Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive224

User:Werieth reported by User:MarioNovi (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:


 * This is simple WP:NFC enforcement, which is exempt from 3RR. Ive asked for rationales explaining why the images need kept and have gotten silence and blind reverts. WP:NFCC requires that the usage of non-free media meet specific guidelines. In this case they are not being met and the user refused to explain why they think it is being met. Werieth (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing copyright violations from articles is an exemption from WP:3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Onam2013 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574015136 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of &quot;File:Thalapathi poster.jpg&quot;"
 * 3)  "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of &quot;File:Thalapathi poster.jpg&quot;"
 * 4)  "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of &quot;File:Thalapathi poster.jpg&quot;"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 574186518 by Stefan2 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Onam2013 uploaded a new version of &quot;File:Thalapathi poster.jpg&quot;"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574186518 by Stefan2 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* September 2013 */"
 * 2)   "/* September 2013 */"
 * 3)   "/* September 2013 */"
 * 4)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on File:Thalapathi poster.jpg. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He keeps uploading a fake image over the official one uploaded by me Kailash29792 (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * For your information: I noticed some edit warring over the file yesterday, and there is some discussion on my talk page at User talk:Stefan2. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

His edit pattern suggests that this user is most likely the duck sock of a master who was blocked for abusing multiple accounts Sockpuppet_investigations/Mealwaysrockz007. Watch him adding back the same unsourced promotional content in Kunchacko Boban which the blocked socks used to do frequently, diff. Requesting indefinite block. JK (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:Richard BB (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574286868 There is no concensus with Richard BB, he's been blocking this for months against multiple other users & yet allows pictures of the Liblabcon leaders to remain"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574181394 by Richard BB It's already been discussed on the talk page with other users & y've lost the point & won't accept it, & threats won't get u anywhere little chap either"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 574180308 by Richard BB (talk) Actions speak louder than words little fella, yr trying to control political information against multiple other users u naughty boy ; )"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 574176421 by Richard BB (talk) Limiting Wiki information for politically biased reasoning by Richard BB - not good little chap =/"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 574175702 by Bardrick (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on United Kingdom local elections, 2014. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2014 */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring by User talkBardrick */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring by User talkBardrick */ Oops"


 * Comments:

Also a lack of good faith on this users part, as he has accused me in the above edit summaries of being politically biased against UKIP, when I have outright said on the talk page that I am neutral towards their inclusion on this article, and would happily support it if consensus were attained (which it hasn't been). —  Richard  BB  20:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From Bardrick - This "RichardBB" character has been dominating the page in question for months, repeatedly undoing edits from multiple users without good reason, & using sinister control speak language like "I just want concensus & we need to talk about it" to various other users who give up & just leave it. When he's argued with after his multiple immediate reversion edits against people he then starts threatening "going to an administrator to get other users blocked". He should get a life & stop the political (it has to be motivated by this, who else would haunt a page in this way obsessively for months continually deleting uncontentious information?) control freakery.
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll also take this opportunity to once more point out that I'm not "dominating" the page at all. Wikipedia works by consensus, and that consensus has not been achieved for this particular edit. I'm honestly neither for nor against UKIP's inclusion: all I want is consensus, as this is always a contentious issue, but it hasn't been achieved. —  Richard  BB  20:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me support what Richard BB says here. Bardrick's comments about Richard BB do not describe what I have seen. Richard BB has acted appropriately and helpfully. Bardrick was not responsive to other editors. I, as I've said on the relevant Talk page and in edits, support the edit Bardrick wants made, but the matter has been discussed on the Talk page and consensus for such a change was clearly not reached. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:28 24 September removed image array
 * 2) 20:35 24 September My deletion wasn't unexplained at all
 * 3) 21:01 24 September Please stop edit-warring.....
 * 4) 21:14 24 September BLP concerns < -- (he self-reverted that)
 * 5) 22:08, 24 September removed living individuals who are not notable for being irreligious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have seen this user get involved in edit wars numerous times and he usually narrowly gets away without a block. Please do not let him get away without a block this time. Pass a Method  talk  21:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I claimed a BLP exemption for the last two reverts, and posted the issue at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, where there is broad support for the removal of the images. I also started the article talk page discussion, although User:Pass a Method was rather uncivil. I also note that I received a warning on my talk page after my fourth revert, and I have not reverted since. (The first revert was yesterday; the last three were today.) StAnselm (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Thats untrue, there is no support for your edit. Only partial support for removal of some specific entries. Secondly, the civility link you posted i quickly re-edited so you're misrepresenting me. Pass a Method   talk  21:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not mis-representing you at all. If you redact an insult without apology, you are still responsible for it. Anyway, I have self-reverted and done as you suggest. StAnselm (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply Thats not a self-revert since i was not expecting 7 images to be removed. Your argument would hold merit if the title of the article was "anti-theist americans" or "atheist activist Americans". Instead, the article title is a broad/inclusive "irreligious". Furthermore, why would you remove one of the most notable irreligious Americans in history such as Carl Sagan? Pass a Method   talk  22:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I removed five people - it's gone from 20 images down to 15. Sagan is still there. StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I missed that because you re-arranged the order of the images. Anyway, i still believe you have a double standard because there are articles which are have the same exact issues but you never touch those articles. If you let go of this double standard your argument would be more believable. See for example American Jews or Muslim Americans Pass a Method   talk  23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I edit literally thousands of articles. Are you criticizing me for not editing articles? As it turns out, I found the Irreligion in the United States article as a reader. But now that I look at American Jews - yes, I suspect that all those people are known for being Jewish. Anyway, I didn't change the order of the images at all - I kept the order and re-numbered to fit. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . StAnselm did initiate a discussion at WP:BLPN, and my reading is there's significant support for removing certain images from the article. Keeping in mind WP:BLPREMOVE, a consensus needs to be reached before images may be re-added.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: permalink

Diffs of the user's reverts: Above are three 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:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff

In the past, instead of answering my questions, he's deleted my questions from the article talk page not once - 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: diff

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, and again - second and third diffs, above (and he's till unrepentant).


 * If you're not going to discuss things, then don't don't revert; to do so 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" ?

Summary of overall dispute
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. In other words, so long as this article indicates that the works of some states are Public Domain, 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. (There's ample proof that these statements are true; see, e.g. the in-article references, or the ones noted on the talk page, or in .) 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) 18:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Responses

 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hope that helps.  Yup, DR is appropriate (and has been tried and will be tried again, I'm sure).  I reported the edit warring because it seems to me it was the most appropriate dispute resolution step. --Elvey (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TJRC
Ah, the latest episode of Elveydrama.

This is actually very simple. This article is "copyright status of works of the U.S. government". Elvey seeks to add material about works of state and other governments (for brevity, I'll just say "state" from here on in). Works of state governments are not works of the U.S. Government. Works of state governments are not within the scope of the article. That's it in a nutshell.

Works of the U.S. government are markedly different from other works: they are statutorily ineligible for copyright. This is not true of works of other governments, including state governments. The distinction that needs to be addressed is already covered in the article (or was, until Elvey's most recent reversion; you can see my preferred text here): "The lack of copyright protection for works of the United States government does not apply to works of state or municipal government or to works of the governments of the District of Columbia or Puerto Rico." Boom. That's it. That's the entire sum of the relevance of such works to this topic.

Instead, Elvey wishes to add additional off-topic material to this article. He wants to add material about works of state governments, which is not part of the statutory exception. Elvey has been active producing another article (steeped in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR) on that subject: Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments. We include a hatnote in the section pointing to that article: "For individual state governments' treatment of their copyrights, see Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments." That's probably more than is appropriate; I would prefer that we instead have the usual entry in the "See also" section at the bottom of the article; but that's a small concession, and I don't mind making it.

But that's not enough for Elvey: he wants to add the off-topic material to the body of the text and delete sourced info. Elvey's preferred version adds his off-topic WP:OR material about state governments, and removes material about other territories, which material is reliably sourced to the U.S. Copyright Office document Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Here's his edit:. I'm not the only editor to have reverted edits like this, has as well:. His claims about Florida and California probably have a grain of truth to them, but are based on his WP:OR article.

Elvey's characterization is that I will not find an alternate way of adding his off-topic material misses that it's already in there, in the hatnote; and being a different topic, is not discussed in the text itself, nor should it be.

As discussed in the talk page, trying to find some reference in a reliable source to support his pet text, I've checked a number of standard sources, to see how they deal with this issue. None do more than simply noting that works of state governments are not within the statutory exclusion, which is exactly how the Wikipedia article handles it. Nimmer on Copyright (an 11-volume treatise on US copyright law by Melville Nimmer and David Nimmer, unquestionably the leading authority on copyright law, apart from the statutes and cases themselves), treats it this way. One of the leading law school textbooks (if not the leading law school textbook) on the subject, Joyce, Leaffler, Jaszi, Ochoa & Carroll, Copyright Law, 9th edition), treats it this way. A few others I've checked don't cover it at all.  No reliable source deals with it as Elvey seeks to, and no Wikipedia editor apart from Elvey is seeking to add it.

