Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive227

== User:TruthAboveEverything reported by Alexbrn talk (Result: 24 hours) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 22:02, 27 October 2013  (edit summary: "Any desired additions are welcome, but please do not remove factually correct and well cited information.")
 * 2) 23:08, 27 October 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 579015752 by Alexbrn (talk)")
 * 3) 01:58, 28 October 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 02:53, 28 October 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 579045079 by Ruby Murray (talk)")

Diff of warning:

It also appears likely some socking is going on; would be great if an Admin could take an all-around look. Alexbrn talk 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:212.183.128.176 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

Warned by User:DVdm, 17:09, 27 October 2013.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also edit-warring in past 24 hours as User:212.183.128.179 and User:212.183.140.28. Has previously made the same tendentious edit as User:212.183.128.160, User:212.183.128.167, User:212.183.128.131 User:212.183.128.98 and User:212.183.128.174. RolandR (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to this report, User:212.183.128.176 and User:212.183.128.179 have been blocked for violation of the BLP policy, but the others, including the latest IP, are still unblocked. RolandR (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (Rangeblocked 212.183.128.0/20) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=577233625 ''Please see: previous ANI report from two weeks ago. User ignores all warnings.'']

Comments:

Stubborn and incessant edit warring with the whole bloody world, not just one or two admins and a slew of editors. User ignores all recommendations in order to promote his own hometown at the article Tourism in Poland. I don't know how to break through to this user. He does not use talk. Thank you, Poeticbent  talk  15:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've offered on the article talk page and on the user's talk page to try to mediate the situation. The user had some good suggestions and were incorporated into the article. I did add a second multiple image tag, but the bottom line is there's more to Poland than just Wroclaw and Silesia that the editor is pushing with their edits/reverts. Ajh1492 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jojhutton reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 579135324 by Blurred Lines (talk) See the talk page as to why this is no longer needed, and perhaps a good look at WP:WIKILAWYER may help as well."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 579133912 by Blurred Lines (talk) Nine minor edits in 3 days is hardly a major work of expansion"
 * 3)  "pretty much no longer needed. No edits in over a day"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user is keeps removing the under construction tag, and it has not been several day since the last edit. The user claims that if minor edits hasn't been made in several days, it should be removed, and it does not say that on the template. The user is doing the same thing on iPad Mini (2nd generation), and it's just getting disruptive.  Blurred   Lines  18:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this strikes me as a fairly WP:LAME dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pofka reported by User:Werieth (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "All the files have critical commentary. Reverted."
 * 2)  "Read the article and think again"
 * 3)  "Prove it or leave the article alone"
 * 4)  "None of files violate NFCC#8. Skull Man is used to identify important logo, which is mentioned in the article; Croatians leaving the game is used for critical commentary as they left it on purpose to show their dissapoitment in judging and so on."
 * 5)  "Vandalism..."
 * 6)  "It is when it do not violate any of the rules. Do not remove any of the images until discussion in administrators page is over."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 579140436 by Werieth (talk)"
 * 8)  "As I said: wait for the administrators decision before taking any actions! They will remove it anyway if they really violate rules."
 * 9)  "Not a violation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeated violations of WP:NFCC#1,3,8 and (indisputable WP:NFCC) Werieth (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Matter had just been reported to WP:ANI, where I recommended that Pofka take the matter to the article talk page. If no further edit warring on the main article occurs, no action is necessary. If further edit warring takes place, then action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Both parties now discussing on talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Silvio1973 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 578672964 by Silvio1973"
 * 2)  "Restored rollback version. Do not alter with controversial changes without consensus"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "1st Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"
 * 2)  "2nd Proposal to discuss on the Talk page"

This user keeps removing sourced edits without any apparent reason. A discussion has been proposed on the talk edit but it has been diserted. A 3O requested, but so far without involvement of any editor. I cannot even understand what is wrong because reverts are immediate and unexplained. The changes are just qualified of controversial but no discussion follows.--Silvio1973 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:24.215.200.146 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edit was not "rejected" and reverter himself said calling people "murderers" has "far reaching implications."
 * 1)  "Edit was not "rejected" and reverter himself said calling people "murderers" has "far reaching implications."
 * 1)  "Edit was not "rejected" and reverter himself said calling people "murderers" has "far reaching implications."

Editor warned per ARBPIA:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Contribs make it quite clear that this IP address is controlled by a single person interested mainly in POV-pushing in the Israel/Palestine area. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely spurious accusation from Nomoskedasticity as I have edited many other pages. Once again, the article for Samir Kuntar does not say he is a murderer, despite his conviction for murder, yet the article for Baruch Goldstein not only calls him a murderer, but a MASS murderer. Nomoskedasticity clearly has a bias. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

On top of that, the 3rd false accusation is not a revert, but an edit. 24.215.200.146 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * An additional revert subsequent to this report being filed: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * And another: . Hertz1888 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Not applicable)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

For some reason a user I have never known (User:Medeis) reacted hysterically to an edit I made a day or two ago regarding the discrepancies in reports of the actual cause of actress Marcia Wallace's death.


 * This editor publicly accused me, without even attempting to contact me, of:
 * 1) Violating 3RR (untrue and bizarre)
 * 2) Committing WP:BLP (when the subject is deceased!!!)
 * 3) Expressing opinions on the talk page (WTF?!!!)


 * First, he/she claims that I committed "edit fraud" because the reflink backing up the comments made by her son which I entered into the article, was not present (i.e. the reflink following the comment did not confirm that the comments made by the son were actually made). Even if this were true (and it is not), the editor should have assumed an dhad no reason not to assume good faith, and contacted me on my talk page. The reflink (reflink #10) has been present over the last 24-48 hours since the notice of Wallace's death.


 * Then in his re-editing (since reversed as I readded the reflink more clearly since he was too lazy to find it), he made an inflammatory edit summary comment, to wit: "unsupported BLP violation removed, editor has expressed OR on talk and been made aware of 3RR and BLP violation". This is insane. What BLP violation? Even if I knew what that was it cannot apply as Wallace, the subject of the article is deceased. It seems that the gist of this nonsense apparently is that he/she did not see the reflink which clearly quoted Wallace's son, Michael Hawley, even though it was at the end of the same paragraph (again, reflink #10), which he/she could not be bothered to look at or for.


 * This is the text in question:"On October 25, 2013, Wallace died at age 70 due to complications from pneumonia. Her son, Michael Hawley claimed she was cancer free at the time of her death; however, Wallace's longtime friend Cathryn Michon told Deadline Hollywood that Wallace 'passed at 9pm last night due to complications from breast cancer of which she was a long and proud survivor and advocate for women and healing'."


 * Reflink # 10 is reflink # 3 here due to truncated text:


 * "editor has expressed OR on talk [page]" -- I did express what I clearly stated was my own opinion regarding the discrepancy between her son's comments that his mother was cancer-free and a claim by Wallace's friend that she had died from complications of breast cancer (with which she had been diagnosed in 1985 but long considered cured given the length of time). Is there a rule that one cannot posit or express opinions on article talk pages??


 * This outrageous, hysterical, aggressive, antisocial, obnoxious verbal assault by User:Medeis, without even attempting to communicate with me directly at my talk page, merits him/her yet another block, and more lengthy than 24 hours, in my humble opinion. Quis separabit?  21:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S.: this editor's block log is here Quis separabit?  21:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

comment by medeis
Actually, there's no strict violation of 3RR here by anyone, but the editor who needs addressing is User:Rms125a@hotmail.com.

He has repeatedly added uncited material to the article claiming Wallace died of pneumonia, diff; claiming repeatedly that her son said she was cancerfree, a BLP violation until being cited only on his last edit; arguing his personal OR and BLP violating opinion "my personal opinion is that her son may be in denial" diff; and attributing quotes to the Mirror without any such reference, diff, diff. Of course, the claim of pneumonia and that the son had said she was cancer free nay have been true, but unsupported they were subject to removal, especially given the article's Recent Death listing.

Then, when my communication with him has been nothing but civil, he insults me and people with disabilities on my talk page: "you are evidently a slow learner/special student" diff and files this incredibly hostilely worded AN3 with no 3RR violation on my part.

Please admonish or block Rms125a. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Closing admin
I really don't see why this was brought both here and WP:AN. The extensive editing occurring right now on this article means that it's not a clear-cut care of edit-warring, and that's really the only thing for which this page is useful. Let's discuss the issue at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kurzon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


 * Comments:

See block log -- previous block for violating 3RR, this editor knows the rule well enough. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The last three reverts above were made after this report was filed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * BTW, another editor has exceeded 3RR as well. If the article is to be protected on that basis, it should exclude the material identified as problematic per BLP.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jguard18 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * First revert
 * Second revert, violating the 1RR restriction that the article is subject to.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * None required, per the notice on the article talkpage ("Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.").


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


 * Comments:

Violated the 1RR restrictions on the page, with two quick reverts that didn't even have any rationale at all in the edit summary ... even though that was pointed out after the first revert. Epeefleche (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment I realize the revert could have been a mistake, however you are more then welcomed to message me first in regards the issue it was reverted twice by myself as it was unwarranted to add it were it was.Also are you referring to the WP:3RR.But again it was reverted when i was patrolling for vandalism and was a false positive and for that i will applogize for that. Jguard18 Critique Me  13:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The page is under a restriction, emblazoned upon its talk page, that makes it edit warring to engage in 1RR. Which is precisely what Jguard did.  The restriction states that the article is:  "under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.... Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."


 * To compound matters, Jguard failed to leave any explanatory edit summary. In either of his reverts. As WP:FIES states: "It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit."


 * He did this despite the fact that when he in turn had been reverted, the edit summary that was left for him and directed at him stated "Undid (no reason given, and supported by the refs) revision 579214852 by Jguard18." He simply reverted this communication, and again reverted -- again without an edit summary, and again despite it being pointed out to him that the article has supporting refs.


