if I had asked him to correct his misstatement of my view. At that point, I realized he would not cooperate and walked away.  Shortly thereafter, editor MilesMoney also objected to the table and hatted it.  The series of reverts followed.  This sequence was precipitated by Srich's violation of WP policy and his failure to respond constructively when his lapse was explained to him.  If anyone needs a warning/block in this situation it would appear to be Srich, an experienced editor of whom we expect much better. His needs to stop his recent tendentious behavior, in my opinion.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right on the money, no pun intended. I like to think the best of people, but the fact that Rich is shopping around for someplace else to report me makes it hard to believe his heart is in the right place. If he really cared about the issues, he'd at least try to debate them (and not just by repeating stuff that we all know is wrong). So, yeah, he's being a tendentious editor in a big way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please be very careful about editing the comments of other editors (including hatting). If someone reverts your editing/hatting of others' comments, do not revert them. If two different editors revert you, absolutely do not revert again. Please consider this a warning about disruptive editing. And for heaven's sake, use edit summaries. (No opinion on whether the table was accurate or on the underlying dispute.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've learned not to be baited into reverting when SRich and Blinkersnet double-team me and try to trick me into violating WP:3RR. I hatted because he was misquoting me, which I believe is also against the rules and deserving of at least a warning. MilesMoney (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:109.158.164.49 (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: [diff]

Comments:

Details that the IP didn't mention.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor has been warned multiple times not to edit war (see User talk:Evertatops).
 * They are edit warring to include trivia from a tabloid in an article covered by WP:BLP despite having been reverted and without any attempt to discuss the issue.
 * They have made a total of 147 edits since registering their account without making a single edit on an article talk page.
 * They also appear to be edit warring at another BLP, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge.


 * Edit warring is still continuing at Prince William, Duke of Cambridge even after being notified of this ANEW case. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Evertatops reported by User:LogX (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573798223 by LogX (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 573797127 by Dodger67 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 573792862 by DrKiernan (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Now the user is moving on to another article Maurice Roche, 4th Baron Fermoy. This user must be stopped. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC) And another - Edmond Roche, 1st Baron Fermoy. The user is showing absolutely no sign of heeding multiple warnings or even the notifications of this process here and the one above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * for 24 hours by User:Dougweller. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TJRC reported by User:Elvey (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff Above are the two recent diffs showing edit warring.  There's been lots and lots of edit warring prior to this, as well as edit warring on the talk page itself, and dispute resolution efforts regarding both in other forums (including a couple that he opened while this ANI (diff) was still open) but the above is what's recent; there's no 3RR violation, it's clearly edit warring though.  A couple of TJRC's many previous article reverts:
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

In the past, instead of answering my questions, he's deleted my questions from the article talk page not once - diff or twice - diff but three times - diff — justified only by a false claim that his edits were removing interruptions from his comments; if you look at those diffs, you'll see they do no such thing. All these three diffs show is TJRC removing my own additions to my own comments. Yet, TJRC still maintains that these edits were not improper, even after he was told otherwise, even by others, at AN/I!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page. discussion. All he's done lately is reverted-without-talk. Diff of most recent attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff

Comments:

After the edit shown in the very first diff above, I wrote the following on the talk page to TJRC, but his only response was to revert, yet again (second diff, above).


 * If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do do is to edit war. Specifically: I edited, adding the comment,
 * Per TJRC's TP suggestion that we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law."
 * I edited per your suggestion . And yet : Your response was (diff):
 * Reverted to revision 569514616 by TJRC: Revert to the version approved by two editors; Elvey is the lone wolf here. (TW)
 * A reminder: WP:!VOTE says, "[!VOTE] serves as a cute little reminder that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important."
 * Should I not take you on your word when you suggested we "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" ?

All I really want to do is leave the article in a state such that a reader is not left with the wrong impression about state works. So long as this article indicates that the works of some states are PD, that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law, or doesn't lead the reader to believe otherwise, we should be good. TJRC finds my wording unacceptable and keeps reverting it, but won't offer wording that is acceptable that does what he had at one time agreed was acceptable - "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" (that last quote is a quote from TJRC (diff showing him saying it!)) The worst of the insanity is that he keeps reverting me, claiming I'm a lone wolf, when what I'm doing is diff adding what he said he had no objection to! It's inexplicable. I feel TJRC is too often WP:NOTHERE, which is why I think A 0RR or 1RR restriction is warranted. If he was here to improve the encyclopedia, the article would certainly "include something (with appropriate sources) to the effect that many states waive some or all of their rights under copyright law" in it by now.--Elvey (talk) 00:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