The underlying problem here is that Elvey does not understand law in general, and in particular copyright law, yet he continues to confidently edit copyright and other legal articles without regard to that. (I'm not the only one to have noted this. In the last episode of Elveydrama, an admin noted "My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.")  In this article he has claimed that government ownership of copyright is unconstitutional ; it is not. He has claimed that some works are PD as works of California government when they are not (see, e.g., File:Jerry Brown portrait (1984).jpg, which Elvey  as a public domain work of the California government) despite there being no indication that they are works of the California government, or indeed that they were ever even owned by the California government. He has a history of confusing open-records law with copyright law.

Add to that Elvey's continued hostility with just about anyone who dares to make an edit that varies from his preferred text (not just here, and not just me, but elsewhere and with other editors; for a good time, look at the "last episode" linked above; including the lengthy bit he adds after the ANI had been closed), is it any surprise I limit my engagement with him? I think I've more than bent over backward in the talk page to this article. He's now following some of my other edits; and trying to pull me into another fight over those, which I am declining (see User_talk:TJRC). I realize that I'm being forced to interact with him on this subject, but frankly, the less I have to deal with him, the better I will feel.

As an aside, I make no claims of WP:OWN with respect to this article. I did not author it, and, my edits to it have been relatively small and, apart from the Elveydrama, infrequent. In no way do I feel that this is "my" article. I have to admit, I have a sense of pride with respect to the few dozen articles that I have authored, but quite frankly, I like it when I see that they attract enough attention to be improved by others.

Note, I'm writing this on the evening of Tuesday, Sept. 24, and am leaving for vacation this weekend, as I've already informed Elvey on his talk page. I will be busy putting my workload in order for the remaining three days of the week, and may not respond quickly or in depth. After Friday, Sept. 27, I will not be able to respond at all until sometime in the second week of October. TJRC (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of versions
To focus this, here is a summary of the dispute between Elvey and me. I am labeling these "TJRC version" and "Elvey version" for identification purposes only, and not to claim ownership of the article by either Elvey or myself. My editorialization is in the "comments" column. The table is based on the comparison here.

TJRC (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:69.173.6.5 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Consensus leans strongly toward included this well-cited material. The IP repeatedly claims that the content does not contain quotes, which is a red herring argument. They have reverted the same material at least five times which is disruptive to the efforts of other editors to improve the article. - MrX 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . The situation is a bit more complex than you make it out to be, but the IP did (just barely) violate WP:3RR, despite being properly warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:132.194.210.73 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574482341 by North8000 (talk)The article before my edits was in clear violation of NPOV.  I made edits to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy.  You please stop."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574480940 by Arzel (talk) NPOV policy prevents deleting text that is "perceived" to be biased. I've address the issue in the talk page. The article was before in clear violation of NPOV."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 574480463 by BatteryIncluded (talk) "self-defense training" is a biased statement.  The NRA is not teaching Karate, it's teaching people how to use guns."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 574479338 by Gaijin42 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* 3rr */ new section"


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

I did make an attempt to resolve the conflict via the article's talk page. The article before my edits was in clear violation of NPOV and read like an advertisement and is in violation of the Wikipedia Spam policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.194.210.73 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * for edit warring and vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Atotalstranger reported by User:Bhny (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has had other warning for vandalism today Bhny (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Joseph1357 reported by User:Singularity42 (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

New editor seems to be removing content on various pages without explanation, and then edit warring to keep the information out, even after edit summaries asking for explanations, a warning, and a link to WP:BRD. Singularity42 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to re-report if he continues, but I'm very hesitant to block someone at 2RR like this. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Shiite reported by Nanner-Nanner (Result: Protected)
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  14:45, 25 September 2013
 * 2)  21:25, 24 September 2013‎
 * 3)  21:37, 22 September 2013‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hujr ibn Adi

Comments: The majority agrees that the new info box is better for the article but Shiite keeps reverting the edits even though the majority already agreed that the new one is better. Nanner-Nanner (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Innab reported by User:Prototime (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Innab has repeatedly reverted, in whole or in part, edits to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article despite the reverts being against consensus and despite being reverted herself by multiple editors. The article is currently undergoing an extended Good Article review, and a few weeks ago in the course of that review, a consensus was formed with input from several editors that the article was too long and that the former "Provisions by effective date" section should be split off into its own article. See discussion at Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act/GA1; the new article can be found at Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, starting a few days ago, Innab has persistently edited the article to restore all or much of the material that was moved to the new article back to the main article. At first, her reasoning was that the consensus for splitting the material was invalid because it formed in the course of a GA review, but after multiple editors have repeatedly reverted her edits, she now offers little rationale for her continued reverts. She also has persistently removed the "Background" section of the article without explanation, and there is certainly no consensus or even discussion about removing that section. I reverted her edits last Sunday, but I ceased to revert her that day after I approached 3RR; other editors then began to revert her. I have not reverted her since last Sunday, but given her persistent battles with other editors, I did warn her today that she was edit warring. She then responded to this by warning me that I am edit warring (see: diff) and resumed her reverts to the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Several of us have tried to reason with this Innab, but she continues to insist that her way is the right way. The article is now a monstrous 229kB+ and contains excessive detail. That aside, the edit warring and WP:IDHT by Innab is disruptive, especially at a time when this article is getting more than 10,000 views per day. - MrX 21:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:50.73.181.181 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Edit-warring over a spelling, contrary to WP:ENGVAR

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

Warnings issued:
 * ENGVAR
 * EW

Only response was a further reversion with the edit summary, "Undid revision by Dingy (Just say no to British-only words, especially about American items)"

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - there are only three reverts here (and I'm not convinced enough that this IP is the same as 24... to block). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Judgeking reported by User:Werieth (Result: Irrelevant)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574043538 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574554156 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 574554397 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 574554455 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 574554516 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 574554644 by Werieth (talk) Nope, they're all fine"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning about non-free content usage"
 * 2)   "/* September 2013 */"
 * 3)   "/* September 2013 */"


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


 * Comments:

User has repeatedly violated NFCC. Werieth (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ill also note that NFCC enforcement is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This page didn't result in action, so Werieth went to WP:ANI, where I found the situation and blocked. I didn't come over here until well after I'd levied the block.  Nyttend (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Askave (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

See history : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Czechia_-_the_name_dispute&action=history

Vandalism: user Mewulwe many times deleted all my article, with redirection of deleted page to the other. I announced I am prepared to discuss the issue, but he has been reacted the same way (deleting) without any discussion

Askave (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the protectionAskave (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeenahaitohdussehrapemil reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user and what appears to be them in logged-out mode have been warring with various people for days now and is almost always acting outside policy (eg: another recent episode concerned introduction of copyrighted images). The three latest examples given above are straightforward BLP violations, for which the warning diff above shows both specific notice, an EW notice and a personalised request to abstain. They need a break to read up on policy. Please also note that they have been mentioned at SPI and the general issues surrounding this small group of articles has been discussed here. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Two different issues

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starts here, but this is an ongoing issue.

Comments:

Some kind of time out from GM-related articles would perhaps be useful. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Of those seven diffs two of them are a double link of the same diff = only two edits. The other four edits are all to different areas in the article and none are a 3peat.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Five diffs, and none of them are a double link. I'm sure the closing admin can sort it out, but someone who was blocked for two days last year for edit warring should surely be aware of how this works. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Canoe1967 is in high battleground mode across the suite of GM articles where he has been active lately, not discussing content but instead being disruptive:
 * 1) soft edit warring (reverting instead of talking) on Genetically modified food
 * 2) here and
 * 3) here
 * 4) disrupting discussion on Talk:Monsanto modified wheat mystery,
 * 5) (vulgarity) dif and
 * 6) dif and
 * 7) dif
 * 8) Attacking other editors instead of discussing content on the Talk page of the subject article:
 * 9) dif
 * 10) and dif
 * 11) and dif
 * I agree. Please note that this series of reverts today is not an isolated event, but part of a pattern that has been ongoing over a series of weeks,, only happening to go above three at once today. At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Canoe1967/Monsanto and GMO, there was a consensus that Canoe is acting disruptively and against consensus, see even , , (deleted edits, visible only to admins, but showing edit warring over an "index" label). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked Canoe before I saw Jytdog's (and now Tryptofish's) comments above. The block was for breaching WP:3RR, a bit of attitude on the article originally reported, and Canoe's block history. If you're suggesting some type of topic ban, WP:AN is the place for that, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Cavann (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: deletion of subsection "Admixture in Greeks".