 * And what he reverted -- without any explanation -- was certainly not vandalism by the wildest stretch of any imagination, and is directly supported with RS refs in the article, per wp:lede.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment The pertinent part of the sanction is Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. As I see it, one of the reverts was of an anonymous IP that has been aggressively pushing an edit. User:Jguard18 has not violated the 1RR sanction (since one of his two reverts are exempt) and has not violated the more generally 3RR rule. The IP needs blocking though! Betty Logan (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Again it is a good point to note that this ip is still aggressively pushing the edit as seen |here with another user as well Again Epeecflech you are more then capable of discussingthis issue.On another not it seems the ip was banned at one point and actually currently is now Jguard18Critique Me  18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. As Betty Logan observes, the ARBPIA 1RR rule does not count reverts of IP edits when determining if a violation has occurred. All parties are advised to use caution on any further reverts and to use edit summaries. Admins are allowed to enforce the 1RR rule without any warnings. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluespeakers reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Edit warring, probably a sock puppet of previous conflict creators of this page,, Won't explain his edits, won't present a source that supports the information he wants to insert. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These accusations against me are outrageous and wrong. I tried to work with this user, ask questions and reach out to other users. I was under the impression that you have discuss before you delete so I have not. I have not done anything malicious. I personally know the user who was we all attended WSU and that person is still trying to fight their case. This was a large university and we had discussions about religions and that's where this all started. I just picked up the place after that user left me the notes on this group. For what it's worth, I am not sure if it is worth this much debate. If someone who does not have attachment to this can take a look. It would be very helpful. Apologies for taking up time.

Bluespeakers (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why you are removing the sourced materials and inserting something which is 100% no where written in the given source? That's 100% Vandalism. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There are five sources backing this statement up.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22Maharaja+even+though+he+had+taken+the+vows+of+%22&source=bl&ots=uhk2QoqH8W&sig=MqL-M2sTl1Eoh_olE7f7vryPzJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Ky6UcTHL82qqQGR54DoDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Maharaja%20even%20though%20he%20had%20taken%20the%20vows%20of%20%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rmfR4nQvbSsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Accused+of+deviating+from+the+Vedas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECdvUo2jBcL72QWQuIHwAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=frauds&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=swami+dayananda+criticized+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=Kjfj6yDy4Y&sig=E_s97SJV3gPc5zyJLZqrISqbU7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjNvUupjxffbBY_IgIgJ&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Vallabhacharya&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA109&dq=Shikshapatri+Dhwanta+Nivarana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YzZvUovXJemW2AW5loCoCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Shikshapatri%20Dhwanta%20Nivarana&f=false

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&oq=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1012j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&tbm=bks

I asked you for help but instead you attacked me. So I sought out others help.

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and none supports any of your claim . Bladesmulti (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not where you discuss this but if you acutally read them. Dayanand criticized the Narayan sect a lot for deviating from the Vedas. You are not reading it. Don't be stuck on stupid. Read it and then add to the paragraphs as needed. Seriously, you have not read anything. I just re-read to make sure that I posted the right links and it is all there. Bluespeakers (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Now this user is trying to block me. First he deletes everything without explanation and then when someone disagrees. He attacks. Is this what wiki has become? Please help. Bluespeakers (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected one week by User:Mark Arsten. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article protected for one week was requested by Bluespeakers. Thank you EdJohnston for taking the time out to deal with this.

Bluespeakers (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:117.194.243.115 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Block, semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "RV Vandalism. I am taking this to he admins now."
 * 2)  "RV Vandalism from land of plagiarizing, thieving, half-evolved monkeys."
 * 3)  "Darkness Shines. I am well aware of your s$%hitty creed/ilk and capable of putting you in your place well and proper. That 'claim' NOBODY recognizes DOES NOT MERIT mention in the beginning and that's that."
 * 4)  "We don't need to mention the 'claims' of any half-evolved race of monkeys in the lead para itself. NONE of the nations outside of that of the thieving, plagiarizing, crooked creed of monkeyland think so."


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


 * Result: IP blocked 24 hours by another admin. Due to the use of three different IPs from the 117.194.* range I've semiprotected the article one month. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User:77.173.230.171 reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&oldid=565988274

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=577658961&oldid=565988274 (18 October)
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=577939551 (20 October)
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579061285 (28 October)
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theomatics&diff=prev&oldid=579315062 (29 October)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579326334&oldid=579114331

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:77.173.230.171&diff=579114331&oldid=579113931

Comments:

Request for page protection was declined "not enough recent activity": — Brianhe (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I only see three reverts in ten days, and I don't think that's enough to merit a block. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfietucker reported by StuffandTruth (talk) (Result: Protected)
The following user refuses to engage in the talk page to prove how the paragraph on Guramit Singh is WP:SYNTHESIS, and is needlessly reverting without proper discussion. All sources cited are reliable sources, it should be known.

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 19:04, 29 October 2013  (edit summary: "/* Quitting the EDL */ Guramit Singh was a spokesman, not a leader, so irrelevant to Robinson's answer; besides, this breaches WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS.")
 * 2) 19:26, 29 October 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 579329425 by StuffandTruth (talk) - this is still WP:EDITORIAL and WP:SYNTHESIS - please discuss on the talk page")
 * 3) 20:11, 29 October 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by StuffandTruth (talk): Rolled back for WP:SYN identified on talk page. (TW)")

—StuffandTruth (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Response from Alfietucker

I see that StuffandTruth decided to pre-empt me, since I told him/her that (excuse the pronoun) they were edit warring and implicitly would be reported. I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, proven by their reporting me for allegedly breaching WP:3RR without acknowledging they were edit-warring - and in fact have done as many reverts as I have as follows: To explain the case from my side, I found the following edit by S&T on Tommy Robinson (activist):. I started checking the citations, and quickly found WP:EDITORIALIZING and WP:SYN, as I explained on the talk page here, here (n.b. comments appended with “- Alfietucker” placed within S&T’s post), and here.
 * 1) 19:14, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: ("/*‎Quitting the EDL*/ found source that says he was leader and co-founder)
 * 2) 19:32, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579331458 by Alfietucker (talk) misquoting policies - it is neither WP:SYN, and neither does WP:EDITORIAL apply - see talk for why")
 * 3) 20:17, 29 October 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 579338177 by Alfietucker (talk) violated WP:3RR, refusing to discuss removal of content) ")

I should also add that User:The Four Deuces added to the discussion their observation that S&T had made a synthesis between the two news articles here. Still S&T does not appear to have understood the policy, and has now reported me for alleged "3RR" for reverting on the strength of TFD's comment (as I also guessed there may be a BLP issue involved, but perhaps I was being over-sensitive to this).

As I’ve said, I get the impression that S&T has a poor grasp of Wikipedia guidelines and policy: but this is no excuse for their battleground mentality and apparent inability to assume good faith. If you wish me to provide evidence of this, including one earlier episode today, I can do so: but I assume we ought to deal with this "3RR" case first. Alfietucker (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Neither editor has reached 3RR, so there is no violation. I have not participated in this edit-war, but did point out I agreed with Alfietucker that the edit is synthesis because it points out the criminal conviction of a former member of a group Tommy Robinson once led, although the source does not connect the two men. I think too that synthesis that is prejudicial to a living person is a BLP violation. I suggest that both editors attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page and to post to a relevant noticeboard if necessary. TFD (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD - since there is a BLP with the edit suggesting that Robinson is endorsing someone convicted of violent robbery, and I don't want to be had up for breaching 3RR, could you please fix this? Alfietucker (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to worry - I checked WP:BLP and WP:3RR and realized - not having been there before - that removing breaches of WP:BLP are exempt from 3RR. (On my head be it if I've misunderstood the policy.) Alfietucker (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Astynax reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


 * 1) 18:10, 25 October 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 578714116 by Tgeairn (talk) responded on Talk")
 * 2) 19:39, 25 October 2013  (edit summary: "reinserting material blanked by Tgeairn: Cargo cult is both movement and type, Astara and The Centers notibility are established by the cites & if added cites are needed, request them rather than blank")
 * 3) 08:56, 27 October 2013  (edit summary: "restoring criterion for membership on this list")
 * 4) 17:07, 29 October 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 579272811 by Nwlaw63 (talk)see talk")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No templated warning given, adequate explanation given at article and editor talk pages.

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

Comments:

—Tgeairn (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - This is not a 3RR violation. However, it is edit warring and has been disruptive to the development of the article. There have been several previous incidences on this article of the reported editor acting well outside of BRD, even though active discussion was taking place on the article talk page. Multiple previous requests to stop reverting and instead discuss and reach consensus have been dismissed or disregarded.
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kobayashi245 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fine. Added more information to balance it."
 * 2)  "Actually, "Dawkins largely agrees with Lewontin" is WP:OR and not what the actual source states. Boldy edited."
 * 3)  "/* Edwards' critique */ Properly formulated the structure. Added another quote by Dawkins."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 579360262 by Binksternet (talk) What? What is your justification for that meaningless revert?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 579362999 by Binksternet (talk) Discuss the "questionable change"  in the talk page. Otherwise the next revert will be considered edit warring."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 579366301 by Mann jess (talk) I already did. Next time read the talk page and argue against it before you revert."


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


 * Comments:

3 reverts today, another 2 just outside of the 24 hour window. User already warned for warring on other pages on the 19th. He's well aware of our policies, given his edit summaries include warnings to other editors: "the next revert will be considered edit warring". &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 23:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course I reverted those edits. Binksternet reverted for no valid reason at all, something more akin to vandalism, and you reverted and told me to discuss this in the talk page. I have already done that. Binksternet and you should rather come to the talk page and present your arguments why you disagree with my addition, not simply revert it for no reason and then tell me to "discuss it" when you're not discussing it.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding discussion, there is already participation on the talk page, where there is not currently consensus for the change. Furthermore, posting to the talk page does not excuse edit warring.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is not "no consensus," there is no argument whatsoever that my addition should be reverted, because I am using a reliable source to add balance to a part lacking neutrality. DRNC.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Also edit warring at Race (human classification).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw reported by User:Elockid (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: N/A. Multiple preferred versions.

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Reinstating "City of Man" in lead (Editing while logged out)
 * 2) Reinstating the first global city (Editing while logged out, removed by Miguel Raul
 * 3) Editing logged out (Reinstate this edit)
 * 4) Reinstating the first global city (Originally removed by Miguel raul)
 * 5) Reinstating the first global city (Removed by me and Miguel raul, and LogX)
 * 6) Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox (Removed by Howard the Duck, and Miguel raul)
 * 7) Reinstating "City of Man" in infobox

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Me here and here, Dougweller

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk pages of those who have reverted him.