User:91.154.115.69 reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n  and always determined the site of power of n of next integer  by adding the nexus number [x^n - (x-1)^n],"
 * 2)  "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n  and always determined the site of power of n of next integer  by adding the nexus number [x^n - (x-1)^n],"
 * 1)  "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n  and always determined the site of power of n of next integer  by adding the nexus number [x^n - (x-1)^n],"
 * 2)  "It can can proposed, that for the "demonstration" Fermat tried to depict the powers of n of subsequent integers as a number line, starting with 1^n  and always determined the site of power of n of next integer  by adding the nexus number [x^n - (x-1)^n],"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user was warned very clearly in my final edit summary, and then took a break before reinstating the same dubious content again. Jamesx12345 12:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's now 24 hours since you created this thread, I would be inclined to consider it stale (why didn't someone resolve it before now?), but the user came back 24 hours after the first edit to do more of the same, so it plainly wasn't stale. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Nug (Result: No blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  01:51, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "worse map: it makes extra room for Yukaghir, which is not Uralic"
 * 2)  04:17, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "now you're falsifying sources"
 * 3)  04:24, 20 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "knock off the bullshit"
 * 4)  10:31, 21 September 2013‎ Kwamikagami "rv to map of correct family per BOLD"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems Kwamikagami waited out the 24 hour period before making his 4th revert. I found a more detailed and better looking map used in German Wikipedia so I translated it and replaced the existing map (which BTW was originally created by myself as User:Martintg back in 2007). Kwamikagami reverted the new map because it included Yukaghir. Okay, so I removed Yukaghir from the map to accommodate his objection, but then Kwamikagami still reverted because it excluded Yukaghir, claiming it was a "falsification", expressing his battleground mentality "I had to fight with you to even get that, because you were falsifying the map" and then subsequently edit warred over the image at commons to re-include Yukaghir even though he objected to its inclusion, which seems somewhat WP:POINTy and may be related to a wider issue that other editors have noticed about Kwamikagami's recent behaviour here and here --Nug (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverting the map at Commons wasn't WP:POINTy; if the map isn't a faithful reproduction of the original it may count as WP:SYNTH. — Lfdder (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, if the map was a reproduction of a published source. But this map was created by a German Wikipedian, we don't know for sure how faithful that map is to the original source used by this German Wikipedian, and as we can see this editor made many different permutations of that map, for example another including Altaic and Turkic in addition to Uralic, so omitting Yukaghir from a map meant to focus on Uralic is legitimate. But objecting to the inclusion of Yukaghir while simultaneously objecting to the exclusion of Yukaghir from a map that was not a reproduction but created by a Wikipedian, is certainly untoward. --Nug (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ah ok, I didn't notice. — Lfdder (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Nug is pushing a POV for which he can't get consensus, in this case pushing a map of the wrong language family. Per BOLD, he should take his suggestions to talk rather than edit warring over them.

BTW, the map in question cites its authors, so Nug changing it to better support his POV is fraud – assuming he knows what he's doing. — kwami (talk) 07:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nug has violated the principle of WP:BRD. Rather than being bold, being reverted, then proceeding to the Talk Page to build a consensus for his/her preferred map, s/he simply proceeded to edit war over the map, continually replacing his/her map rather than building a consensus on the Talk Page before touching the actual article again.  Rather than trying to ram his/her new map through, s/he should have been presenting the proposed map on the Talk Page, discussing it, then abandoning it if a consensus could not be reached.  The real edit warrior in this case is Nug, who was unable to build a consensus for his/her new map, not Kwami, who was simply insisting that Nug follow the principle of WP:BRD.  --Taivo (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing edit warring here from both parties. Nug may not have technically violated 3RR, but that's no excuse, and I see no grounds for a block of one party here. So should I block both or none? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Map being discussed, warring hasn't continued, I see no point in blocking either. — Lfdder (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * because of what Lfdder says; it's a downright bad idea to block people who are discussing and who aren't editwarring anymore. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my question was more of a rhetorical "is there going to be more edit warring necessitating blocks?" Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:87.68.144.122 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Israel national dish."
 * 2)  "Israel's national food"
 * 3)  "Israel"
 * 4)  "Israel"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  3RR warning
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Falafel. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Note that this article is subject to 1RR. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:FutureTrillionaire reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is on a 1RR restriction per 24 hours. He reverted the "mujahideen" bit twice within 12 hours. Pass a Method  talk  15:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Opps. I wasn't counting. I've now reverted my edit. Come on. Let's discuss this at the talk page. Talk:Syrian civil war--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have retracted my post in light of the self-revertion by FutureTrillionaire. Pass a Method   talk  15:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action taken since FT reverted his change. Editors are now trying to find agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) < This diff consists of two reverts.