IP 108.5.45.96 is a single-purpose account. It uses same arguments with Athenean (e.g., pseudo-science, not a reliable source etc). Basically rehashes the arguments by Athenean here  and here User_talk:Cavann. Athenean also apparently has a vendetta against this scientist, Arnaiz-Villena, removing his articles from other pages, and calling him a "kook". The only other editor who deleted this subsection was Dr.K., but he was more concerned about possible plagiarism. Moreover, Athenean has a disruptive editing pattern and it is clear that IP is a single purpose account; however, it might be just a proxy, so not sure if it will match Athenean's IP.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:59, 26 September 2013 by Athenean
 * 2) 02:23, 26 September 2013 by Athenean
 * 3) 11:08, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96
 * 4) 11:37, 26 September 2013 by IP 108.5.45.96

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Athenean is well aware of consequences of edit-warring, since he was blocked for it various times. He also posted the multiple 3RR templates on my talk page himself (eg: ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:African_admixture_in_Europe
 * . I've fully protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.103.39.226 reported by User:Alfietucker (Result: Protected)
IP 2.103.39.226 has started making edits on Wikipedia today, exclusively on Barilla Group, and has reverted here, here, and here. I have tried to point out the potential violation of WP:3RR on his/her talk page, and invited them to discuss issues on the article's talk page - a discussion I opened here; my notice on the IP's talk page only got the following response and yet another revert in the Barilla Group article here. Alfietucker (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pagelinks:
 * User being reported:
 * Hopefully this will prompt him to take the matter to the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:103.6.87.121 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Most IPs Hardblocked/Remaining Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

This user keeps adding unsourced content to the Dan Vs. page and keeps adding that the show will be canceled when the Hub Network says it will be canceled. He's on the verge of violating the three-revert rule and starting an edit war. AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding unsourced content, I'm removing it, cause there's no source saying Hub axed the show. We need proof that it may or may not come back. 103.6.87.121 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We've got a WP:BOOMERANG situation here; the IP above is a clear sock of the banned removing required information about educational programming on articles and abusing the proxy service "Hola" to make their edits. ADH is correct for reverting their edit not just based on WP:BANNED, but because the show hasn't aired since March with no announcements to it (this is a network that never officially canceled the long-gone Hubworld, for instance).  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, is continually trying to remove your comments. I am restoring and warning them. —  Richard   BB  22:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 02:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted or latterly

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Comments:

As the talk page discussions show, the editor is going against consensus, insisting on including rhetorical statements in the "reactions" section, arguing their own interpretation of what is a "notable" reaction, but ignoring the concerns of others about material that is not encyclopaedic. They often leave edit summaries and discussion comments that assume bad faith or unhelpful comments implying censorship or that others don't read what they say or that the removal of what is agreed (consensually) to be "unencycopaedic cruft" is "vandalism". Arguably, the editor has already made concessions, and has not resisted the removal of much of the bland rhetoric, but remains insistent on including them for African Union countries because they believe these are "particularly notable".

They have been successively signalling their disagreement by placing disputed and npov tags on the relevant section. Even after the consensus seemed clear to me, I created a poll, but the editor removed it along with some votes.

In this edit, they remove what is just about the only reaction that I would consider worthy of including – that security measures are being tightened in soft targets around the world. However, that edit is highly complex and the edit summary is a bit garbled. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

1. There was no warning of edit warring. Please see said users followup comment on my page.; 2. The user in question has also revert-warred multiple times on this page without participating in discussion. According to WP:BRD, his initialy BOLD revert was reverted, which mean she ought to seek consensus discussion. I then put in a different version from mine to seek accomodation, tagged the page (to generate discussion, as is the point of tags) and I asked questions to come up with a solution in talk. In talk, he did not answer my questions, he reinstated his version. For example, I have notified and kept the admin User:John abreast of the situation that I am eliciting conversation and discussion (not just voting (as he is doing on the page, and it is quite clear that WP:Consensus is not formed by voting)). 3. He accuses me of going against consensus when I have asked and shown on the talk page that his version and additions have ZERO consensus. I did that yesterday before he brought this here. There is no consensus, and no discussion for what he deems as notable to stay and what he deems as illegitmate. 4. He also removed the tag without any discussion. Removing tag to edit war is itself been before grounds for a block when consensus discussions are ongoing
 * What are we supposed to do if discussions are not followed? How do I even try to generate a discussion if it is dismissed in favour of such wars without consensus? And then complaining to ANI to dismiss progress on discussion-based consensus. (the only semblance of discussion/consensus he seeks is an outright vote of 2 versions without any reason WHATSOEVER of discussing matters at hand)
 * It is deceptive that he has made an attempt to resolve a dispute because it was ME that worked off a truncated version AND discussed on the talk page. Something he has not explained for his versionLihaas (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Specifically, he now accuses me here of inserting rhetorical statements, when his own version has nothing but selective rhetorical statement that he personally deems noteworthy (as I brought mention of on the talk page). Am I arguing my OWN version for what is notable? If I wanted my version of netural notability I would have all the flags, I was not the one to choose my own selective version of notabiltiy and I even discussed it. While content issues are not for ANI, in response to the user he says I deem AU statements more notable (but I asked so on discussion), he deems bland rhetoric by the USA/UK as notable, has ZERO mention of it on the talk page and continues to reinssert it by his own whim.
 * As mentioned the tag is for disputes, as the edit mentions "consensus seemed clear to me" and that he created a "poll", which is pretty obviously spelt out by the user that he is unaware of how WP:Consensus works (and I said it as much that we don't vote count, yet he deems his vote counting to be consensus personally). As an involved editor, he cannot deem consensus (especially on his side)
 * In the edit in question I am reverting an unexplained removal that YOU removed. You oppose me now of accepting your version too of removing FLAGCRUFT (which is also heavily supported by edits/discussion)? And again cited by you is your personal whim which ought to be diktat: "only reaction that I would consider worthy of including ". Hasnt this just spelt out feelings of WP:OWN that personal views have been used to determine consensus?Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'note- I have not edited the page today at all. Yet on the talk page, the user has only written "Tthe OP said there were too many flags and "excessive reactions". And we seem to still be talking about too many reactions" in response to my questions. Has answered NONE of the questions to stimulate consensus, has reverted to the tag (that has no reason WHATSOEVER) and comes here to complain that I am restoring "my" version, while admitting he used his personal opinion.
 * Also note, Instead of warring I have added almost all of the content oin the page froum sources in the early days for a page that was tremedously popular with 50k hits (must be one of ITN hottest links). I would request we go back to adding a lo tmore CONTENT as there is to be added now (and I have a bunch of links to add when this settles down)Lihaas (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarity and for everyone's benefit, the warring notification was indeed posted, corresponding to the link in the report above. The fact that Lihaas "added almost all of the content oin the page froum sources in the early days" is entirely irrelevant as this confers no ownership rights. Lihaas insists on posting recentist cruft in defiance of consensus and has sought to lawyer and launch red herrings on for example why I left Obama's comment undeleted when it's hasn't been there for two days already. Lihaas did make this edit approximately 20 hours ago, and has made edits today, but has not touched the disputed content as that has not changed since that edit of 20 hours ago. I did not want to provoke. The editor keeps insisting that they are continuing the BRD, like here (diff missing from above) but if one looke carefully at the diffs, you will see that the meaningless waffle about the UN press office, rhetoric from Zuma and Abdelaziz keeps reappearing. The argument continues, and there is no indication that Lihaas accepts there isn't room in our consensus for rhetorical soundbytes. It indicates that the underlying thrust remains the same cruft inclusion but on slightly different content. If one were to be strict on applying WP:3RR, though, viz: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, there is no doubt Lihaas is in breach and can and ought to be blocked. --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . My inclination is to take no action on this report (or issue warnings), partly because a breach of WP:3RR isn't clear, partly because it's a bit stale, and partly because OhC has also been edit-warring at roughly the same time. With respect to the diffs listed above, #1 is from 9/22 and too old. #2-5 are from 9/24, and the last two are from 9/25. The breach would have occurred on 9/24 or on 9/24 going into 9/25. However, there is no breach if #4 isn't counted. Could someone clarify #4? On the surface, it's an addition, but if it is adding something that was previously removed then, it's a revert. Articles like these with heavy activity are not easy to evaluate, so a little help, preferably from OhC, would be appreciated. As for the 3RR warning, OhC is correct. There was a warning on 9/24 before diffs #6 and 7. Even without a warning, Lihaas is an experienced editor and should not require one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No response from anyone - closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Andrewm19912 reported by User:Besieged (Result: Andrewm19912 blocked; article semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574652152 by 81.193.43.132 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574647362 by 81.193.43.132 (talk) vandal!!!!!!!!!!"
 * 3)  "You clearly don't know what classifies as a good standing article on Wikipedia. you have no authority to ban anyone!!!!!!!!!"
 * 4)  "stop deleting my work, explain how these aren't improvements?"
 * 5)  "stop deleting my work, explain how these aren't improvements?"
 * 6)  "/* First team squad */  added back Serialslb's edit on the squads list"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 574618896 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 574606350 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 574598069 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 574597649 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 574597368 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 574597246 by 85.247.78.240 (talk)"
 * 13)  "you're the only one who has a problem with it, they are clear improvments!!!!"
 * 14)  "I have made the page much better with my improvments, they took alot of hours to do, so dont delete my hard work, i only reverted you're revert of my stuff, no one elses"
 * 15)  "STOP VANDALISING!!!!"
 * 16)  "STOP VANDALISING!!!!"
 * 17)  "how am i vandilising? my edits improved the page. explain how what i'm doing lowers the standard of the page?"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 574485231 by BenficaNNossaPaixao (talk)"
 * 19)  "clear improvements, not vandalism!!!"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 574463252 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 574464949 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
 * 22)  "You’re the one vandalising, not me; I clearly made improvements to the Benfica Page. And you have no authority to ban anyone; you don’t even have a username. I didn’t make this account to vandalise, i support benfica"
 * 23)  "vandalism!!!!, you’re making the page worse"
 * 24)  "Undid revision:- most footy pages on wikipedia do it in this way"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574463252 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574464949 by 85.245.91.63 (talk)"
 * 3)  "You’re the one vandalising, not me; I clearly made improvements to the Benfica Page. And you have no authority to ban anyone; you don’t even have a username. I didn’t make this account to vandalise, i support benfica"
 * 4)  "vandalism!!!!, you’re making the page worse"
 * 5)  "Undid revision:- most footy pages on wikipedia do it in this way"
 * 1)  "vandalism!!!!, you’re making the page worse"
 * 2)  "Undid revision:- most footy pages on wikipedia do it in this way"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:S.L. Benfica. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Andrewm19912 (talk) to last revision by Threeohsix. (TW)"