Comments:

Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw has been slowly edit warring for a month now with multiple users, (me, Miguel raul, Mezus360, Howard the Duck and LogX. He has persistently both using his account and editing logged out re-adding his edits despite being warned for NPOV violations. Elockid( Boo! ) 14:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a week. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Kermanshahi reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 579471561 by Darkness Shines (talk) - Look at the talk it was already taken there, conclusion was massacre tags removed."
 * 2)  "There was already consesus that those ludicrous tags should be removed. Pro-MKO propagandist re-added them."
 * 3)  "Undo pro-terrorist propaganda by Plot Spoiler. Talk already concluded your "massacre" and "mass-murder" have no place on this article about military raid against terrorist group"
 * 4)  "Removing terrorist propaganda. Massacres can only be against civilians not armed terrorists."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Camp Ashraf raid */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User:Soffredo reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Latest revision as of 22:17, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579525050 by Hebel (talk))"
 * 2)  "Revision as of 19:03, 30 October 2013 Soffredo (Undid revision 579495529 by Hebel"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 579494162 by Miesianiacal (talk) The amount of reverts doesn't change the discussions made in the past."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 579492405 by Miesianiacal (talk) See the discussion in "List of sovereign states""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 579481860 by Hebel (talk) It has been decided that the Cook Islands and Niue are sovereign. There's no need to undo this edit again."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 579380132 by Hebel (talk) See the discussion on "List of sovereign states""
 * 7)  "Undid revision 579375214 by Hebel (talk) The UN recognizes them (see http://www.un.org/depts/Cartographic/map/profile/world00.pdf ) and see discussion on "List of sovereign states""

Warning
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Revision as of 21:58, 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning

alternate link 13 March 2013 Novangelis 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Cook_Islands_and_Niue
 * Comments:

Incessant edit-warring. Way over 3RR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Mm. Thank you for logging this; came here to do so myself. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The user is continuing to edit war even after this report was launched. The user is well aware that this report is open, but has failed to respond either here or on the talk page.  TDL (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, "WTF?" is the only thing that comes to mind. I'm sure it's not what would have said, but hey, there you go. Is 48 hours enough? Drmies (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Xan81 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 579538748 by Mann jess (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 579540070 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Consensus has not been reached on this article. */ new section"
 * 1)  "/* Consensus has not been reached on this article. */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using talk page as forum on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Atheism. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has passed 3rr by inserting commentary on a talk page repeatedly. I don't know if a block for edit warring is necessarily the right step forward, to be honest. It might help. I think the issue might be broader; WP:NOTHERE comes to mind, which would require a discussion at ANI, but it seems too early for that. An outside opinion and intervention would be helpful, I think. Thanks. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 01:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, see the discussion on his talk page. I've tried to explain the issue to him repeatedly, but he won't settle for anything less than discussing whether we really have proof of the Big Bang. Rhododendrites has tried explaining NOTFORUM as well.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Temporarily blocking. John Reaves 02:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:198.182.56.5 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 579631013 by Darkness Shines (talk). This is a reliable source because the references in this source are reliable. Be open minded and do not undo based on your opinions"
 * 2)  "/* Reception */"
 * 3)  "/* Criticism and controversy */"
 * 4)  "/* Criticism and controversy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* United States Commission on International Religious Freedom */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * 24 hour block Vsmith (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.169.232 reported by User:Atethnekos (Result: Protected and blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 578958449 by Paul August (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 579036285 by Atethnekos (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 579058996 by Atethnekos (talk) rv"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See User_talk:75.51.164.167, User_talk:75.51.174.116, User_talk:75.51.166.139, etc for previous warnings to this user. And see also the notice from administrator Rklawton at Talk:Dionysus. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Now the user seems to be at Special:Contributions/75.51.173.206. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

And now at [Special:Contributions/75.51.173.182]. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * (rangeblocked 75.51.160.0/19) and . Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ahmadac reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)


 * 1)

The article is under 1 revert rule sanctions.

He has already been warned by administrators on his talk page Sopher99 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * . The two edits are consecutive and count as only one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Help:Reverting
 * An editor must not perform more than three reverts (in this case more than one) on a single page—whether involving the same or different material

Tell me again how he does does not fit the criteria? Because it was consecutive? So I can undo the edits of everyone in the entire page's history, so long as I do it consecutively and without interruptions? literally unbelievable. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." (WP:3RR) It even makes good sense. In this particular instance, the two consecutive edits were clear reverts, but what if you made seven consecutive edits that just change material in different parts of the article? Would you want that to count as seven reverts? In any event, now that you (should) understand the policy, please don't report here unless there's a violation. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Beauvy reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: blocked )
Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why:

Beauvy:

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: This appears to be clear edit warring of POV and what may be original research. Clearly the editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed a civil warning to discuss the issue on their own talk page with no discussion there or on the article talk page. I have an opinion as to what is going on here, but suffice it to say, the editor refuses to collaborate and continues to simply edit war. Editor has been editing since 2012 and has about 75 edits that are mostly to articles of human sexuality with a number of edit war warnings. Editor may not be here to build an encyclopedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Issued a short block for now - if issues re-occur after block expires, let me know and I'll take a look. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. When the editor returns I will attempt to work with them in hopes that they can better understand our policies and how to edit in a more collaborative manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Indicologist reported by User:Omnipaedista (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "23:26, 31 October 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579395005 by Chaipau (talk) Reference was given from a credible "National". Reconsider missionary activism.)"
 * 2)  "03:22, 1 November 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579689557 by Omnipaedista (talk) - State Reason For Change)"
 * 3)  "05:40, 1 November 2013‎ Indicologist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,983 bytes) (+714)‎ . . (Undid revision 579689557 by Omnipaedista (talk) Personal inferences of theoretical support wont cut, especially when "References" are deleted!.)"

Warning
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * 


 * Comments:

This appears to be NPoV-violating edit warring. Editor has been adding unsourced and/or unreliably sourced material to various Indian history-related articles (edits promoting the marginalized Out of India theory) for the past few months ; his/her latest edits are also in violation of WP:INTEGRITY. He/she has so far refused to communicate on talk pages. Editor's comments feature borderline personal attacks and misplaced criticism (calling other editors "Western missionaries"; pointing to bias in Wikipedia toward "missionary activism"). --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm... Unless I'm reading this wrong, this appears to be a new editor attempting to insert assertions from mythology into the history section of an article. Generally mythological texts aren't reliable sources. 3RR has clearly been violated here. Short term block probably in order. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked the editor as much for edit warring on this particular article as for their other disruptive edits on Wikipedia. The user did not breach WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 - Really? I see ,, reverts within 24hrs of each other. Isn't that 3RR? NickCT (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it takes four ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23 - You know, I'd never paid attention to the "more than" before. Funny. It would seem 3RR is sorta a misnomer. It should really be 4RR, b/c the 4th is the violation. NickCT (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: no action)
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: It was in the edit summary.

Comments:

"Slut" is not an objective term. User seems vehement about keeping it on the article without qualification.
 * This was a content dispute taking place while the article was on the main page, and is now stale. However, your actions in this case were the poorer: 3RR is not an entitlement, and you reached it without going to the talk page to discuss your proposed change. Going forward, please take the dispute to talk when your bold edits are reverted, rather than reverting the reversion immediately. "It was in the edit summary" is not an attempt to resolve a dispute, and disagreements about wording are not cause for action without consensus, at least absent BLP issues or the like. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Noting also that you've been told this and given some additional advice on your talk page already, and decided to bring this here regardless; furthermore, the AN3 notification doesn't count as a warning, as warnings are meant to precede raising the issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So, this user violates 3 RR and no penalty is issued? Is he a friend of yours? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you prefer I can either block you or protect the article, but you did not even attempt to discuss your changes - this is an expectation, as the report makes clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not answer if he was a friend of yours.


 * I was aware that 3RR is a policy. Discussion before reversion, where is that listed as a policy rather than a suggestion? And was Eric not doing exactly what I was doing, except that he didn't bother to put in edit summaries and didn't observe 3RR? And now you're talking about blocking me? Could the attempt at protecting this particular user be anymore obvious? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, diff #3 is not Eric's revert: Revision as of 15:44, 31 October 2013 Bloodofox (Revert. Obviously. However, that notation signifies a semantic value. That's standard. We don't use unqualified terms such as "slut" without notation anyway, obviously It is the revert of the OP. So Eric's actual number of reverts is three, not 4. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  15:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was just mislinked, see . Link fixed. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The page is now fully protected and discussion of some sort is at last underway on the talk page. This report is not going to result in a block for anyone and I suggest you leave it there.  Thanks, BencherliteTalk 15:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "per talkpage"
 * 2)  "pov pusher"
 * 3)  "please consult WP:RS"
 * 4)  "describing official number (with full list) as "claims" and inserting charlatan sources is not just pov push but retarted"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Was warned here by Drimes.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * I got there from AN, have never edited the article before.