The first reverts Future's edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573721775&oldid=573698751

The second reverts my edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=573790858&oldid=573782806

Sopher99 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC). See below.
 * striked out as I assume pass a method has retracted his report on Futuretrillionaire. Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Pass a Method, has made two reverts with in 24 hours:. In both cases, he readded "Sunni Majahideen", even though discussion of this issue is still ongoing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply See Edjohnston's talk page, where he stated that it is not considered a revert. Also, i moved it two lines down. Pass a Method   talk  17:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed content I added, regardless of how visible it was. Thats a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Template protected three days. The editors here are well-informed and they are perfectly capable of discussion. Please use the next three days to get consensus on the talk page. So far on 22 September there have been six reverts; there is no excuse for that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Srich32977 reported by User:MilesMoney (Result:No Violation )
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:

Rich is very familiar with WP:3RR (see above), so this is not an innocent mistake. MilesMoney (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Response: In order of the diffs posted, here is explanation:


 * Diff "previous version" (37) gives the difference between 6 intermediate revisions.
 * First Diff (38) is my correction of a broken link & converting data to a template webcite.
 * Second Diff (39) preceded 37, but restored much material removed in violation of WP:PRESERVE. E.g., sourced material, categories, proper formatting, etc.
 * Third Diff (40) preceded 37, and added the actual title of a journal article, the journal name, particular page #s, and date of cited journal.
 * Fourth Diff (41) added the headcount of the faculty at LvMI (At this diff SPECIFICO had removed the number of "adjunct faculty" at LvMI. My edit provided another number plus a citation to verify the number.)
 * Warning (42) is MilesMoney's template message on my talk page.
 * Diff "Attempt to resolve dispute" (43) is MilesMoney's response on the article talk page to a thread I posted about the unjustified removal of SPS tags (the subject of which are under discussion on the RSN). It has nothing to do with any of the edits above.
 * Alas – S. Rich (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to Srich's entire list, but he seems to be asking for a pass because "he's right" and others are wrong. Srich's interpretations of policy are dubious and he tends to insist on his interpretations even when others explicitly explain their disagreements to him. Such was the case with various of his recent reverts. I was not involved in most of this matter, but I can say that Srich's re-insertion of the term "adjunct faculty" after I removed the term "faculty" (explaining in my edit comment not that the number was incorrect but rather that this characterization "faculty" is not supported by secondary RS) should not give Srich an exemption from 3RR.  I have, to my dismay, noticed that Srich has been unduly aggressive over the past four to six weeks in undoing good faith reverts of other editors with whom he may disagree.  Rather than open a discussion, he re-reverts first and then waits until he's challenged before acknowledging other editors' concerns.  He has been warned repeatedly about this behavior by various involved editors and at least one Admin. Srich is quick to bring or threaten complaints against others.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico has his facts backwards. He removed "adjunct faculty" and I used the term "faculty", based on the RS supplied, when adding new information. (Either way, secondary RS is not required as to that particular fact because LvMI is sufficiently reliable to report the number.) I've made one user noticeboard report as to MilesMoney – and it was done after MilesMoney rejected my message about disruptive edits at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Specifico won't address the particulars on MilesMoney's list, but is quick to bring up unspecified matters and baseless warnings. Jeez, why am I responding to these absurd non-3RR comments? Perhaps because my integrity and good faith is repeatedly attacked.  – S. Rich (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for Srich to litigate his disputes concerning article content and sources. The fact that he's trying to "win" that dispute here, as if that would excuse his edit-warring, is very disappointing.  As Srich knows, I challenged whether the LvMI website's self-description of its employees as "faculty" is RS, given that it is not a school or accredited educational institution.  Regardless of which view is correct, Srich's disagreement with me does not justify his edit-warring and his assertion of his viewpoint as fact is the sort of behavior which 3RR is intended to prevent.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the article talk page is where content debate goes. This is for dealing with Rich's edit-warring, not his POV-pushing or incivility. MilesMoney (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Diff #3 has nothing to do with reversion; it is instead a small step toward building the article by fleshing out a citation. Diff #1 also is fleshing out a citation (a different one), something that nobody is arguing against. There are disputes at the article but diffs 1 and 3 are not part of the disputes. This 3RRN submission fails to prove its point. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] Bink, I am concerned about your WP:Competence in evaluating questions of edit warring. For instance, you recently claimed I was engaged in an "ongoing" "edit warring" on Hanns Hoppe (1) when in fact I had made a total of 1 revert within several weeks (at the time of your complaint). Given your erroneous statements there and here, I encourage you to focus on building your WP:Competence prior to participating in these discussions regarding 3RR/editing warring generally. Steeletrap (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico Steeletrap, every time you point me to the Competence is required essay it signals that you have run out of better arguments. Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff 3 is Srich removing the disputed word "polemecist" -- which both Binksernet and Srich have taken turns warring out of the article text. I'm not familiar with the other, but contrary to the above, #3 is certain a reversion. SPECIFICO  talk  01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The prior version in Diff 3 took one word from the article and posted it as if it were the title of the piece. My revision provided the proper title of the Boettke article, plus more citation data. In this regard, the revert promoted NPOV.
 * Specifico has made a point about the usage of the term faculty in the infobox. (And as far as I can tell, this revert is part of MilesMoney's complaint.) I have opened a BRD on the article page about the use of the term. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Srich, the purpose of this noticeboard is not to litigate your content disputes, nor for you to make a series of excuses for your 3RR violation. SPECIFICO  talk  02:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How does a BRD now make up for the 3RR violation? Oh, look over there!!! SHINY!!!!!! MilesMoney (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifico, the diff 3 action is not removing article text at all. It is instead fleshing out a citation which was poorly composed in the first place. Nobody at the article is arguing whether the citation should be fully fleshed out versus poorly composed. The word "polemicist" was serving in place of the title of the citation but the cited source did not use that word as the title. The cited source used "Economists and Liberty: Murray N. Rothbard". Again, nobody is arguing that the title of Boettke's paper is really "Polemicist". Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this board is not to try out various excuses after having edit-warred, is it Bink? I think that's the 3rd time I've said that here, so I am done.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this board is to deal with edit warring behavior. Toward that end, the submission of evidence is expected to show a violation of 3RR or long-term edit warring behavior. This one fails in its attempt to show a 3RR violation, and it does not even try to show long-term edit warring. Srich is building the article, not warring. If MilesMoney tried to show long-term edit warring the WP:Boomerang would be whistling back in his direction. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the only clear cut revert is diff 2. Diff 1 is putting an html link into a cite web template, and I can't see how it could be called a revert since there was no substantive change. (I actually tried to find what it could be a revert of but came up empty.) Diff 3 might be considered a revert if you're counting that the word "polemicist" was removed, but that would be a stretch, since it is just another html link being put into a citation template, and "polemicist" was not the title of the linked page. Diff 4 can be considered a partial revert of Specifico's edit. That said, this is the second time this crowd has been here for the same article, and I strongly advise all parties to tread carefully until the dispute is resolved. I will be putting this article on my watchlist, and I don't want to have to shut down editing for everyone with a gold-lock. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You ought to have read the talk page and realised that there is. Also see German wiki who agree. Furthermore the matter is currently in dispute resolution so you shouldn't be making reverts until that process has been conducted."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574082173 by Fnlayson (talk)"
 * 3)  "Reverted Mach to Mach 2.35 because of change that lacked consensus."
 * 4)  "Re-inserted reliable sources.  Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions."
 * 1)  "Reverted Mach to Mach 2.35 because of change that lacked consensus."
 * 2)  "Re-inserted reliable sources.  Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions."
 * 1)  "Reverted Mach to Mach 2.35 because of change that lacked consensus."
 * 2)  "Re-inserted reliable sources.  Haynes is not a reliable source for anything other than car maintenance instructions."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly making changes that lack support on the talk page. As seen both on the talk page of the article and by the fact that the user's reverts within the past 24h have been reverted by five different users. Thomas.W  talk to me  20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The user has now made SIX reverts within 24h. I can add that I made my revert well before the case was filed at the dispute resolution board, while Z07x10's two latest reverts were made after he filed the case. Thomas.W   talk to me  20:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a gross misrepresentation of facts and if you'd bothered to read through the Talk Page, you'd realise that the changes were agreed with Bushranger and Julian H before McSly edit-warred the issue a month later and then again another month later. Bushranger is just sick of dealing with it now so refuses to get involved.  Up to the point where admins became involved I made 1 change for every change he made to reflect the standing consensus.  I don't feel I should be singled out just because of a 24hr timing issue.  I have raised the matter in Dispute resolution and on Policy.  Furthermore my stance on the issue (maximum speed Mach 2.35) is in line with an independent consensus by German Wiki ('3O'), so it'll look a little stupid if two parts of Wiki list contradictory information. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon  I therefore move that the page should, by right, be protected at Mach 2.35 until resolved. Cheers.Z07x10 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A) It's not a gross misrepresentation. I can't find a consensus supporting your views on the talk page, and your five reverts have been reverted by five different editors. Which ought to tell you something.
 * B) It doesn't matter what it says on the German WP or what consensus they reach, each WP is independent of all others.
 * C) You made four reverts before filing a case at the dispute resolution board, and then a fifth revert after that in an attempt to have your version "frozen". Which is not the way to do things. And filing a case at the dispute resolution board does not absolve you from the edit warring charges.
 * Thomas.W  talk to me  21:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Thomas.W  Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC) (Restored a comment by Mztourist that was deleted by Z07x10.  Thomas.W   talk to me  09:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Allow me to assist you in finding where the consensus against McSly was reached since you couldn't be bothered looking yourself.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon


 * "Except that isn't what I did. The speed and altitude are both listed on this one primary source: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml. I only used this second primary source to verify the mph speed: http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon and support the first primary source. The supposition of altitude only applies to the second of the 2 primary sources. The calculation is based purely on the speed and altitude in the first primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then, now that that's all sorted, it should be alright, I think? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So we can change it to 2.35? Thanks. Changes made.Z07x10 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late to the discussion. So no, you cannot make the change. There is no problem making simple calculations (assuming we have all the relevant parameters) when we are missing a reference for a specific value. But this is not the case at all here. We have numerous, concordant primary and secondary sources virtually all agreeing on the Mach 2 value. So doing our own calculations to contradict those sources is the textbook definition of original research. On wikipedia, we just report what the sources say, so unless you find at least one secondary, reliable source with a different Mach value, there is nothing we can do here. --McSly (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not the case and we have done this to death already. The Austrian Air Force clearly states 2495kph at 10,975m - the calculation is based on that. BAE SYSTEMS (the manufacturer) states 1521mph which roughly agrees and works out to Mach 2.3+. So the calculation is based on speed and altitude figures from a primary source, backed up by speed from another primary source and an assumed altitude. Note that 'Mach 2+' does not specifically contradict these values. Also, the changes have already been agreed after a very lengthy discussion, so if you want to change it back you need to get agreement here first! You can't just barge in and edit an already contested and argued at length edit.Z07x10 (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