 * Comments:

User seems to be engaged in an ongoing edit war with one or more other editors, and seems to believe he has some sort of ownership over this article.

Additionally, he has taken to deleting warning notices placed on his user talk page, apparently in an attempt to hide his bad behavior. be siege d talk 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked Andrewm19912 for three days (not just for edit-warring) and semi-protected the article. At least a couple of the IPs were edit-warring as well, everyone was screaming vandalism at everyone else, and I don't know enough about the subject to even understand what the dispute was about. I suspect that at least some of the IPs are making constructive edits, but the article is going to have to limp along without all of them for the period of protection, even though there aren't that many auto-confirmed accounts editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The murkiness of the situation is why I provided so many diffs (more than normally needed, I know), because while I was dead certain there was an edit-war going on, I, too, couldn't really figure out what the whole dispute was over. be siege d talk 23:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:62.168.13.98 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "vandalism! Write you arguments in discussion!!"
 * 2)  "but deleting is Vandalism! You can use others, for examle write in discussion. But you delete = vandalize."
 * 3)  "Pure Vandalism"
 * 4)  "Vandalism! Here are more information than in redirected article."
 * 5)  "Vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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

User was blocked two times for edit warring. The Article is now locked, but user is warring around.--Yopie (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Comrades Yopie ane Mewulwe are phanatically enemies of the word Czechia. Ignore them. For so calles edit war see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mewulwe_reported_by_User:Askave_.28Result:_Protected.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:62.168.13.98 (Result: Submitter blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Mewulwe deleted (vandalized) this article: Czechia - the name dispute. This articke was protected before Mewulwe.

Mewulwe made edit war in this articles: Czechia - the name dispute, Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, Civic initiative Czechia, Hyphen War, Bohemia, Bohemian, Czech lands, List of country-name etymologies.

Warning on his talk-page and effort for discussion was without his reaction. 62.168.13.98 (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Above IP and the possibly identical User:Askave have created the absurdly titled article Czechia - the name dispute, a POV fork of Name of the Czech Republic, to further their long-standing "Czechia"-pushing campaign, and added links to it to these other articles. The IP already violated 3RR here and here. Mewulwe (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Mewulwe, you are an vandal, because you deleted the article Czechia - the name dispute. Your arguments you can write on the talkpage Talk:Czechia - the name dispute, if you want. But you want DELETE (4 times!!!). And I am not Askave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - reporter has a history of edit warring against multiple users. Blocked above. Materialscientist (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The title of the article can be absurd either only for the person, that does know absolute zero about the issue or (and it is much more probable) for somebody, that is in panic need to hide facts. I can (and I am prepared) to discuss everything about the issue and prove its publication is fully eligible. Repeated unprecedented deleting by admin Mewulwe without any concrete reason is multiplied vandalism and I ask for blocking of that user.

Users Mewulwe and Yopie (see their history - e.g. also Mewulwe actions also on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Name_of_the_Czech_Republic)) have been operated for years as eliminators of the word Czechia. So, because the name was recommended by Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic in 1998 and that recommendation has never been cancelled, those directives are in force. Czechia is a correct short-form and geographical name of the Czech state and it has full right to be used, capable to be the denomination of the Czech state in historical context, because it is politically neutral. Continuous erasing of the word by Mewulwe and Yopie is full expression of extreme POV, pushing all the time only political name of contemporary Czech state "the Czech Republic", which is the blunder, generating more and more faults in Wikipedia in application of this transient politicial appelation, existing only since 1993, also for all history of the Czech state e.g. "11th century in the Czech Republic" and similar absurdities. My article is article about the dispute, which is inherently controversial theme. All information come out from demonstrable facts. If arguments of one of opponent sides may seem to be poor, it is not fault or POV of the creator of the page, but of creators or confessors of that poorness.

So, the problem is not in my "Czechia-pushing", but in long-standing intentional "Czechia-concealment" of Mewulwe, Yopie & comp.

Simultaneously, I repeatedly and sharply reject repeated impeachment from my acting from two IP addresses Askave (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The submitter of this report,, has been blocked two weeks by User:Materialscientist and a sock investigation has been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Askave. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Surveyor792 reported by User:Aoidh (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: User talk:Surveyor792

Comments: Single-purpose account who is "devoted to preserving and protecting the U.S. Customary/Imperial system here&abroad", recently blocked for harassment and edit-warring is now continuing their personal attacks and edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a "single-purpose" account. My hobbies include surveying, which, as such, involves me with these units a great deal. I have no involvement with "protecting the U.S. Customary/Imperial system here and abroad!" But I do have an interest in removing anecdotal nonsense from articles on the ACRE, ROOD, and PERCH, which [i]I[/i] still encounter in U.S. Surveys almost every day.

This editor has been targeting me specifically since I joined, and ascribes political motives to the field of measurement; ridiculous! I have made more than four edits, but not in a malicious manner. In every instance I have provided more sources, none of which seem to meet this person's high standards. The rest of the article is littered with "citation needed" tags that this editor has made no attempt to correct. My additions were, in fact, made to RESOLVE several instances of uncited sources or supposition.

Each of the edits I made had different sources, each of which were deemed unworthy by the editor. Editor then made several references to "realty listings" completely ignoring the fact that I had actually gone and dug up a credible news article from a printed newspaper and a court docket.

Further his reversions were blanket in nature, not targeting specific sources, but rather reverting all of the different edits I had made to the article, rather than removing a particular entry whose source wasn't "acceptable." Indeed, this "shoot from the hip" style of editing is fast, but it lacks the sort of finesse a true copy editor would apply to their work.