 * Comments:
 * It takes two to tango; the other dance partner is . I can't tell, because I haven't done the math, who's more guilty here. See also Talk:Iran–Iraq_War, where there is some discussion but no third-party mediation/interference yet. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Took a look, since 10:03, 27 October 2013, ‎HistorNE had reverted the same stuff out 6 times, he has been reverted by two separate editors, Tobby72 once and Coltsfan has four reverts since 16:41, 29 October 2013‎ Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, a charge of edit warring is always more interesting than a 3RR case. This kind of prose and explanation is of great help to the admins who frequent this board. I'm not going to decide on this since I just got pissed on by Coltsfan after closing the AN thread, so if they indeed have four reverts, as you say, I might be tempted to block them as well and not consider mitigating circumstances--if indeed there are any. BTW, you are free to revert as well, of course, if your hands are moderately clean in this article's history, and if you can honestly say that the current version is indeed the WRONG version. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After first revert this morning (06:22) I left explanation on talkpage (07:50). From first edit Coltsfan accused me as "pov pusher", then even "vandal", and he didn't leave anything which make sense on talkpage, just messages like "don't make stuff up" or "that is the way it goes". He even sent report to AIAV. Honestly, I didn't take him as serious editor. --HistorNE (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To me (and thank god, to most users) removing RS without any kind of explanation (prior to the EW, and still very weak and pov) is vandalism. And making modifications in the article because you, and only you, considers the sources "charlatan" is forcing your point of view in the article. Good day! Coltsfan (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what is "WP:RS"? --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on past experience, I'm sure that HistorNE is primarily in the wrong. His M.O. is precisely as Coltsfan describes it. Very recently, he did the same thing at Iran–Israel relations. First, he added unsourced content and altered sourced material, with "removing Israeli POV" as his sole justification. When I demanded sources or an explanation, he edit warred to keep his version intact, without even providing an edit summary. After his third revert, in which he finally provided one source (but still no edit summary); I decided to walk away. Nevertheless, the whole situation could easily have escalated, and a quick look at HistorNE's contributions suggests that he does this kind of thing at virtually every article he touches: Tagging an article as NPOV without discussion on the talk page (even though he clearly knew better), personally attacking other users ("Another propaganda piece by Israeli user Greyshark," Coltsfan is "retarted" [sic]), mass deletions without edit summary, and of course he was just at ANI this September for his disruptive editing. Frankly, he damns himself when he candidly admits that he failed to engage Coltsfan and seek consensus because "I didn't take him as serious editor".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, there's no need for lies. You reverted my edits twice with summary "unsourced additions and changes to sourced material". First part of introduction wasn't sourced as well, and second part was misquoted. After 2 reverts from both sides, I deceided to spent 1.5 hour and improve POV introduction by WP:RS . Since you don't assume good faith after it, seems like that you just don't like it. I'm very familiar that some of lads who use this project as political tool don't like my NPOV-editing in various articles, like Greyshark who immediately send report to "strict" administrator Bbb23 hoping for fast block. Regarding two other articles perhaps I didn't leave summary but I left huge explanations on talkpages ( + ) so your remark is worthless. The same goes for this specific case, I left explanation on talkpage but Coltsfan avoided to engage in civil discussion, just reverting on basis "If I like something it's RS, if I don't it's vandalism". It's childish, and as I said, I didn't take him seriously. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You only went to the talk page of Exodus of Iran's Jews after you had been reverted, when you already knew you should have left a message on talk before adding the tag. Far from being unaware of your belated comment, I cited it above due to your personal attacks on a fellow editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

HistorNE says the source was not reliable. Ok. Why? Something wrong with the authors? With the books? What? He didn't even care to explain. He hasn't explained yet! Again: I saw someone removing RS (if it was not, he has to justify it, not simply call it 'charlatan' for no reason) and I reverted it. Was I wrong too? Probably. I should have reported it immediately and should have stopped editing. I didn't. But at my third edit, I stopped. Should have stopped on the second, but ok. But he didn't. He didn't care. In the talk page, he talked about his point of view and not why the sources were unreliable (what started the whole thing). What you call sarcasm, I call it a legitimate question. So, answer me: Reliable sources were removed and that's fine? hm And yes, they are reliable. Until proven otherwise, they can be call reliable since, from what I saw, they appear legit and in accordance with all the rules about RS. Coltsfan (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me note that no one seems to address the fact that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Without getting into the merits of the particular case, Coltsfan has less of an understanding of edit warring and all that than they should, and thinks they see a joke when their own sarcasm is pointed out to them ("the wrong version will stay up? Reliable sources were removed and that's fine?"). TheTimes, your Coltsfan also didn't address their opponent: both parties are just about as wrong in their behavior, and rightness is simply not an applicable concept here, strictly speaking. (And if what Coltsfan calls an RS is called a charlatan source by another editor, then we're simply not dealing with vandalism anymore--that's so elementary that I can't believe I have to explain it. Coltsfan, something is not a reliable source just because you say so.) If anyone has problems with HistorNE (and that's entirely possible), why would you think edit warring with them is a good way forward? Start an RfC/U, get iron-clad consensus on various talk pages to make instant reverts possible, etc. Of course, this is just good advice given to you for free, so feel free to completely ignore it. Now, stop jabbering and let an admin decide on the merits of the edit warring complaint, or I'm going to find someone to hand out some blocks for incomprehension of basic policies and concepts. And someone look at the recent additions of CN tags to see if those are justified. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't lie I didn't even care to explain, I explained everything on talkpage. Of course, you don't have any argument or source so you simply engaged in edit war and started with accusations around. Actually, from your first edit you mentioned "pov pusher" in summary and it speaks enough about assuming bad faith. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in the talk page you explain why the sources are not reliable, you simple say that 'they are not'. And I assumed bad faith in your edit because I considered it unproductive and disruptive, hence vandalism (light vandalism, abusive vandalism, it's all the same). Coltsfan (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Just like the WP:BRD cycle applies to editing, when someone removes a source as unreliable, the onus is on the person who wants to re-add it to verify it. This may involve finding out if it's being used elsewhere on the project, determining if it's being used as a ref somewhere else in the world, or indeed using the reliable source noticeboard where needed.  Now, this of course only applies in cases the the reliability is somewhat questionable - plain old "obvious to anyone in the world" sources should never be removed quickly  ES  &#38;L  11:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources HistorNE removed are indeed obviously, self-evidently RS. User:Stumink, thankfully, just restored them. Take a look. Warfare and Armed Conflict: A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, International Conflict : A Chronological Encyclopedia of Conflicts and Their Management 1945-1995, Iran, Iraq and the Legacies of War, ect. HistorNE has explained why he deleted every source except the official Iranian government estimate: "describing official number (with full list) as "claims" and inserting charlatan sources is not just pov push but retarted." Western sources suggest that 262,000 to 600,000 Iranian soldiers were killed, but the Iranian government says it was much less than this. HistorNE's idea of a "compromise" was to delete the high end of the range and cite 262,000 as the "Western estimate". This is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT from an Iranian editor who is pushing an Iranian POV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, HistorNE has further elaborated on his unilateral mass deletions: "There are documentation centres [in Iran] with comprehensive data about every single victim, so hiding another "500,000" estimated by some "expert" from 2-3 million families sounds like sci-fi." Textbook original research!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And off we go again... Coltsfan (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just stealing time from administrators ("I don't like your edits, so I'll assume bad faith, avoid engaging in discussion and accuse you on noticeboard"). Nothing more then it. --HistorNE (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:HistorNE is warned for violating WP:3RR and cautioned that removal of sources from an article may be seen as disruptive. Any questions about the suitability of a source for verifying factual claims can be directed to WP:RS/N. Michael Clodfelter's book about war casualties, which you removed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=579417511 here], is widely cited and is used elsewhere in Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Editguy111 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

All edit (sets) change Jewish to Judaean, although there are only three in any 24-hour period. In any case, each of the listed "reverts" below is a revert of a previous single edit.

Previous version reverted to: 23:52, October 30, 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:07, October 31, 2013
 * 2) 07:53, November 1, 2013
 * 3) 10:13, November 1, 2013
 * 4) 15:09, November 1, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:56, November 1, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:22, November 1, 2013

Comments:

Look at his definitions: "Judaean" means (to him) a member of the cultural (not ethnic or religious) group located in "Judaea" (Latin), which is pretty much orthogonal to the relevant religious construct of Judaism. Even if he were correct as to a definition of Judaean, his removal of Judaism from the article resembles vandalism.

I admit that I've done three reverts, but many of the phrases he's created do not serve any purpose. "Alexandrian Jews" makes sense; "Alexandrian Judaeans" does not. Furthermore, his use of Pharisees as a religion doesn't match our article; it's possibly a "school of thought" within Judaism, but there's no evidence that anyone calls it a "religion" or a "sect". Almost all the references have not be pointed to online sources, so I cannot verify that either Jewish or Judaean can be sourced, although many of the statements make no sense unless he were Jewish. Any more comments should go on the talk page, but I don't see any effort on his part to support his assertions other than making the clearly incorrect assertion that Jewish refers only to the modern ethnic group. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Or, for that matter, Judean vs. Judaean. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap and User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: Closed)
Page:

Users being reported: &

Previous version reverted to: (Reverted earilier edits in a section heading to a NDESC version.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  by Steeletrap, reverting NDESC section heading edit by User:DGG
 * 2)  by Specifico, modifying Steeletrap edit
 * 3)  by S. Rich, restoring section heading by DGG (Talk page comment about the revert was posted by S. Rich at the same time.)
 * 4)  by Steeletrap, restoring version by Specifico
 * 5)  by Steeletrap, reverting to version by DGG
 * 6)  by Specifico, reverting edit of Steeletrap

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None – this article is under general sanctions. Reminders of the sanctions and WP:NDESC policy were posted by me (OP) in my edit summary and on talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Robert_P._Murphy

Comments: As noted, the section heading which these editors want to provide and have provided violates WP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:BOOMERANG report, as Rich is admitting to edit-warring against consensus. I'll add that what Rich claimed about the section heading does not appear to be the case. MilesMoney (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Srich got confused and undid Steele's revert of DGG's edit. I pointed out his error to Srich on talk. He acknowledged his error and I reset the version to before he undid Steele's edit based on his acknowledged error. I'm at a loss as to why he thinks this is EW and particularly why he thinks Steele and I should be aggregated into a single imaginary editor here, [insert] particularly since one of my two recent edits on that page was to remove and replace a word written by Steeletrap. [end insert] The article talk page section on which these edits were discussed real time confirms what happened. The real time talk page discussion shows that, after a clumsy threat "reminder" about Sanctions, Srich edit-warred his preferred version back into the article, based on his mistake about the article history and BRD history. At any rate, my recent edits there are as follows: I made one revert to correct Srich's error after he acknowledged it and I previously made one modification to the text which, although it changed a word written by another editor, was not a revert of the DGG content to which Srich refers. Srich, please withdraw this. SPECIFICO talk  03:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by OP – I was not "confused" about the NDESC edit that Steeletrap performed (and later reverted). I made a mistake as to how long the version by User:DGG had been in place. As General Sanctions apply to the article, and as NDESC has been violated, I will not withdraw this AN3. – S. Rich (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems like a good case for temporary full protection. OR, just maybe, you could all use the talk page. I'll let you decide. John Reaves 03:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing going on here. It's an ordinary course edit and talkpage environment.  It's a mystery why Srich would think that this deserves editor and Admin time and attention.  SPECIFICO  talk  03:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

[insert]
 * Hello John Reaves. I just took a closer look at the history, and I'm amazed that we would all be brought here to discuss this.
 * made three edits, one of which was a self-revert to the version which Srich preferred before I pointed out his misreading of the article edit history. So, what we have here is one net change by Steeletrap -- one revert of the DGG material by Steeletrap and one revert which I did after Srich's error was identified.  Frankly, if I were an Admin I'd issue a brief block to Srich for bringing this specious complaint and wasting community time and attention.   SPECIFICO  talk  03:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin: We've got more serious issues than simply edit-warring here. There are serious WP:BLP issues here. The editors of this article are using blogs as sources on living people.  I'm going removing the content per:

Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
 * In addition to any blocks/bans issued, an admin should protect the page with the offending content omitted. The editors of these articles are out of control. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, this is an article in which general sanctions apply, and second, I tried the talk page route. Sniping occurred, and I was accused of "misrepresenting" the edit history. That is, I had missed the NDESC edit made by an admin. I should'a been more careful and pointed out that the edit violated policy and reverted an edit made by an admin. (And somewhere in talk DGG was told that s/he does not understand policy.) I will speak up for Steeletrap because she did revert to DGG's version. Specifico, on the other hand, is gaming the edit history in order to keep his version, even reverting the edit that Steeletrap had made. IMO, the bottom line, for any dauntless admin reviewing this thread, is that the article is under general sanctions and the section heading put forth violates policy. Admonitions would be helpful.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can you provide a link in regard to the sanctions? John Reaves 03:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and removed the offending material. with an edit-summary of "Removing poorly sourced material per WP:BLP. Content can possibly be restored with better sourcing. Please do NOT use blogs, advocacy organizations, and other questionable sources for BLP material.". The American Conservative is the only source I recognize as being reliable, so I left that in.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Gamaliel and AQFK have stepped in and cleaned up some of the problem material. Perhaps this AN3 is now "OBE" (Overcome By Events). I do ask that notifications be posted on Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notification of what ? -- your claims of EW here have been debunked. SPECIFICO  talk  04:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply to/correction of OP's misleading presentation
OP presents three reverts from my above but omits the fact that my 'third revert' was a self-revert; specifically, undoing everything in my only other two! (1) He also omits the fact that his 'warning' regarding sanctions came before my self-revert, and that this self-revert was actually in response to his request for me to undo it (2). As SPECIFICO mentions above (yet OP omits from this discussion), he partially appealed to a factual falsehood in justifying his "policy" concerns, which he later apologized for (3) One observation: Rich raises the issue of sanctions, but he is the only user thus far to be given a 'notice' on the sanctions page (4). Steeletrap (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to state that Srich's statements attributing devious, gaming, POV, or battleground intent to other editors is uncivil or PA and is unwarranted and disruptive. As Steeletrap notes, Srich has already received notice under the General Sanctions and I am very disappointed to see his behavior this evening. Even if he had been justified in bringing this matter to a noticeboard, his presentation of evidence and diffs is incomplete and omits facts in such a way that a casual reader would be led to misunderstand the facts and sequence of events which occurred. As an experienced editor, Srich should be expected to do better than that. Incomplete, misleading, or premature reports of problems create a needless drain of WP resources. SPECIFICO talk  04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Defense re "BLP": experts exempt from rule
User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge_'s changes represent a blatant and embarrassing misread of the relevant rule. The four blogs he removed from the Murphy article (1) used were written by Paul Krugman (at the NYT blog), J. Bradford DeLong, David Henderson, and Robert Murphy. The four blogs were used to discuss Murphy's economic predictions and methodology WP:SPS, which relates to self-published blogs, states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Krugman and DeLong are both eminent economists (the former at Princeton and the latter at Berkeley), while David Henderson is also a widely published mainstream libertarian economist. Murphy's blog was used to describe his own views, which is exempt from the SPS rule per WP:ABOUTSELF. I ask AQFK to concede that his accusations of "BLP" violations made in his edit were blatantly false. Steeletrap (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC) [UPDATE: Per his below remarks, AFQK appears to think we are using this sources to make personal statements about Murphy. We know all the facts from Murphy's own (WP:ABOUTSELF) blog and the NYT article. All the non-Murphy SPS are used for is to critique predictions/theories/methodologies we know (per himself) he endorsed. This misunderstanding appears to be the source of AFQK's allegations.


 * I don't know who the last two guys are, but Krugman and DeLong certainly meet all RS criteria for being experts. I think the issue here is how much coverage do we really want to give what is essentially a blog feud in the encyclopedia and not are these sources reliable, which they clearly are. If we are to include Murphy's prediction, we should include rebuttals to the prediction from those whose expertise far outstrips Murphy's. However, my comments are not an endorsement of your comments towards AQFT, which are really over the top. With BLP, it's best to act first and then debate on the talk page later, because the material can always be restored to the article at a later point, so I support AQFT's temporary removal while we hash this out. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. Please see WP:UGC.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Krugman is published by the New York Times, so his rebuttals are certainly appropriate to include. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, we aren't using the other blogs to establish any facts about Murphy (We know Murphy made the bet and lost it, per his own ABOUTSELF comments; it is also established in the NYT Krugman stuff). We're using it to critique his self-established economic predictions and methodology. That clearly doesn't fall under the "source about a living person" stuff you mention. Steeletrap (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, and I thought about leaving that source in, but it appears to be an opinion piece. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to be using opinion piece for BLP material.  I'd have to double-check what our WP:V, WP:BPL and WP:RS say.   A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the opinion of a Nobel laureate in the area of his expertise. That's pretty much gold by the standards of reliability and accuracy.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ladies and Gents Could someone please copy this discussion to the article talk page? This is the page for 3RR, right? It's not even the same part of the article.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578603918&oldid=578582412
 * 2) 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=578918583&oldid=578855810
 * 3) 3 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579545760&oldid=579538212
 * 4) 4 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=579642942&oldid=579641210

Note that this user has been previously blocked TWICE for 3RR violations on this page, once in 2009, a second time earlier this month.

Also note that is deliberately misrepresenting the opinions of a living person, in this case a distinguished professor Richard Wiseman, that make Wiseman look like he is endorsing pseudoscience (or WP:FRINGE as is the euphemism we use around here). Not only is this extremely disingenuous but it is also a clear violation of WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

How ere you getting four reverts, that user has only two edits to the article today? The last edit was four days ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see relevant discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Illegitimate_reversals. Alfonzo Green (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what that section is going to show other than you obviously have NOTHING close to consensus for the content that you have been reinserting over a number of days. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One of the two previous two blocks for warring at Rupert Sheldrake included "incivility", which reminds me of this comment in the thread mentioned above. (I haven't diffed out the rest of the thread.) vzaak (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I see two instances of Alfonzo Green editing the article in the past 24 hours but they don't appear to be reverts. Others have, in fact, reverted whatever he writes. If he/she is responsible for violating some BLP concern, maybe that issue should be posted on that noticeboard. I don't see him/her edit warring here. In fact, it seems like editing on that article is overwhelmingly dominated by Editors posting in this complaint.  Liz  Read! Talk! 21:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The talk page is "dominated" by editors who can't or won't understand policy and WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.  pretends to take an impartial view on this but consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE.  The edit in question is an "attempt" to subvert POV by falsely attributing views to a person who doesn't hold those views.  The edit warring is slow granted, but my understanding is that WP:3RR doesn't have to be in the same 24hrs, and IMHO slow edit warring is reasonable cause for a longer ban, and the problem of incivility remains. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * . Given 's history, he should consider himself warned that if he continues to edit the article without a clear consensus for his edits, he risks being blocked, even if he reverts only once. That said, I have some advice for other editors who have commented here. Alfonzo did not breach WP:3RR. Barney's understanding that it doesn't have to be in the same 24 hours is wrong. I think he is confusing edit warring with a violation of 3RR. Next time you file a report, pay attention to the diffs and disclose that this is not a 3RR violation you are reporting. As for incivility, all I see is sometimes heated discussion. I wouldn't label it incivility. All editors should avoid commenting on other editors and focus only on content; very few do, alas.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 Please reconsider your warning. Not only did I not break the three revert rule, but my edit in no way represents Wiseman as a supporter of pseudoscience, as Barney the barney barney alleges. Here's the edit that triggered his complaint: "In a subsequent interview, Wiseman stated that his experiment generated the same pattern of data as Sheldrake's and that more experiments were needed to definitively overturn Sheldrake's conclusion that Jaytee had a psychic link with its owner." It's clear from this quote that Wiseman disagrees with Sheldrake's view (which Barney falsely implies to be pseudoscience). Barney's complaint is entirely bogus and should result in a ruling of no violation. Alfonzo Green (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You have 186 edits to article space, over half of which have been to the Sheldrake article. I suggest you broaden your contributions to Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Guess what, Bbb23? You make a lot more edits when they keep getting reverted.  I haven't run into that problem on other pages, but then most pages haven't been hijacked by a clique of editors determined to impose their POV.  Telling me to go work on another page doesn't resolve the issue on this one.  Alfonzo Green (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Alfonzo is right. Neutral or Editors sympathetic to Sheldrake have either been driven off or they are confined to the Talk Page. It's exhausting trying to read that page. There are probably less than half a dozen Editors who are allowed to edit the main article. Anyone else who tries to edit the article, like Alfonzo, will find themselves in an edit war or be resigned to being reverted. I thought it would have simmered down by now (this all started in September) but it hasn't. Liz  Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RoslynSKP reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: moved to ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * This edit reinstated citations to the Official British history to the first two versions of the division's name and the link to the contents page of the official history on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1)
 * This is not a revert - its an expansion of the article --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1)
 * This edit reinstated the citations to the Official British history regarding the first two versions of the division's name. --Rskp (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

and
 * 1)
 * Here Jim Sweeney cut the information which expanded the article (referred to above). --Rskp (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1)
 * This edit reinstated the link to the Official Australian history contents page on the AWM web site. --Rskp (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No template warning but commented at Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division


 * . I'm going off-wiki and don't have time to review this properly, but glancing at it, my sense is that the two of you are having your own private edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue was also discussed on my talk page here --Rskp (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jim Sweeney mistook a citation which linked to the AWM web site, with a cite to a particular page, and it has taken me a number of reverts to finally clarify the issue here . --Rskp (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: some of these issues are being discussed here: Administrators noticeboard. Anotherclown (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Due to a slight change in the naming of the topic discussion this can now be found at Administrators'_noticeboard. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * as this conflict has been moved to ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Til_Eulenspiegel reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Version before edit warring

Previous version reverted to: preferred version, including some edits to the section on China and East Asia.

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: See below

Comments:

Re: the talk page, there was only one editor, so I tried to resolve the conflict in the edit lines and at his specific talk page instead. I was also writing a recap of my points and the relevant policies on the talk page but kept getting distracted by reverts and (now) abuse of process and warnings, so I came here to fill this out first.