''':::To me, 2495 / (sqrt(1.405*287.05*216.65)*3.6) is not a complicated calculation. We do have all parameters needed for it. It's not really much more than a unit conversion imo. — Julian H.✈ (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed; since the sources say "Mach 2+" the 2.35 number is not inconsistent and has been shown to be a routine calculation given that all available numbers for it are right there in the source. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * McSly, why do you change the value now without even mentioning it here? — Julian H.✈ (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)"'''


 * Furthermore there is consensus in international wiki. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon  http://www.bmlv.gv.at/waffen/waf_eurofighter.shtml  This matches BAE SYSTEMS' mph figure of 1521mph http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_159814/typhoon.  EADS state '2.0+' which does not disagree. http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company/What-we-do/Cassidian/Eurofighter.html It is important to note that the speed of sound at ground level is 765mph/1224kph, so neither the mph/kph figures from BAE or the Austrian Airforce are simply twice the speed of sound at ground level and the Austrian airforce state a specific altitude.  Italian wikipedia also the use the Austrian Airforce as a source https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-3 see https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon#cite_note-3.


 * A consensus has been reached but McSly is going against that consensus using magazines and 'Haynes manual' so I should be entitled to revert back to the consensus as many times as I wish until a new consensus is reached in an appropriate manner.Z07x10 (talk) 09:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Deleting my earlier comment above is bad form. Given the nature of erlier comments on your Talk page and your general attitude I think you need an enforced break from editing. Mztourist (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Further on the talk page behavior and general attitude https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEurofighter_Typhoon&diff=574156286&oldid=574144566 where Z07x10 basically flaunts 3RR and policies against disruptive editing by claiming that it isn't edit warring as long as the revert button isn't used. Obviously, this is not the case, and I would bet that Z07x10 is aware of this (given the warnings already present on that talk page). To me, as someone not generally involved in this dispute, this makes me question the good faith of the editor. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that is rich. That's exactly the reason I'm here and not McSly, it's a policy failure.  McSly made >3 changes in one day but didn't use 'revert' whilst doing them so he didn't get flagged.  Furthermore I find it somewhat disturbing how some admins are choosing to ignore the actual history of the matter as I went to great lengths to relay above and are instead focusing on how many times I pressed the revert button in one day and the fact that when they chose to blindly jump in without researching the history of the dispute and make changes, I reverted them.  If you look through my recent contributions to other wiki pages you'll see that I post some extremely sound sources in good faith without any nationalist bias, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GQM-163_Coyote http://www.orbital.com/NewsInfo/Publications/Coyote_Fact.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcBUb7EOQ4o

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Javelin.pdf http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/

I just get annoyed when I have to re-cover old ground with users who it's already been covered with, who know, and maliciously exploit 3RR flagging to their advantage.Z07x10 (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User: Corbynz reported by User:MyMoloboaccount (Result: Warned under ARBEE)
Page:

User being reported:

User Corbynz has been removing sourced information(mostly work by historians and scholarly books) about history of Masuria,mainly abuses by German authorities regarding pro-Polish site in plebiscite about future of the region, this has been done without any discussion at all, and included ethnic based attacks such statements that he is removing "Polish propaganda".

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 07:51, 21 September 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 15:34, 21 September 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 08:03, 22 September 2013
 * 4) Revision as of 17:14, 22 September 2013
 * 5) Revision as of 23:49, 22 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by another user-I am not sure if this is sufficient, or admin level warning is required?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

-

'''This article contains unsubstantiated claims and propaganda. The warning that was posted in the heading last year is both correct and highly appropriate.''' "This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2012")</i> The sources quoted are predominantly Polish and are based upon rationalisations to justify the expulsions of the Germans between 1945 - 1947.