If you look at past edits, you can see this "editor" has personally undone many of my edits since I joined, a targeted, malicious pattern in a manner that is incompatible with the mission of Wikipedia, providing free encyclopedic knowledge to users throughout the world. Instead, it seems to be this editor's mission to politicize wikipedia. Only here have I ever heard mention of a political agenda to units of land surveying! Surveyor792 (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that Aoidh's previous handle was SudoGhost, and that there was a long history there of his reverting all of my contributions. I only just discovered this was the same user now. Am glad this obtuseness is the work of one individual, rather than something more pervasive. Surveyor792 (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I never said "political agenda" or "politicize" in any way, you are the only one to ever use that descriptor. Your editing has a singular and very specific focus, and your previous account name was ACWMeas, a group with a very specific focus; all of your edits have fallen under that area of focus. You continued to add realtor websites as sources long after it was explained why they are not reliable sources, and removed a citation needed template after an explanation was given as to why it was added; the source you gave does not support the claim. The one "blanket" revert I made, I immediately self-reverted, so that excuse doesn't hold up; this partial revert of this addition is exactly opposite of what you're claiming I did. Despite Surveyor792's claim above, I am not the only editor that has interacted with them.  - Aoidh (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I interacted with in that diff and when I left him a 3RR warning, and also with his previous incarnation as  before that account was blocked by . That incarnation had this to say about himself: "I am with the Americans for Customary Weight and Measure, and feel we can speak on behalf of our friends at British Weights and Measures Association here ...". That doesn't sound to me like someone here to build an encyclopaedia. One might also wonder if someone who knows what a meat-puppet is the day after his first edit has not been around before under other names. By the way, if you mention me, it'd be courteous to let me know. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're here to CONDEMN the use of meatpuppets? Are you sure?  Didn't mention you, mentioned the past account of your buddy.  I used to post here under another account back in 2011.  Forgot the password and don't have the email account anymore.  It's hardly a conspiracy theory.  Maybe you should check that page out, lots of like-minded people on there.
 * Would you care to provide proof that I posted under another account besides the aforementioned one from 2 years ago that I got locked out of? I think that you and your other aliases/cronies don't like the units I use as a surveyor, so you go out of your way to censor anything I research and put up here.  You talk about political agendas and then procede to block real-world usages that provide clear-cut evidence.  Is it possible I have set up dozens of realty sites around the world that have unique country identifiers?  Yes.  Is it at all or in any way likely?
 * You continually attack the credibility of some common-sense real-world sources, but then allow the unnsourced article that existed before to exist unchanged.
 * Bizarre.
 * This is the fourth time you've accused me of being a member of some group that has a "political measuring agenda" or some other such nonsense. CITE YOUR SOURCES.  PROVE IT.  Or don't mention it again.  Maybe I should start copy-editing all of the unverified BS out of your power-hungry postings.Surveyor792 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite your continued assertion that anyone other than you has made any reference to anything "political", the fact remains that you have violated 3RR and made continued personal attacks despite being blocked for that very same behavior a month ago. - Aoidh (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah but SudoGhost you DID change your user handle, and never mentioned it. I am not sure what just is chiming in about. You were the one I was calling out. You claimed I represent a single-issue group, then described a political agenda. Further I see that you have ignored the procedure completely for using THIS TALK PAGE. You wanted to trap me in an edit war and now you want to punish me. Power and politics, not encyclopedic editing. You want to run Wikipedia, not engage in good-faith collaboration with contributors who are donating their time and expertise.Surveyor792 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I am going to explain this to you real good and slow, so you understand: I am contributing to areas in which I have professional knowledge. That constitutes a narrow range of expertise. − 		 − 	Do you understand my background? − 	Surveyor 792? − 	If you don't get it, perhaps you shouldn't be editing these pages at all, because you clearly don't understand what field or profession to which they pertain. − 		 − 		 − 	I don't know what you're in to, nor do I particularly care, but you don't see me copy-editing work you profess a high level of understanding, do you? − 		 − 	I repeatedly made edits that were complex and accomplished multiple changes. − 		 − 	You then deleted all of the work in a blanket fashion if you found any issue with any of the multiple sources. Even other parts of the edit, completely unrelated, completely disappeared. You don't understand why this wasted effort causes me anger? You are practicing a very lazy style of editing based on some flawed, paranoid assumptions about some conspiracy to conquer the world using "Imperial/USCustomary units." What great apocalypse, or governmental upheaval this will usher in, you have to tell me, because that is way off the deep end. − 		 − 	I am here to spread knowledge of the units I employ in work almost every day amongst English language readers. There are many gaping holes in measurement, particularly surveyor's measure, due to gaping holes in our educational system. Absent of a proficient primary or secondary text, I will use whatever resources I can find at my disposal. A secondary or tertiary source is better than some biased, unencyclopedic language lacking any citations whatsoever, which, you nevertheless, in your editorial prowess saw fit to be in the article in place of my contributions. − 		 − 	You don't like me, so you are going to nitpick all of my posts, haunt me around here because you're convinced I am out to destroy the world with surveyor's chains and rods. Your pedantic tediousness might be tolerated elsewhere, but it makes my skin crawl that someone like you can be in any position of importance in scholarly work. You care more about the form than the function.Surveyor792 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your background and knowledge are irrelevant; your edit warring and continued personal attacks are why this report is here. Your continued assertion of "blanket removal" is, as already explained, demonstrably false, so to continue to make those claims does not help, nor does your speculation as to what I do and do not "like". - Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, your whole argument is built around my "reverting your posts three or more times." I repeatedly attempted to reason with you. I was the only one that contributed new information, which you immediately and repeatedly reverted.

At that point that I undid your reversion (none of which contained any new information I could discern), I added new information and sources to comply with your increasingly elaborate requests for infomration. You then repeatedly reverted these additions in spite of the fact that they complied with Wikipedia - not your own personal - and its requirements for reliable, verifiable citations. Nevertheless, you continued to revert my work.

Then your tactics changed to threatening my account with another block. You were instrumental in getting me blocked before, and along with Orangemike, you kept me blocked at least two full weeks past the point the block was set to expire.

However, the allegations you made before were rejected, so now your tactics shift to trying to get me in trouble for something else. If you look at any CONTENT YOU CONTRIBUTED, there were zero words added by you, in addition you deleted other unrelated parts of the article in an attempt to anger me; you succeeded. I contributed to this article. You only sought to censor any and all contributions on any page you witnessed me posting in, contributing NOTHING.Surveyor792 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Further, your whole argument is built around my "reverting your posts three or more times." I repeatedly attempted to reason with you. I was the only one that contributed new information, which you immediately and repeatedly reverted.

At that point that I undid your reversion (none of which contained any new information I could discern), I added new information and sources to comply with your increasingly elaborate requests for infomration. You then repeatedly reverted these additions in spite of the fact that they complied with Wikipedia - not your own personal - and its requirements for reliable, verifiable citations. Nevertheless, you continued to revert my work.

Then your tactics changed to threatening my account with another block. You were instrumental in getting me blocked before, and along with Orangemike, you kept me blocked at least two full weeks past the point the block was set to expire.

However, the allegations you made before were rejected, so now your tactics shift to trying to get me in trouble for something else. If you look at any CONTENT YOU CONTRIBUTED, there were zero words added by you, in addition you deleted other unrelated parts of the article in an attempt to anger me; you succeeded. I contributed to this article. You only sought to censor any and all contributions on any page you witnessed me posting in, contributing NOTHING.Surveyor792 (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:TLDR; concise points go a long way. You claim that you "repeatedly attempted to reason" with me, do you have any diffs to back that claim up?  You got yourself blocked, not me, and not the blocking admin.  You continue to personally attack those that you interact with; I did not force you do attack others, and I did not force you to violate WP:3RR.  Do you have a diff backing up your claim that "the allegations" I made "were rejected"?  Because you're using a whole lot of words, but not really saying anything relevant at all. - Aoidh (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Vahram Mekhitarian reported by User:Δαβίδ (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

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

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

User Vahram Mekhitaryan consistently adding texts in this article, that is not related to the topic and some original resarches. It seems that user who edited that article dont want to discuss this problem and only reverting edits. I have already write him about it, but he ignoring my message and still reverts edits.--Δαβίδ (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Vybr8 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This article had no mention of robots, which many see as having a major role in the future of sex."
 * 2)  "Readding with just one of many references that are out there.  This particular reference does not merely address the topic of sex with robots.  It discusses the possibility of legal marriage to a robot."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 574776616 by Flyer22 (talk) ...with tweaks in response to criticism, and adding a mainstream reference."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 574782240 by NeilN ...with further tweaks in response to criticism, adding info to the body of the article to comply with WP:LEDE.  I fail to see how my effort can be a "war" when with each edit I am addressing the criticism."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Dolls & robots */"
 * 2)


 * Comments:
 * As the user has not technically broken 3RR and has announced his intention to stop edit warring, I'm just going to warn him here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Thewikiguru1 reported by User:86.149.153.74 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:Thewikiguru1 refusing to let me clear his rudeness off my talk page, and actually reported me to the vandal page for doing so. 86.149.153.74 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll explain to him that you're allowed to remove the message, no need for blocks. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mdw0 reported by User:SummerWithMorons (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (24 September 2013)
 * 2)   (26 September 2013)

Comments:

User deletes reference and the article text that it supports.