In short, dude is falling back on page ownership and feels; lowering the defcon; and refusing to interact or address my points and good faith or any of the relevant policies, which have been noted repeatedly. Ban is probably a bit much, but if a third party could talk him down, it'd be nice. (I've never done this before, so sorry if there is someplace else I should've gone for that. Lemme know.) — Llywelyn II   13:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You gotta love it when an editor keeps edit warring in his bold edit based on systemic bias, edit wars it in three or four times, wouldn't discuss on the talkpage, then tries to get the other editor reverting to the status quo 3 times blocked! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is also deceptive, there has been no further reverting since the warning. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , regarding these four removals of the same content ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myriad&diff=579727548&oldid=579721285] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myriad&diff=579728706&oldid=579728041] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myriad&diff=579731904&oldid=579731782] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myriad&diff=579732730&oldid=579732504]), is there any good reason why you should not be blocked under WP:3RR? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from that not being 3 reverts? There's the policies the material violates, the fact they're completely unsourced, the banner on the page saying unsourced material will be removed, and the observation that I made repeated good faith efforts to bring Til into a conversation about what was going on - to which he responded with reverts, ad homs, and warnings. Sorry for your issues with ... and I'll take a page ban if people really have the opinion that I was the one edit warring, but none of that changes the fact that I was the one constructively editing the page, that the material in question was unsourced, and (even if it is accurate, which Wiktionary doubts) it belongs at Wiktionary until there's some more context to it. —  Llywelyn II   05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a broader perspective to this, see User talk:Til Eulenspiegel where User:JamesBWatson wrote " Without even looking further back than today, I found that you have been edit warring on Myriad and on Cuneiform. Any further edit warring at all, on any page, at any time, may lead to an extended block, without further warning." Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Llywelyn, it's not wiktionary that doubts these are the honest-to-god Hebrew, Albanian, Afrikaans, Mongolian etc. words for "myriad", it's YOU, because your mind has been softened to the point where it accepts wiktionary as the ultimate authority on all things - so if it isn't in wiktionary yet, there must be no such thing, eh? Once again, if there are editors who speak these modern languages with tens or hundreds of millions of speakers - regardless of how obscure YOU may find them - then we accept on good faith that they aren't making up words to fool you, just as we don't demand proof and references to be convinced that fleur means flower in French.  Why do you keep writing things into the policy that have never been there? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." To my mind, the removal of exactly the same content four times within one hour counts as four reverts. These are reverts because they undid the actions of other editors, even though the actual content removed was first added some time ago. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Jingiby (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on dispute resolution noticeboard: 

Comments:

This issue appears to be clear edit warring and POV-pushing. It may be called ahistorical revisionism or original research that is aimed to projects modern ethnic distinctions onto the past. There is no doubt, this editor is not being civil in this dispute and has removed even my warning to discuss the issue on his own talk page. There is missing real discussion on the article's talk page. The user didn't provide a single source in support of his agenda. I think the editor refuses to collaborate and continues simply to edit war. Jingiby (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . So you get into an extended edit war with  over ethnic-related content and you come here to report the other party? Shouldn't both of you be blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. Brilliant move, isn't it? I guess he thought nobody was going to check, or that if he reports first he somehow gets away with it. In my defense, I was rolling back to a stable status quo before Jingiby introduced his Bulgarian-nationalist slant. The man refuses to accept that we don't use contemporary terminology, but modern-day terms blah blah... In short, this is one of those obscure Balkans conflicts that can't really be solved in any way other than through edit-war: nobody along the entire DR process gives a damn, and I'm stuck rolling back various ethnic POV-pushers that regularly pop-up with their ideas on how everybody is Bulgarian/Serbian/Albanian/Bosnian/Croatian, etc etc..


 * If you've gotta, fire away (*lights cigarette and ties blindfold*). -- Director  ( talk )  14:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

On a contrary, the issue is not so complicated. You was not rolling back to the stable version Direktor, but to the unsourced POV added without any comment by James Lindberg (talk). Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment on the matter. From what I can see have removed some sourced information, without giving a reason. Also the same user have taken information from a source for 1918 population (non census information), and copied it to the section of the official census results from 1921.  have reverted that and did few more edits, which  have reverted, claiming that version after  edits is the "stable version" (which does not correspond to the truth). The rest is just usual edit warring. StanProg (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to start a content discussion here, but I feel I must add something to StanProg's review.Here is a link to the relevant (ignored) DRN thread. The central issue is Jingiby's removal of reference to the Macedonian ethnicity prior to its formal institutionalization in the aftermath of WWII. This is essentially like removing reference to Galileo Galilei being "Italian" by a "Pisan nationalist" because there was no such formal nation at the time, and supporting that with a slew of sources that explain how the Italian nation was not officially declared until much, much later. Essentially what he's doing is introducing contemporary (Interbellum) terminology, instead of referring to these people by what they're known today. He's been doing this all over the project for a very long time. Its basically in-line with Greater-Bulgarian ideology that claims the modern-day Macedonians are actually Bulgarians. Its damaging to the encyclopedia, and I tried to stop it here. This is the result. As I said, noone replies to DR attempts in these sort of subjects (I know this because of my 50,000 edits on such topics, e.g. the ignored DRN thread). -- Director  ( talk )  19:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @ When you do a reverts, you should be very careful what part of the edits you revert. In the current situation you've reverted a disputed (by you) information as well as edits which are usually classified as vandalism (census results and exact quote for 1918). Being a Macedonian Bulgarian (by origin) I haven't intervened in your discussion with because of a conflict of interests. Trying to help solving this dispute, I can point that in all the of censuses before 1913 (Ottoman) and the Greek, Serbian, German, etc statistics, these people were identified as "Bulgarian", in the period 1913-1931 they were called "South Serbs" (officially - which can be seen in 1921 census - they are part of the "Serbs & Croats" - by mother tongue), in 1931 census as "Yugoslavs" and since 1944 they are called "Macedonians". What you're trying to do is to push the 1944+ nation name to 1918 people. I think you can both agree with "Macedonian Slavs" i.e. "Slavs from the region of Macedonia" as a common name, or the other official terms based on the period for which you're writing and continue with constructive editing of the article. --StanProg (talk) 05:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, yes, I agree... -- Director  ( talk )  10:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No problems. With one exeption only: Chernozemski was Bulgarian not only by self-identification, but also by place of birth. Jingiby (talk) 17:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: HistorNE warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

An Arbitration decision placed all articles related to the Israeli-Arab conflict under a 1RR limitation. It has been clarified that this includes topics related to Israel-Iran relation (which this article clearly is0 here: . The relevant comment reads "Also, there was a previous case at AE where someone was editing about Iran-Israel relations. Iran's government refers to Israel as 'the Zionist entity'. I would interpret an I/P topic ban as excluding *all* of the edits and topics listed by Sean.hoyland in this complaint" - said topics being " Israel–Iran proxy conflict or Iran–Israel relations" This editor was just here a day ago for edit warring, and got off with a warning. It may be time to step it up a notch. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:HistorNE was blocked this September for edit warring. An edit warring report against User:HistorNE was recently (yesterday?) closed with a warning, which as we can see did not accomplish its task. I advised User:HistorNE to revert but s/he has refused. -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These are actually related to their edits on a different article than my report. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, didn't realize that. So he's edit warring on multiple pages the day after he was issued a formal warning. Awesome. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No I didn't refused, I misunderstood you. It's reverted now. --HistorNE (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First, Iran is irrelevant to Israeli-Arab conflict (not Arab country, neither participated in their wars), and Persian Jews are irrelevant to Iran-Israel relations. Citations from article Israel ii. Jewish Persian Community, in American Encyclopædia Iranica, written by David Yeroushalmi (Jewish Israeli professor from Tel Aviv University):
 * Moreover, because of a variety of historical conditions inside Persia, mainly the absence of state-wide persecution or popular harassment of Jews, freedom of movement and immigration from and into Persia during the years 1948-79 (and actual possibilities for immigration from Persia since the establishment of the Islamic Republic), the Persian immigrants who moved to Israel ordinarily did so out of their own free will. These immigrants, as well as those who settled in Mandatory Palestine, did not perceive themselves as victims, refugees or displaced individuals whose immigration was imposed on them by events or forces beyond their personal control.
 * Since the early 1960s until the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran in February 1979, there was an average annual immigration of some 1,000 to 1,500 souls from Persia. The average did not increase in the wake of the Islamic Revolution, which was followed by a major wave of Jewish immigration from Persia to various destinations, chief among them the United States and Europe.
 * This is completely apolitical topic which your pal User:Greyshark09 has tried to connect with "Israeli-Arab conflict" or alleged "post-revolutional persecutions", but according sources above it's pure nonsense. Regarding his pamphlet I already explained here and here. Even after explanations, he engaged himself in edit wars without any discussion or summaries (except insults like "disruptive editing"). I consider this as game of edit-war called "two mouses against one cat" to keep POV. --HistorNE (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * HistorNE was warned by Kipa Aduma that the article falls under the Arbitration decision, and I agree that it does. The lead of the article, rightly or wrongly, suggests so. Thus, the 1RR restriction applies; HistorNE is free to appeal this, at Arbitration/Requests. Now, it is clear to me that, arbitration set aside, HistorNE is editing (redirecting) against consensus, and is taking an unfair advantage by claiming that the Arb restriction does not apply; Greyshark and Kipa Aduma have reverted only once. So I am going to undo HistorNE's revert, with the warning that any further revert will result in a block. They can take the issue up on the talk page and achieve consensus there; alternately, WP:AFD is a solution, or WP:DR. But on the note of that talk page, I take serious exception to HistorNE's heading, "Another propaganda piece by Israeli user Greyshark". "Propaganda" is already a non-neutral term, and "Israeli editor" is simply a personal attack; see WP:TPNO. If HistorNE wants to play collaboratively, they will change that heading. In addition, the next such comment will result in a block for incivility/personal attack, as will the next revert to the redirect without consensus on the talk page or elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The scope of WP:ARBPIA is an important issue and the AE case Kipa Aduma, Esq. cites is one example where admins have interpreted 'broadly construed' to include things like the Israel–Iran proxy conflict and Iran–Israel relations. I think there have been similar clarifications concerning Israel/Iran when ARBPIA topic banned editors have, from an admin's perspective, strayed into the fuzzy zone that defines the scope of topic bans (although I can't recall whether it's been at AE, editor/admin talk pages or perhaps both). Whatever the merits or relevance of that argument to this case with respect to ARBPIA 1RR restrictions (and I don't know whether HistorNE is currently ARBPIA topic banned), that argument should not be made by a sockpuppet of a block evading topic banned editor. Kipa Aduma, Esq's edit history, their first edit being a revert of Dalai lama ding dong (who went on to become a sockmaster) and the proximity of many other edits to NoCal's perceived foes like ZScarpia, Dlv999 and Nishidani suggests that it is likely to be another NoCal sock. Edit warring reports like this should be filed by established editors in good standing who are allowed to edit here. There was nothing stopping Brewcrewer or any other editor who is allowed to be here from filing this report. Socks don't need to be here, are not allowed to be here, there's no excuse for them being here and rewarding their actions is counterproductive. HistorNE should play nice, but why should he play nice if Kipa Aduma, Esq is breaking a rule to be here ? When an editor thinks someone else is breaking a rule, any rule, they are far less likely to follow the rules themselves. This kind of futile tit for tat is endemic in the topic area, partly thanks to the corrosive effect of the presence of sockpuppets. And just in case anyone wonders why I haven't simply filed an SPI report instead of saying these things here, see Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100 for a currently stalled SPI investigation into other suspected NoCal socks. Apparently SPI does not work effectively, and given the amount of sockpuppetry it's easy to understand why. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: He hasn't stopped, despite being warned. As you can see here in this link, he continues to push pov, without trying to reach a consensus with other users. Coltsfan (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've provided eight reliable sources verified at talkpage, without removing doubious sources. You didn't verify anything, you simply reverted it. Considering threats and false reports, it's more then obivous your not interested in improving article. --HistorNE (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet investigation is opened regarding user:HistorNE.GreyShark (dibra) 13:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Attleboro reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion here. Attleboro began the discussion only after being warned by another editor.