I concur entirely with the comments made by Filipcyk on the Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Masuria

Personal family history that may shed light on whether Masurens considered themselves German or Polish[edit source | editbeta]

''There is much discussion on this page about whether the results of the referendum in Masuria after World War I to determine the wishes of the population to be a part of Poland or Germany were affected by the fact that Poland and the Soviet Union were at war and by the fact that perhaps much of the population thought they were voting to be a part of Prussia, but not Germany. I am not a historian and do not believe I am qualified to contribute to any article in Wikipedia. I am writing this to provide additional information to those who are so that it may help them. My grandfather and mother were masurisch. Like many masurisch, they had German first names and slavik sounding surnames. For example, my grandfather's name was Johann Filipcyk. Based on conversations with my family, masurisch people were almost exclusively Lutherans. Perhaps for that reason, their culture was very German and they very much identified with and considered themselves Germans. My grandfather was a German soldier during World War I. My grandmother and her children, including my father who was a child at the time, were at one point refugees fleeing the Russians during the first battle of Tannenberg during World War I. My family and other masurisch friends of the family always without question considered themselves to be Germans, and nothing else. They would be shocked if anyone would suggest otherwise. I realize this is just one personal experience and I have no way of knowing what the total population was thinking on the ground in Masuria in 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipcyk (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)''

Like him I come from a Masuren family who lived in Kreis Johannisburg (Pisz) for over 600 years. I have their records and my Grandparents and other relatives were there during the plebiscite after World War 1 and the allegations of so-called widespread intimidation by "the Germans" are nonsense. Most Masurens were Lutheran and culturally German even if they had mixed German, Polish and Old Prussian ancestry. The fact of the matter is that 99% of the Masuren population voted to remain as part of Germany because that is what they wanted and no end of Polish propaganda can change that. I also had family still living there in 1945 and they were expelled west of the Oder-Neisse river by the invading Russians and resettled Poles. For this contributor to claim that totally unbalanced and biased Polish propaganda is a substantive source is utterly ludicrous. User: Corbynz ---

Comments:

I have largely expanded the article over the years with valuable material and noticed that this is being removed without discussion and using dubious motivation(statements "removing Polish propaganda" seem to indicate high bias based on ethnic grounds).I have asked the use in my comment to stop removing sourced information to which the only response was that he is removing "Polish propaganda". Another user has been trying to engage him on talk-without success. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User has continued to remove sourced information after being informed of violation of 3RR. I have added this to diff's.As seen above user is unwilling to discuss issues rationally and engaged in ethnic based attacks, while rejecting works of historians and scholars.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion: the edits by Corbynz are OK. He simply removed Polish propaganda that has no place in an encyclopedia. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

This 'warning' is just seeking to preserve and maintain biased and unbalanced propaganda that is quoting sources that are neither credible or historically accurate. If you are going to use such sanctions just to arbitrarily support thses kind of claims then you are just undermining the integrity of the site. In the absence of any attempted or balanced mediation over this issue it is pointless to attempt to redress the balance. Since you are readily prepared to sustain the existing pure propaganda contained in this then I am not going to enter into an 'edit war' as it is a pointless exercise and a waste of time. It is quite shameful that you are prepared to so arbitrarily sustain such unfounded claims. By doing tis you are just diminishing the credibility and integrity of the site and ultimately the loser will be Wikopedia.

User:Athenean reported by User:Cavann (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Complex case, but is mainly about the deletion of material in this section Turkish_people.

Athenean does not participate in talk page discussion, unless right before or right after a revert. Pretty much most of his recent contributions are reverts (in other pages too). He seems to want an edit-warring conflict.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1. 29 August 2013
 * 2. 2 September 2013
 * 3. 02:04, 3 September 2013‎
 * After this revert, I tried to solve the issues in the talk page. Athenean ignores the discussion, except his posts right after the revert. Without any response I make this edit 16:20, 5 September 2013. Barely an hour later, Athenean reverts.


 * 4. 17:31, 5 September 2013
 * Since that date, extensive discussion has taken place in the talk page, including me posting bunch of sources . I have made this change 16:13, 22 September 2013. Despite being absent from Turkish people or Talk:Turkish people since 17:32, 5 September 2013, Athenean reverted barely 30 minutes after my edit.


 * 5. 17:18, 22 September 2013
 * 6. 17:27, 22 September 2013

This seems like a disruptive editing pattern, and edit warring. He also filed a Good Article Reassessment amid edit warring, even though he was warned in the article talk page that "Requesting reassessment during a content dispute or edit war is usually inappropriate"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Athenean is well aware of consequences of edit-warring, since he was blocked for it various times. He is also well aware of it with respect to Turkish people page, given that he posted the 3RR template on my talk page himself. . Further warnings I posted on his talk page: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussions in Talk:Turkish_people. Also here, which Athenean did not participate: Talk:Turkish_people.