The first revert did not give any comment/explaination. In the second user said ref only amounts to "one non-conformists' opinion". It is actually from one of the most prominent authorities in the field (Milton Berle).--Sum (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of notes on this. First, as stated, we've got someone who doesn't understand what an edit war is - three reversals, and it usually requires no explaination or twisted explaination of reasoning for an editor to be sanctioned. Rather than talk about their insertion and its appropriateness, SummerWithMorons has gone straight to edit war sanctioning. As explained in the revert and not mentioned here by an editor pushing their own case, the reasoning for deletion was that talking about 'epoxy' in reference to stand-up comedy in general cannot use a reference where one comedian comments about his own act. This does not apply to comedy broadly, and trying to use a concept of comedic 'epoxy' makes no sense without extensive context and explaination which is inappropriate in the opening paragraph about stand-up comedy. Mdw0 (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:67.6.98.234 reported by User:The Devil's Advocate (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: A range block would be necessary as the editor has an IP that switched over the course of the edit war. Seems there is a recent history of edit-warring sparked by IP editors so semi-protection may also be desirable.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP on principle, although he'll probably return with another. I'd have to get a second opinion on a range block though, it looks like a fairly large range to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't even have the decency to look into both sides of the dispute or block the other edit warring parties. The complainers are blatantly POV pushing. 67.6.112.190 (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Mitrabarun reported by User:Titodutta (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User_talk:Mitrabarun and User_talk:Titodutta

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

Comments: They are continuously changing BLP's surname spelling, the surname was decided after an RM. So, just can't not be changed like that. And they are uploading copyrighted images, claiming as "PD" and using in articles. The worst thing is, they are impolite. You generally lose interest to teach someone when he starts shouting at you (see my talk page). I have not reverted recent edit. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 10:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - 48 hours. User was previously blocked on 9 September for a copyright issue. I'm also move protecting the article. Any further changes of the title should go through WP:RM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jgbuford, User:68.11.129.178, and User:106.177.33.149 reported by User:Thibbs (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: - original inserted 30 May 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Insertion of falsely cited material:


 * 1)  - revert of 24 September
 * 2)  - revert of 28 September
 * 3)  - 2nd revert in 24h (9/28/13)
 * 4)  - 3rd revert in 24h (9/28/13)


 * Removal of cleanup tags indicating that material is falsely cited:


 * 1)  - revert of 28 September
 * 2)  - 2nd revert in 24h (9/28/13)
 * 3)  - 3rd revert in 24h (9/28/13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings: 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on user talk pages: 

Comments:

I was recommended here from RFPP. I know 3RR hasn't yet been violated but edit warring is clearly taking place and I expect it will be very shortly. I have tried both strategies of (1) removing the falsely cited material and (2) tagging it for cleanup, but both efforts have been reverted multiple times. The editor seems to only communicate through rare edit summaries, and he is clearly using a dynamic IP and possibly proxies or meatpuppets (IPs geolocate to Southern USA and Japan) so I believe we'll need page protection to coax him to the talk page. -Thibbs (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * for 2 days. I noticed that you also violated 3RR on that article; however, I can see that the edits you were reverting could be perceived as vandalism. I'm not certain that the vandalism is as obvious as is required at WP:NOT3RR, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you continue trying to discuss this with the editors - if they continue to be unresponsive it will be a clearer indication that they are not acting in good faith. I would advise that, in the future, you take more care with this kind of edit which is not blatant vandalism (in the way that page blanking or inserting offensive material is) and avoid breaching 3RR. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for protecting the page. I hope this will inspire Jgbuford to use the talk page. I don't believe I violated 3RR, though. I reverted the addition of this information only 3 times, and after adding citation-needed tags I reverted to restore them only 3 times. The original placement of the citation-needed tags can't be considered a reversion, right? I agree that there should be better ways to go about this. The bottom line is that the falsely-cited information had to either be removed or tagged as unreliable, but perhaps it would have been better to have drawn it out over several days or something. What I actually did was to go to WP:RFPP where I was told to file a report here. At that time neither Jgbuford nor I were up to the 3RR line yet so I worried that I'd be dismissed here too unless I carried on for a few more iterations. As indicated above, I don't believe Jgbuford has violated 3RR yet either. At least not the letter of the rule. The only reason I came here was to get page protection after RFPP passed the buck. I find RFPP to be singularly difficult to get help from. -Thibbs (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, actually, I should have started escalating warning templates immediately and then just gone to AIV. I've had a lot more success with the admins there than those at RFPP. -Thibbs (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, 3RR explicitly states that 3RR applies whether involving the same or different material - so the fact that you first remove content, then restored tags wouldn't justify exceeding three reverts on the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize how strict the rule is and I'll certainly avoid a repetition in the future. Thank you. -Thibbs (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Legendaryloser reported by User:NeilN (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "achievments"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574870760 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "refreced nickname"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor warring to add derogatory nickname to infobox and lede.  Neil N   talk to me  16:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72h. I'd just blocked on this one and noticed this report when I came to leave the block notice. Black Kite (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:67.169.46.25 reported by User:immblueversion (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: [link]

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

Comments:

IP user 67.169.46.25 has periodically changed name translations for one section of the article to reflect non-primary works. As per MOS:AM, all other pages related to Fairy Tail use the translations in the primary Kodansha USA manga releases. User:Immblueversion (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * , and I can't see any evidence that you've tried discussing this with the user. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:159.83.196.1 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) You are wrong. There are three LEGITIMATE sources that prove his name as Randall William Rhoads. iTunes has to use REAL NAMES.
 * 2) No, it does not.
 * 3) diff
 * 4) iTunes biography is a reliable source.
 * 5) iTunes biography is very reliable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, I was HGing and I found this.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Article locked; Johnny Squeaky warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cultural impact */"
 * 2)  "/* Cultural impact */"
 * 3)  "/* Cultural impact */ Being HONEST. That's what Wikipedia is about, right?"
 * 4)  "/* Cultural impact */ This is trivia."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning to subject: Resolution initiative: Talk:Soylent Green Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I locked the article for three days and warned Johnny Squeaky on his talk page. If anyone wishes to know why I did not block Johnny Squeaky, it's explained in my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:TweetiePie1947 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

TweetiePie1947 has been claiming that this animated short "was offically canceled out of theaters," but has not provided any sources for this claim. I recently added a sourced release date for the film, and TweetiePie1947 has been removing it and reverting the text to claim that the film was cancelled. I have left messages on TweetiePie1947's talk page and the article talk page, but have gotten no response. (Also, I'm aware that in the course of this edit war, I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.)

Trivialist (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: TweetiePie1947 has been blocked, but now and  are making the same edits. Trivialist (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious sock is blocked indef and the page is protected. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

New sock: Trivialist (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Addition: The account is making similar edits to The Jet Cage, claiming that it was "Originally Cancelled," and replacing sourced material with unsourced material and claims. Trivialist (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Computerarts reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reinserted important fact
 * 2) Undid revision 574716989 as it removed important info
 * 3)
 * 4) Undid revision 573520946 by Ihardlythinkso (talk) Put back vital tournament information
 * 5)
 * 6) Added back important fact about the tournament, the fact is referenced in the chess.com article.
 * 7) Undid revision 573174102 as info is highly relevant for tournament

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Magnus Carlsen ‎

Comments:

has only reverted twice in the last 24 hours but has reverted the disputed content into the article seven times over the last two weeks. When they do go to the article talk page they remove others comments such as, and. Warnings on their talk page are removed with responses of "yawn",, , , and. They do not seem to understand the necessity of discussion. GB fan 12:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . In addition to the points made by GB fan, the user has created two articles that have been speedily deleted as hoaxes and edit warred in other articles. In their short editing history here, they don't appear to do anything useful. I came close to indeffing them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dondraper1993 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: and the potential sockpuppets

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * its not clear to me if the is a particularly st00pid attempt at sockpuppeting or an attempt to frame   ? but the IP is making the same edits as the primary account. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Xmisstree reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Kapoor's Official Page on Twitter - I cannot imagine a more credible source than the actress herself! She received all her Birthday wishes on March 2.  References for age are fresh - leading national magazine & national news channel. Thanks."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 575043938 by SpacemanSpiff (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The edits are a bit messy, but the gist of it is that they are adding a poorly sourced DoB. I left a message on their talk page before they added it again for a fourth time. Jamesx12345 20:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:184.97.132.157 reported by User:Astrocog (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 574939261 by Astrocog (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 574761319 by Astrocog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 574480646 by Astrocog (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Blue Line (Minnesota). (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ new section"
 * 4)   "edit warring warning - please engage in a discussion"
 * 5)   "/* Deaths sections on the Blue Line (Minnesota) article */ sig"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Deaths Section */ continuous reverts - if it keeps up an administrator should be consulted"


 * Comments:

This IP continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion. AstroCog (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984 (Result: Stale)
User repeatedly engaged 3RR, first on The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2.--2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Re: The Fog, Stiarts erid was previously warned as a result of this discussion
 * Re: George of the Jungle 2, it appears that the editor stopped after the most recent warning.
 * I have added the formatted report above to allow for action as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Launched another personal attack after being warned. (See: User talk:2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984)2602:306:BD20:C060:E951:4918:9BFC:E785 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No one notified the user of this report. I have done so and also let them know that they must respond or they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . The user has not edited Wikipedia since my warning. Indeed, they have not edited since October 1.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lollywoodcafe reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts: After the block expired:
 * 1) 27 September
 * 2) 27 September
 * 3) 28 September
 * 4) 30 September
 * 5) 30 September
 * 1) 2 October
 * 2) 2 October
 * 3) 2 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Welcome message with link to EW policy, Edit Warring warning, EW Warning after the block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Malik Noureed Awan

Comments:

A single purpose account dedicated to promotion of the subject is persistently edit warring without participating in any discussion at the talk. -- S M S  Talk 06:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And, the editor immediately after block expiration. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have removed the result from header so this report catches admin attention. -- S M S  Talk 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a week by User:Barek. -- S M S  Talk 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:128.147.45.149 reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: Blocked)
Page: (See also the user's edits at )

User being reported:

Original revision:

The user is adding unreferenced material/original research to the two articles; when reverted, restores his version and continues expanding it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) dif1
 * 2) dif2
 * 3) dif3
 * 4) dif4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not on article talk page; asked to stop and explain the edits on user talk page, to no avail. See above.)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ajaxfiore reported by User:AbuRuud (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This case involves the same information over two different pages

AbuRuud (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . Although I was a bit troubled by the reverts by the new account, the combination of the edit warring and WP:BLP issues was too disruptive. Because of the WP:BLP problems, I have reverted Ajaxfiore's edits on both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

TheRedPenOfDoom has been removing many articles and removing the sourced material. He has been removing it and vandalizing. I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.)