Comments:

To be clear, this isn't a bright-line 3RR violation, as Attleboro reverted 4 times in a 29-hour period, but I do believe it's worthy of a block. Not only does it appear to be gaming the 3RR system, but Attleboro was warned repeatedly and warned that violation of the bright-line rule isn't a prerequisite to sanctions, and after being forced to the talk page he/she then re-reverted against consensus (Arzel, Fat&Happy, and me) while the talk page discussion was ongoing. (On top of that, it's pretty clear from the discussion that Attleboro refuses to learn basic concepts about WP:NPV and WP:RS.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's more going on here than Fleischman mentions. First, these aren't reverts to the exact same text. Rather, Attleboro is trying out different formulations in an attempt to get a reliably-sourced view onto the article. In particular, he moved from an unattributed statement to an attributed one, which shows an attempt to compromise.


 * Second, as I point out on the talk page, some of the edit comments in the reverts are simply inaccurate. The same thread shows Fleischman and the others who reverted taking on a confrontational attitude and refusing to cooperate with Attleboro's attempts.


 * Based on this, I suggest instead protecting the article to force these people to listen to Attleboro instead of reverting each attempt he makes to hit the moving target that they present.


 * Please note that I haven't edited this article in a while, so I'm not part of the edit war here. My hands are clean. MilesMoney (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter that the reverts aren't the exact same text. They all include the same material that was objected to.
 * Characterizing Attleboro's edit warring as "an attempt to compromise" is about as distorted as it comes. The edits speak for themselves. Qualifying a quote with "evidence from economists of..." doesn't come close to proper attribution. Plus, MilesMoney's reconstruction is belied by the lack of any offer of compromise by Attleboro in the talk page discussion. (Nowhere did he/she say something like, "But I did attribute the quote.")
 * Strange that MilesMoney is accusing me of being combative and not listening to Attleboro; the talk page discussion shows pretty clearly in my view that I've bent over backwards to entertain Attleboro's arguments, but that he/she has ignored mine. But this is, frankly, completely irrelevant; if I had been combative, it still wouldn't have justified edit warring.
 * --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at what DrFleischman did here and suggest less wiki-lawyering on his part. Orthogonius (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pray tell, what did I do there... and how is it relevant to this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is totally irrelevant to Dr. Fleischman's report of edit warring. Please take it elsewhere. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Attleboro and Orthogonius both reverted yet again (here, here) immediately after the full protection ended. Admins, please don't extend full protection without first considering that the first round of full protection was obtained by subterfuge. Evidence here. Urgent need for sanctions for both accounts. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, Attleboro and Orthogonius need to be addressed via the WP:SPI complaint. They are clearly working together and have a WP:DUCK view of WP:SOCK.  Arzel (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Third post-protection reversion here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fourth post-protection reversion (this one while logged in as Orthogonius) here. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Attleboro and Orthogonius have been indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets. See Sockpuppet_investigations/Attleboro/Archive. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Olde Hornet reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Indef)
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:

It's unfortunate that I have to ask for this editor to be blocked but he or she doesn't seem to be responding to messages posted on his or her Talk page while he or she persists in deleting material without participating in discussion with other editors. It's possible that he or she simply hasn't noticed the notification icon (it's now rather small and tucked away in the very top of the screen) so perhaps a block would be sufficient to get his or her attention...? ElKevbo (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 12 hours. This will hopefully get the point across. John Reaves 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It didn't; he or she has continued to edit war without any discussion whatsoever. In fairness, he or she may not have even noticed the 12-hour block (if we can safely assume that he or she doesn't see the red message icon).  A longer block that he or she can't miss may be necessary. ElKevbo (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * – Indef by User:John Reaves per [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Persistent_edit_warring_without_discussion this ANI thread]. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: IP POV-pusher

Please lock down World Organization of the Scout Movement to edits from IPs for a while. A troll tried to pick a fight with our admin on the talkpage, luckily the admin didn't take the bait. So the IP went on to the article, adding assumed "facts", miscapitalizing and mispunctuating things, with no cite. Naturally I reverted. A decade-old article with dozens of registered users watching isn't going to be that replete with mistakes that a user who doesn't bother to sign in or register will catch things the rest of us haven't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week as two IPs were involved., you should have either filed this report properly against the last IP or you should have taken the issue to WP:RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The second IP was the one making the 3RR edits, and as to RFPP, I'll know for next time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo reported by User:101.170.85.76 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Talk:World Organization of the Scout Movement

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

Comments:

Despite entries on article Talk page, Gadget850 and Kintetsubuffalo engaged in edit warring by repeated complete reversions and Kintetsubuffalo makes his intention to revert any edits clear - "I will continue to revert all IP changes that look similar".]

Reversions by Kintetsubuffalo:
 * 08:58, 2 November 2013
 * 13:14, 2 November 2013‎
 * 13:50, 2 November 2013‎
 * 13:58, 2 November 2013‎

Kintetsubuffalo justified his reversion by claiming the edits lacked cited references but deleted considerable links within the article, to other articles and to sources as well as references to sources.

Having reverted all contributions, Gadget850 belatedly edited the article to include changes to dates which were the same as those he and Kintetsubuffalo had reverted but Kintetsubuffalo did not revert Gadget850's changes. The two users work in conjunction to revert any changes made by other users and dominate the article.101.170.85.76 (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . See above report (article semi-protected).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:71.79.64.188 reported by User:Space simian (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) by 71.79.64.188
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) by 71.79.66.64

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ender's Game (film)

Comments:

Anonymous user keeps making POV edits to the reception section. Began as 71.79.64.188, after several warnings and comment on talkpage suddenly user 71.79.66.64 shows up and makes the same edit. Since they are in the same IP-range I think it is safe to assume it is the same user who very cleverly reset his router. --Space simian (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: as below)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Warned several other times by and  as well. Rhododendrites (talk) 14:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Demographics of atheism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"


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


 * Comments:
 * . Clear 3RR.  Kuru   (talk)  15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

User:GrunterVonHaart207$! reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Demographics of atheism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Ulla Lindström */ new section"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Warrants more than a 24 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 24 hours by User:Kuru. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BBBAAACCC reported by User:Fareed30 (Result: Blocked)
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:


 * BBBAAACCC is not only disruptive, an edit-warrior, a POV-pusher and a violator of 3RR, he seems to be prejudice towards certain people and is attacking me on my talk page "You are laugable:)"' ... "and you are still a dark skinned Indian." ... "You are laugable. I've an account in other wikis, not just English wikipedia." He keeps adding questionable images of Indo-Iranians (possible Indo-Aryan, Dardic or Nuristanis) into Iranian peoples article, which is not only unsourced POV but plainly wrong and disruptive. For example, Zarine Khan is an Indian woman of ethnic Pathan background and he decides to add her to Iranian peoples. There is no such evidence that she is of Iranian stock, absolutely none. My side of the argument is that Pathans are of unknown origin so their images shouldn't be added in Iranian peoples article, and when someone does this it's forcing pro-Iranian POV on the world when all the leading experts of the world (scholars, historians, researchers and Pashtuns themselves), do not know the origin of Pathans, it's concluded that Pathans are a confederation of various tribes of different background who formed one nation. As an educated guess, this likely includes Turkic, Indian, Arab, and others in addition to Iranian peoples.