 * Frivolous bad-faith request by User:Cavann, who is the prime edit-warrior in this article             (count 'em!). In fact I have only 4 reverts in this article in September, while he has accumulated almost a dozen.  He displays clear WP:OWN behavior regarding this article (hence his revert warring), and is desperate to have me blocked so that he can get away with his POV-pushing. In his desperation, he resorts to all kinds of dirty tricks, such as bringing up my past history (even though I haven't been blocked for edit-warring in over 3 years now), mischaracterizing my edits as reverts  even though they are not, bringing up edits from last month, and outright lies (about me not participating in the talkpage even though I am the one who has opened the discussion thread ).   He is arrogant, belligerent and contemptuous towards other users in the talkpage, and has been repeatedly warned for this . Regarding the GAR, "If significant instability persists for more than a couple of weeks, then reassessment on the grounds of instability may be considered.", enough said. Athenean (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You opened the discussion thread right after your revert. You say nothing in the talk page for 17 days (even tho you were active in Wikipedia), and then miraculously appear and revert 30 min after my edit, and then start a discussion thread in the talk page. This is disruptive. Cavann (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * All my reverts are accompanied by talkpage posts. There is nothing "disruptive" about that.  In fact the opposite.  When I don't edit the article (and I haven't been very active this month for RL reasons), I don't edit the talkpage.  I am not obligated to participate in discussions when I am not reverting or editing at all.  Your understanding of "disruptive" needs re-calibration, e.g. by looking in the mirror. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, this is the problem. You only participate in discussion right before or after a revert. I have waited 17 days in the talk page for more of your input, yet you returned 30 min after my edit to revert. Cavann (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, after this edit, which, for once, you did not revert, I was under the impression that we had reached an understanding. Unfortunately, it looks like I was wrong, as today you resumed your Anatolianist POV-pushing with full force.  Your dispute with Alexikoua regarding page numbers, I was not involved in, and did not feel like getting involved, nor was I under any obligation to do so.  The only "problem" here is your WP:OWN and WP:TEND  behavior, and the edit-warring and arrogant, abrasive attitude that accompany it.  Athenean (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After you removed "material sourced to backpacker guidebooks," I came with journal articles and an Oxford Handbook, which was quickly reverted again. Please do not fake an "understanding," I was very clear in the talk page, 7 September 2013, which was ignored. Cavann (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I hadn't seen this, and you didn't revert (amazingly), so I took as a sign that for once you had finally understood the point and backed down. You seem to think you can add all kinds of irrelevant stuff to an article just because it sourced, but it doesn't work that way.


 * Also very interesting you filed this report not after my last revert to the article, but after I filed the GAR (which you made sure to mention here, even though I am well within my rights to file a GAR). Proof that this is a frivolous report filed purely out of spite and retaliatory intent.  Unsurprising, since you have been edit-warring on this article more than everyone else combined. If anyone should be blocked, it is you. Athenean (talk) 01:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would suggest WP:DR. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

82.15.73.71 reported by TheMillionRabbit (Result: 31 hours)
In July, this user blanked most of the Windows 2.1x article. . It got reverted. . A few days ago, on September 22, he blanked the entire page three times, getting reverted each time. He also blanked the Windows 2.1x talk page and a file page. . I don't know what should be done about him. Thank you. TheMillionRabbit 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Sorry about that. But thank you for taking action. --TheMillionRabbit 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AIV would have been a better place for this report, BTW. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Quale reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  02:46, 21 September 2013‎‎
 * 2)  05:59, 22 September 2013‎
 * 3)  04:52, 23 September 2013‎
 * 4)  05:15, 23 September 2013‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * This user is falsely adding the information, which is solely created by him, he never make any discussion about the information that he adds, he goes on misusing the sources, by adding them, and claiming "my sources says that" when they don't even match any of his version. His made up information has been refuted like it can be seen at the talk page, but he seems to be highly obsessive in terms of pushing his own edit as a fact, and then he also follows me on other pages making same unreal claims, when they have to do nothing with the actual subject either. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly Quale has not broken 3RR, as the diffs indicate. It is worth adding that Bladesmulti's claim that Quale is falsifying sources is wholly spurious. The opposite is the case, as can be seen at Talk:Cox-Forbes theory and Fringe_theories/Noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He is falsely asserting "Bhavishya purana", which has to do nothing with the whole subject at all, that's where he is edit warring. Which is simple to understand. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Forbes claimed that the BP was his source. You are right that in fact it has nothing to do with the subject, because Forbes was proved wrong. And that's exactly what the article says. But it has to describe his theory to refute it. Paul B (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I take this report back for now. I will look forward to the editor if he stops adding one of the information that he should. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * /withdrawn by complainant. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User:198.189.184.243 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Topic ban under WP:ARBPS)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly been blocked for edit warring at Orthomolecular medicine and other pages that qualify under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. As soon as they are unblocked they return to the same POVPUSH behavior within a matter of a few days. Page semi-protection for the pages this editor is active on should also be considered, imho. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 01:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

To UseTheCommandLine - I attempted to accurately reflect the content of the articles, as well as the phase I trials. Please tell me how I violated policy. You appear to be demonstrating lack of NPOV, as you are not accurately reflecting the content of the articles. The reviews are here, my coverage of them is accurate: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long, http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78