This user continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion.

Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2013‎ (UTC)
 * It's impossible to hit 3RR with four unrelated edits on three different articles. Feel free to submit again if you have actual evidence of edit warring.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we please have an independent admin comment here, not someone with a track record of jumping at Red Pen's call when he needs a block threatening. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As Kww pointed out, the provided diffs do not (and cannot) illustrate a bright-line violation. I reviewed each article, and I would have made the same reverts. The only difference would have been the unsourced Kunchacko Boban filmography, where I would have cut much more (Upcoming Movies? Opted Out Movies? Really?) and merged back into the BIO article (it would be nice to see the filmography and awards combined, for instance). The other two articles given were very clear (wrong article on one and WP:ELNO on the other). TRPoD may not be making many friends in those frequently debated subject areas, but the edits were good and forward what we are up to here. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:174.89.214.57 reported by User:Br100x (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."
 * 1)  "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."
 * 1)  "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."
 * 1)  "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."


 * Comments:

User continues to edit war on Corn dog after repeated warnings on talk page and edit summaries.  br100x  ( talk ) 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bradford4life reported by User:Besieged (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* In popular culture */"
 * 2)  "/* In popular culture */"
 * 3)  "/* In popular culture */"
 * 4)  "/* In popular culture */"
 * 5)  "/* In popular culture */"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 575283134 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 575284440 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 575285997 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 575308895 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 575308895 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bradford. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Bradford. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Ownership of articles on Bradford. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User apparently has no interest in reading or responding to notices or warnings, and has not attempted to engage with me or - apparently - anyone else, not even bothering to use edit summaries explaining their actions or reasons, and continues to remove content in an apparent assumption of article ownership. be siege d talk 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Smj91791 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (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)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * warning that we were both at 3RR
 * warning that editor had exceeded 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor attempted to discuss on my talk page and I moved it to the article page and responded there under the section What the H*ll.., the section title was the other editor's as started on my talk page.

Comments:

I was just adding information in regards to Minnesota should be on the contenders list. Creditable sources state the behind the scenes discussions have been going on for 2-3 weeks. Each time the comments, they are revert without cause. If the three revert edit rule applies then this rule need to also applied to my executer. He revert my information more than three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted three times only and I warned you that we were both at 3RR and attempted to discuss between reverts as can be seen from the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I have serious concerns whether User:Smj91791 has sufficient WP:COMPETENCE to be a productive editor to the encyclopedia. Beyond all the issues involved in the current dispute (edit warring, original research, relying on blogs, trying to add "behind the scenes discussions") the more troubling issue is that the user's talk page, the article talk page and article history are littered with warnings to the user to stop copy-pasting copyrighted content into the article. However, the plagarism has continued right up until today. I think some sort of administrative action is required here until Smj91791 can demonstrate that they understand our copyright policy. TDL (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with TDL. The talk page of the article in question also has one section with two warnings to Smj91791 for the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The final edit was an attempt to remove any copyright issues. The situation with the Minnesota expansion bid is no different than that of Atlanta. Additional sources will be added shortly. Their are few editors on the site believe that their information is the only creditable information. Its their way or no way. I was simply trying to add additional information to current state of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your final edit also removed my tags on the weak sources, for the second time.
 * If you add more sources, make sure they meet the requirements at WP:RS. Adding information is good. Adding bad information isn't. It's not that I believe my information is the only credible information, I believe that blogs are not usually reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lindodawki reported by User:Goodsdrew (Result: Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been trying to add a paragraph about an evangelical gospel band in Brazil to a section in the article Latin America. The content is not notable for a section summarizing all of the music of Latin America. The user has made no attempt to discuss his edits on the talk page, and has not engaged with me after I've tried to start a discussion on his talk page to discuss it on the article talk page. The user was temporarily blocked from editing for 48 hours on September 28 for edit warring (see here: and was warned to discuss his proposed edits on the article's talk page. He has failed to do so and continues his edit warring instead.Goodsdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Only because he hasn't reverted in over 24 hours. Please let me know if he continues and I'll block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 573617661 by Jmh649 (talk), since he incorrectly marked the IQ change as 0.4"
 * 2)  "Restored addition by User:Podiaebba  There was no consensus for removal"

First block Reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This editor has not breached 3RR today (yet), rather, the diffs above show a continuation of the previous edit warring this editor was blocked for recently. While it is not the same exact edit, it is once again on the subject of IQ and water fluoridation, demonstrating that the editor has refused to engage in consensus building..

If you read through the talk page you'll also notice a failure to adhere to sourcing standards, IDHT behavior, ignoring consensus, and [in my estimation] attempts to push a WP:FRINGE POV (see talk in general).

Because this page is under discretionary sanctions I would request in addition to what ever the result is here that the editor be formally warned about WP:ARBPS

Note that I am no longer actively involved in this dispute - I saw the reverts on my watchlist and thought it appropriate to report but I doubt I will have the time to stick around and comment. N o f o rmation Talk  02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I restored a previous edit, that had been on the page for some time and accepted into the article by User:Podiaebba (although it was initially changed to incorrectly assume that a statistic was equal to the actual IQ drop, by User:Jmh649). If anything, there is a meatpuppetry on this page towards driving off anyone with research that doesn't agree with the current NPOV deficit.  Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Meatpuppets are removing NPOV tag on article Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, you're just edit warring. Seek consensus on the talk page. Maybe a rewording will get the content included, but edit warring won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious edit warring now. We need a quick block. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I added diffs for a 3RR violation and the diff for a previous 3RR block. There's mainly a WP:COMPETENCE issue here as demonstrated by the talk page. At the very least the user should be topic-banned from controversial articles. The user needs to develop some experience editing and interacting with others. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Up to six reverts in 24 hours. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Now 7 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2 (my first revert)
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4 (my second revert)

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

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

Comments:

TheOldJacobite says that full character names are in cast section and should not be require in plot summaries. But they are things like full names, occupations and such that are at much should be on plot summaries. TheOldJacobite just doesn't seem to get it. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * He has reverted all of two times, as have you. It's a bit much trying to get someone blocked after they have reverted twice. Simply put he hasn't violated 3RR. Since you are the one making the bold edit by adding the character names, I urge you to comply with WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you seen the edits on Ransom (1996 film), you know what I mean. There we're removals which are wrong and unnecessary, since the character's occupation and relations we're removed in the plot summary. You want to explain something about that reason. Not to mention that TheOldJacobite sometimes can be confrontational and states that full characters names should not be put on the plot summaries which they are mainly put on there. What about other movie articles that don't have cast sections and without full characters names in the plot summaries. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I stated my reasons in my edit summary and I stand by them. BattleshipMan should have stated his reasons on the talk page, rather than galloping off to this noticeboard, especially when there was no 3RR violation.  It takes two to edit-war. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:86.170.97.182 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 575328200 by N0n3up (talk) you are the one being arbitrary, you have given no reason for keep removing salo, just because you may not like the film it does not change it's reputation"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 575336102 by N0n3up (talk) well at the moment with Aunva6's opinion it's two against one that you're in the wrong"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 575336938 by N0n3up (talk) how thick are you? i was using two against one as an example of consensus"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 575337822 by N0n3up (talk) salo is pasolini's most famous, albeit infamous work, it stays"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 575342441 by N0n3up (talk) yes exactly, it's hard to find another filmmaker so synonymous with one of his works than pasolini is with salo"


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


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


 * Comments:

violated 3rr -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid possible vandalism 575241039 by 31.50.150.116 (talk) Please stop doing arbitrary edits, take it in the talk page first."
 * 2)  "The work is already mentioned down below."
 * 3)  "Undid possible vandalism 575332675 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Until you decide to resolve this problem and reach consensus, you must stop."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 575336604 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Message talked problem, "two against one" is not in the Wikipedia rules, please use the talk page to resolve problems."
 * 5)  "Undid vandalism 575337311 by 86.170.97.182 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 575337997 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Not exactly, read some of his article."