Regarding "edit warring", You are referring to this edit history of today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&action=history

and this edit I made, where I engaged in nothing approaching 3RR violations, as I made 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=574259777&oldid=574258763 - which I modified to be more NPOV than the other revision, modifying it to state "some research groups argued". I have not since reverted the article, and at the end of the talk page, I urged other editors to abide, for the improvement of the article, to the BRD policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=574261603&oldid=574259929

It is interesting, by the way, that other editors were earlier demonstrating NOTAFORUM violations, but UseThecommandLine only removed mine. See the comment to this, where he said "feel free to remove the collapsing thing if you feel the discussion can be re-directed productively": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=573488383&oldid=573448770

Yet when I responded, he removed my response under the pretext that it violated NOTAFORUM. The difference between revisions states, "Reverted to revision 573488383 by UseTheCommandLine: NOTFORUM.": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=573752194&oldid=573714342

I do not see how I am violating policy and edit warring, as I did not do anything close to violating 3RR (I only made 1 edit, I didn't even revert the article after that edit was reverted), attempted to accurately reflect content of articles while demonstrating NPOV, and posted concerns on the talk page. The warning is inappropriate. I brought up problems with his approach on his talk page, and he merely said "please do not comment here", showing how his animosity was driving his edit decisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UseTheCommandLine&diff=574262022&oldid=574261422

In all honesty, I feel that UseTheCommandLine is using bully tactics to prevent these edits (which accurately reflect the content of the articles), from appearing on the page, as they go against his personal opinion. This was a preliminary attempt to get me blocked. 198.189.184.243 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Now, I will make one completely legitimate edit to the article, which would not at all violate 3RR.198.189.184.243 (talk) 02:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the completely legitimate edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthomolecular_medicine&diff=574266872&oldid=574266755198.189.184.243 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: is banned from the topic of fringe science on all pages of Wikipedia under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized by WP:ARBPS. For clarity, this topic includes at a minimum all the articles in  such as Orthomolecular medicine. If you disagree with this action, see the 'appeal' section at the top of WP:Arbitration enforcement. This IP has been constantly reverting since August 21 at Orthomolecular medicine to make that article give credence to the use of Vitamin C for cancer treatment. He continues to repeatedly add his material although he has not obtained consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * FYI here are the sock IPs. Vzaak (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

For this I only attempted to accurately reflect the content of the articles. I feel that WP:RGW is being violated, as mainstream journals suggest a reevaluation, and I tried to reflect the exact arguments of those journals. I only reverted TheCommandLine's edits yesterday once because I felt that he was basing his decisions on illegitimate pretexts and using dirty tactics to attempt to marginalize me. I added content from phase I trials that were discussed in the talk page - I attempted to cover all of them in order to maintain an NPOV. There is some controversy regarding the interpretation of the phase I trials that appears on the talk page (questioning whether or not the studies showing synergy really showed synergy). I attempted to reflect the content of the articles as they were presented, without bias from individual interpretation. There is one minor detail where I might have been wrong - whether or not a result showing stabilization was proof of an anti-tumor response. I am fine with clumping in that study with the two others that showed no objective anti-tumor response. I was attempting to do everything I did so that commentary reflected the actual content of the articles (which make the points I stated, though I am fine with the negative interpretation of the Puerto Rico trial), rather than reflecting other editors anti-vitamin C bias. As far as the interpretation of studies is concerned, I still think I have the right to make a point on the talk page (as the latest comment on the page, arguing that there was stabilization, implying 0% regression, can be controverted by figure 3 of the trial: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029794.g003/originalimage, showing that there was regression, but regression lower than the required standards of RECIST criteria for it to be reported as such (and some of the statistice the editor mastcell gives are misleading as they conflict with the fact that a few people dropped out of the study, but for those who stayed, a significant response was noted), as well as consideration of other items like this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304419X12000509 - showing differences with pharmaclogy when interacting with cancer cells at high doses - a fact supported here by this animal study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2516281/ - the idea of vitamin c interfering with cancer therapy has been refuted in systematic reviews: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17367938, and other trials also show some efficacy for ascorbate treatment: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00280-013-2070-8 - and in addition to some studies that show synergy in some cases, other studies, while showing that it does not have value as an alternative treatment, do show that it has value as a complementary treatment, like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6811475, and this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021693, which concludes, "Complementary treatment of breast cancer patients with i.v. vitamin C was shown to be a well tolerated optimization of standard tumour-destructive therapies, reducing quality of life-related side-effects."). I do not see how bringing up such points is forbidden, from what I see, only edits to the article are forbidden, though, in my view, under illegitimate pretexts. And the fact of reconsideration being pushed in mainstream journals: http://advances.nutrition.org/content/2/2/78, http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/29/3/809.long means that the WP:ARBPS policies do not apply in this case.198.189.184.243 (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)