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


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


 * Comments:

this editor's intent is in the right place, but unfortunately, he is persisting in the edit warring. he violated 3rr after my warnings. I attampted to expain to him on my talk page what he was doing wrong, but i'm not sure I got the message accross. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:71.236.134.156 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (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:

Comments:

This IP editor has been attempting to insert plot details about a science fiction book into the article under the heading of "in popular culture." I see no indication that the book in question is particularly notable as an example of popular culture, and it seems promotional to insert a reference to a book/author with relatively limited coverage (though still qualifying under WP:N) Into a highly trafficked article about a medicine. The most recent attempt also introduced some unreferenced assertions, the actual substance of which are touched on elsewhere in the article. From the initial edit I have attempted to engage on the talk page but the editor has not been forthcoming. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:208.54.87.175 reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please do not game the system and do remember the Boomer rang effect."
 * 2)  "Your ignorance and agenda pushing is showing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and thus a right. Get informed before posting your uninformed opinion."
 * 3)  "Some limited in English comprehension have a hard time understanding traditional and same sex marriage are not the same. Marrying your mom or sister is not traditional but is same sex. You are the ones pushing a POV, that's easy to see by your edits."
 * 4)  "Observe  3RR"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned in edit summary, but they clearly know the policy anyway. Possibly the same user over the past few days on a dynamic I.P. Jamesx12345 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is also the same person as 172.56.37.0 (you're right, James; even if it weren't clear from the behavior at this one article, the user has been harassing me for weeks under various 208 and 172 IPs), so add two more reverts and some more nasty harassment. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Fortunately I don't understand much of what they're saying... Jamesx12345 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * JamesX12345 is now canvassing on the above article. He has edit warred, canvassed, and gamed the system. It is also possible he was canvassed to the article in the first place through Roscelese. But it clear he indeed is now canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.175 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * More evidence of canvassing by Jamesx12345 below:

October 2013
Hello, I'm Jamesx12345. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to David Douglas Duncan, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jamesx12345 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to David Douglas Duncan with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ... disco spinster   talk  16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User:Jamesx12345 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ... disco spinster   talk  16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jamesx12345 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Both JamesX1235 and discospinster are edit warring on Tommy Merritt and this shows tag team edit warring game. An IP check on both of them is called for to determine if they are the same editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.175 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dealing with an Agenda Pushing Editor
Jamesx54321 cannot figure out basic use of the English language and suffers from an English comprehension handicap. He edits to push an ill informed agenda and does not grasp basic words like rights and traditional. James X oooo was vandalizing another editors well written contribution because it did not fit his agenda. He is a skilled edit warrior and is gaming the system here. I would support temporary ban for Jamesx12345. 208.54.87.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't expecting that, to be honest, but I'll live. Jamesx12345 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocking as a procedural measure, but he appears to have switched IPs by now. Let me know if you spot any more of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Petwil reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Undid revision 575508656 by LuckyLouie (talk)" at Today at 8:19 PM
 * "Undid revision 575505195 by LuckyLouie (talk) Define "primary source." Is the Huffington Post a "primary source?"" at Today at 7:29 PM
 * "Undid revision 575494418 by Dmol (talk) Again, state your reasoning for the edits, under wikipedia protocol, please. You can not revert edits just because you don't like them." at Today at 5:34 PM
 * "Undid revision 575492881 by Dmol (talk) State a justification for removing my edits. Thank you." at Today at 5:11 PM

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

&mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Adam Cuerden (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575527977&oldid=575506062
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575532403&oldid=575530397
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575533850&oldid=575533714
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575546871&oldid=575544581 immediately followed by the exceptionally controversial  (This supposed guideline has never had any approval vote by the community)

Note: Shortly before he went to 4RR, he posted this to the talk page, in which he stated he was fully aware he was at 3 reverts, and would be in violation of 3RR if he reverted again (!!!).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

ChrisGualtieri and Adam Cuerden were gaming the system by both introducing controversial changes to this page without any discussion, even while a discussion against their merits was being performed on the project talk page. If I am blocked for edit warring then they should be as well.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, I have self-reverted the removal of the disputed-inline as Adam Cuerden has properly shown me that it is used on project pages, so I am at 3 reverts again.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * May I point out that the supposed "gaming the system" that Ryulong wants me bliocked for is makign a change (per WP:BRD, and, when it was reverted, marking the text with disputed inline. Ryulong has a severe battleground mentality here, and I'm not quite sure how I am meant to work with someone who thinks tagging disputed text is worthy of me being blocked for gaming the system. (or, for that matter, who thinks that when you see text on a page that doesn't make any sense to you, that trying to edit it into something that makes sense is gaming the system) Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've realized my mistake in the series of events and I am sorry for making these accusations. The self revert has still happened which means I am still at #3 and I will not be doing anything else to the project page for some time.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 10:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ryulong. I'm sure we've all made mistakes. I request closure of this with no action. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong has a chronic problem with edit warring and ownership. Ryulong knows better and his bad faith and insults have caused much issue, coming straight off the ANI about his behavior. Ryulong does have a severe battleground issue. The page is protected for now, but Ryulong knows better and considering he violated 3RR after I warned him shows the hostile mentality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This situation is also being discussed on ANI (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814), so I'm procedural closing this report with no action taken. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:MoonMetropolis reported by User:Jeremy112233 (Result: both 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Oregonian_(film)&diff=575481405&oldid=575472800

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MoonMetropolis#The_Oregonian

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here is where I've tried to explain why the improvement tags are valid for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Oregonian_(film). The user appears to be using IP-addresses to make his argument for him. After I requested a sockpuppetry investigation, mysteriously the IP-addresses disappeared and the user resumed the same line of rhetoric unphased. I have tried to explain in my edit summaries what is needed to have the improvement tags removed, however the user has refused to acknowledge the issue and merely wishes to revert the improvement tags without adding proper references to the page, thus asserting notability and making the need for a "no references" tag obsolete. I have tried to be civil, but receive fairly uncivil responses.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The page includes links to Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, both of which include reviews for the film from Slant Magazine, The New York Times, Village Voice and Time Out New York. The article does not have a "reception" section because it is a stub, but the film's notability has very clearly been established and continuing to add such a tag is very unnecessary and disruptive.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing that the external links you have added have sources indexed within them, what I have said is that it is not good enough merely to give external links at the end of a page. In order to assert notability and to not have a "non-referenced" improvement tag, there must be actual references on the page. These could be the media links mentioned in your external links, or others, but all aspects of the page need to be cited. External links are not the same thing as carefully selected citations. So long as there are no citations on the page then the tag pointing to the lack of references is valid. So long as there are no references on the page, though the film may be notable, notability is not asserted on the page itself--because there are no citations proving GNG.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That isn't how notability works. The links themselves prove that the film is notable.  Adding in references would not make the film any more notable than it already is.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add that I will not be reverting past the 3RR rule myself until this is resolved; therefore the improvement tags valid for the page are not currently up due to MoonMetropolis' consistent reversions. However, external links cannot prove notability for a page, and asserting that references don't matter is contrary to Wikipedia policy: Notability_(films). Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * After at least 7 reverts from one user and 12 from the other, I don't think either party can claim innocence here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikisername reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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


 * Note they are not the same edit. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  01:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, but he was warned to stop.

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

Comments:

Also, I explained him/her in May to not change original release dates to those of his country of origin, the US, because of our manual of style. The immediate action was to revert me in three different pages. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  01:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.174.116 reported by User:Atethnekos (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 575654330 by Atethnekos (talk) citation tag is there"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 575657189 by Atethnekos (talk) you didnt see the tag"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 575659996 by Atethnekos (talk) ???"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 575661261 by Davidiad (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 575663025 by Davidiad (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also User_talk:75.51.173.79 for the other account. I opened an SPI as well. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User is also edit-warring in Jesus Christ in comparative mythology‎ TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 01:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * for 31 hours by User:Rklawton. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Hometown Kid reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That doesn't necesarily mean"
 * 2)  "where exactly does it say that in WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS? and it's not vandalism when the chart is fully referenced proving it's chart position of the song"
 * 3)  "I already looked at WP:CHART, Rap Songs is not on the list of deprecated charts and I already started the discussion on WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS"
 * 4)  "no not exactly, it says "calculated weekly by airplay on rhythmic and urban radio stations and sales in hip hop-focused or exclusive markets" it doesn't rely on airplay alone, so therefor it's not a component chart"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 575529231 by Iknow23 (talk) it doesn't say it's depreciated chart though"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 575247270 by Iknow23 (talk) what are you talking about? the song fully appears on that chart if you look in the source, stop removing and leave it alone"


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


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


 * Comments:

Currently involved in a content dispute with User:Iknow23, discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Record charts, but continues to revert after being warned about 3rr. Edit warring warning came after their fourth revert in the last 24 hours, which has now increased to five.  STATic  message me!  02:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * for three days. Since they had both broken 3RR, I would have had to block them both otherwise. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Winston_S_Smith reported by User:EvergreenFir (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:

Comments:

Reporting for edit warring. User has a history of racism comments and narrowly avoiding 3RRs 24-hour limitation. Considered bring to incidents noticeboard for racism, WP:NOTFORUM violations, etc., but this seemed more fitting for recent edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)