 * In addition to being disruptive and etc, I'm almost certain that he's wrongfully abusing multiple accounts. A name like BBBAAACCC with only few disruptive edits and yet behaving like an experienced editor smells like a fish to me. He's now trying to change his English writing to reduce my suspecion. This all began on 10 October when an Iranian editor (, who has been suspected in the past of abusing multiple accounts ) expressed his POV by making Pashtun people an Iranian peoples group but this was reverted. After Mani1,  appeared at Pashtun people article and expressed the same pro-Iranian POV   An IP from Ontario, Canada, then appeared at the same page  and aggressively lowered the population of Pashtuns in India, then that person behind the Ontario IP created  but stopped editing after I suspected him of being a sock. This IP assigned to someone in Turkey  behaves alot like BBBAAACCC, it writes "regards" before signature, has very recently added "Pashtun" as the nationality of Indian born, Indian actress Zarine Khan, and also very recently edited Iranian peoples.--Fareed30 (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Below is BBBAAACCC's argument, which includes his copy pastings of previously-published comments by other editors

 * Pashtuns are not Indo-Aryan, they are Iranian. And also you are edit-warrior, not me Indian guy BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is our discussion on his talk page. No comment:

Read the article Zarine Khan and her "Early life" in the article. She is a Pathan/Pashtun(Iranic) girl who live in India, not ethnic Indian. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

First, I suspect that you're a disruptive serial sockpuppeteer and an exteme POV pusher so I went and reported your action at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]. Secondly, why out of all the people you selected 2 famous Indians (Zarine Khan and Sher Shah Suri) and also Mir Wais Hotak (Ghilzai Pashtun) to represent Iranian peoples? No where did they ever claim to be Iranian and also there's not source that they are part of the Iranian peoples.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC) You are laugable:) There are source in the article(source 4). BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you think that I am a sockpupperter, this page is for it. BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Appears to me like you just experienced a panic attack. If you continue with your extreme POV pushing and disruption then I'll be forced to email a few admins who can determine whether you're abusing multiple accounts or not. You only have a few edits but act like an experienced Wikipedia editor, isn't that fishy? A name like BBBAAACCC itself suggests sockpuppetry.--Fareed30 (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You are laugable. I've an account in other wikis, not just English wikipedia. That's the reason why I "act like an experienced Wikipedia editor". As I told you, if you think that I am using multiple accounts, you can complain it in here.If you continue harass me, I am going to complain you. BBBAAACCC (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Also I've discussed that issue with this user in an another page. BBBAAACCC : (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please look at the imagebox in the Iranian peoples article because I have reasons to believe that an extreme POV pushing and very likely serial sockpuppeteer is adding images of famous non-Iranian people. [122] She is disruptive and often attacks other editors. [123] [124]. She's also very likely abusing multiple accounts. Some of her socks are probably BBBAAACCC (talk · contribs); Krakkos (talk · contribs); Observerpashtun (talk · contribs); Mani1 (talk · contribs) but there may be more. If this may help, she's appearantly editing from Toronto, Ontario, Canada [125]. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mani1/Archive. Based on behaviour, POVs, area of interest in Wikipedia, style of English and everything else they all seem to be connected very well, trying to Iranianize everyone and everything.--Fareed30 (talk) 23:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC) I've explained dozen time but you do not want to understand I think. Why don't you look at ur message page? Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pathan(Iranic) person who live in India. Therefore she is Iranic and anyone can add her to Iranian people. So you are the only POV pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC) The accounts that you have mentioned above are not belong to me. Admins can investigate it. In addition, I want to an explanation about your reverts and edit war despite the sources. Regards.BBBAAACCC (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no such evidence of this Indian woman being of Iranian race. I watch pages all day long and I'm sure that you're using multiple accounts for edit-warring. You adding Pashtun figures into Iranian peoples article proves alot.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

As I told, admins can investigate whether I use multiple accounts or not. It is so simple. And there are evidence, you can see it in the article(Zarine Khan-Early life). If you cannot see it you can read thish BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit: "... Asked about whether it was a risk casting Zarine Khan, the debutant from the UK, Khan says: 'She's a Pathan girl who speaks Hindi and Urdu well and was spectacular in the screen test. It was pure luck.' " BBBAAACCC (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) All the leading researchers around the world have concluded that the origins of Pathans is UNKNOWN. You're the only one assuming that they are part of Iranian peoples and adding their images in Iranian peoples article. That makes you an extreme POV pusher.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC) There's no doubt in my mind that you're disruptively abusing multiple accounts.--Fareed30 (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have not attempted to engage with BBBAAACCC on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. This is a content dispute, and as such you must WP:DISCUSS the dispute at those locations, not here; AN/I does not deal with content disputes. If you can't reach a resolution that way, then WP:DRN is the next step. As for accusations of sockpuppetry, that's what WP:SPI is for. There's nothing here that's appropriate for AN/I at this point. Accordingly this is being closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

No comment. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is his edit-war. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Iranid race represents here. An Afghan/Pathan man represents Iranids. In addition, Pathan language classified as an Iranian language. So it is not my POV-push. Conversely, this user who is complaining is a real POV-pusher here. BBBAAACCC (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Being dark skinned" is not a shame or inferiority. So there is no personal attack. I wanted to say that Indians are dark-skinned and some of them-just like this user- feel shame because of their skin colour and want to be white. That's the reason why he is trying to label Zarine Khan and other non-Indian whites as "Indian" despite the sources. The actress is an ethnic Pashtun who live in India and Pashtuns are Iranians. Therefore there is no reason not to adding her into Iranian people. It is so normal. But this user's behavior is "abnormal". BBBAAACCC (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What does the above pure-and-total-BS have to do with the fact that you edit-warred? Even if you're "right", it's NEVER permitted  ES  &#38;L  22:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He's trying to say that I look like Kanye West, the guy who got Kim Kardashian pregnant before marriage or engagement, but I don't get it... what does this have to do with this report? I see nothing wrong with being dark-skinned, I'm gonna tan my skin so I can become dark. BBBAAACCC started racism and now trying to come up with lame excuses.--Fareed30 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Zarine Khan is an ethnic Pashtun(there are source in the article to confirm it) who live in outside of Afghanistan and therefore I can add her into Iranian people. That's it. BBBAAACCC (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * by for personal attacks/harassment.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That 'BBBAAACCC' is using ip to revert edits as he is blocked. Abhi (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * hmm... Edit war by ip sock of BBBAAACCC in full force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Nothingbutnet3 reported by User:ScottCarmichael (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Nov. 4
 * 2)  Nov. 1
 * 3)  Nov. 1
 * 4)  Oct. 31
 * 5)  Oct. 31

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Nothingbutnet3 has been vandalizing this Belle Foods article for weeks, and I suspect "TheProsecution" is the same person (see their change on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belle_Foods&oldid=577845270). Almost all information present on the Wikipedia article remained largely static in the July, August, September and most of October 2013 months. This edit war has been recent and shows no signs of slowing down. If we count "TheProsecution"'s almost identical edits, the page has been vandalized (9) times since October 19th, 2013.

I have been civil and explained why rollbacks were made multiple times in the edit history.

I ask that the page be set to the revision I did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Belle_Foods&oldid=578642730 that corrects grammar/removes unnecessary data/etc. and permanently locked from future editing for at least (1) year. There hasn't been any major news stories regarding Belle Foods since the final bankruptcy auction ended in late September. A year from now, that may be different, and additions can be added then.

ScottCarmichael (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is dealt with at WP:AIV. Edit-warring typically requires more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.  Are you sure you're at the right place?  ES  &#38;L  12:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * (one week protection) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Pithwilds reported by User:LogX (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is an accepted version. Please do not revert without citing any valid reasons."
 * 2)  "All the edits are accompanied by citations from reliable sources that are verifiable. Please read before you revert the changes. Thank you."
 * 3)  "Restoring to a more comprehensive previously accepted version."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Elli Avram.( ╥ "
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Elli Avram.( ╥ "
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Elli Avram.( ╥ "


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


 * Comments:
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NR biogeochemist reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also probably IP 130.235.46.88:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (See also User talk:NR biogeochemist)

Comments:

This new user/WP:SPA also seems either unwilling or unable to comply with relevant policies and guidelines regarding WP:OR and WP:MEDRS, despite being informed on multiple occasions of the relevant material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I (the new user) was (I admit) unaware of the "no 3 revert" policy. I will consider it in the future. However, I have continuously tried to engage Andy the Grump, and Orange Mike (who may or may not be the same person) in a discussion of the merits of the material. I have continuosly tried to make clear with evidence and sources from primary literature why the edit I made was necessary to replect the state of current knowledge on the subject of the the safety and potential health benefits of kombucha. However, despite encouraging them (him/her) to discuss the matter in the talk page, they (he/she) has not, except to say that this is not sourced to primary literature of a sufficiently high standard. It is primary literature in peer reviewed-scientific journals with ISI citation indices. If I must be suspended to adher to the penalties of the "no 3 revert" rule sobeit (though I wont do it again, now that I know), but please investigate this issue (relating to the introduction of the article), and the one sided rational scientific discussion that has occurred (topic: "state of science...."). I believe this (these) individual(s) are damaging the factual merit of the page, and I cannot understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NR biogeochemist (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You might understand more if you actually read WP:MEDRS. Your use of "sources from primary literature" is entirely contrary to both that guideline, and to policy on original research. Amongst other things... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that didn't last long. Would be good also if an admin could restore the neutral/well-sourced version of the article too. Alexbrn talk 21:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yup - straight back to edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And again: . AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Mark Arsten on 6 November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:130.243.208.150 reported by User:I JethroBT (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:  has repeatedly added in information about the author's recent financial support of a football club, Wimbledon F.C.  While interesting and unusual ,there is no significant coverage of this event by reliable source. The editor has repeatedly reinserted the material insisting it is notable because "it is an official vlog annoucement" or simply because it's "relevant" and "notable" per the editor's own unspecified terms. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . Did you look at the You Tube used as a source? It's hard to believe anyone can talk that fast.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fresh off the block, the IP added the very same information into the article using an unreliable blog: . I, JethroBT  drop me a line 20:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Paglatrump reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 580485107 by WikiDan61 (talk) Again, vertabin copy, see http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1734"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 580414450 by Jack Greenmaven (talk)Copy:http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0021-25712013000300015&script=sci_arttext, http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=17"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 580352970 by Thomas.W (talk) one paragraph is enough as this linked mega-article covers it all Nuclear power debate"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 580349288 by Thomas.W (talk) clearly redundant/repeat, let alone the fact that I added them longtime ago"
 * 5)  "/* Controversy */ redundant, already separate linke article exists"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Your edits on Nuclear power plant */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nuclear power plant. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly deleting the entire controversy section on the article, once falsely claiming that they only deleted material that they had added themselves a long time ago (see my now removed message on their talk page, #1 under "Diffs of edit warring etc" above). Thomas.W  talk to me  18:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed verbatim copy edits from here: http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=1734 and I mentioned it in the edit summary--Paglatrump (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I never ever deleted the whole controversy section, that's a bare-face lie. I just removed the verbatim copy from here.--Paglatrump (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Always check the dates of things. The text in the Wikipedia article can't possibly be a copyvio of the web article you link to since the text in the WP article was added 9 June 2011, while the web article was published 30 November 2011. So it's much more probable that the author of the web article copied the text from Wikipedia. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , I agree with . His observation is further confirmed by this document, which actually gives at least partial attribution to Wikipedia (from the author). However, I'm not going to block you for edit warring as I will assume good faith based on the copyright exemption to edit warring. @Thomas, it would have been better to have discussed the issue with Paglatrump before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tried to discuss it with him, to no avail, but he just deletes all messages on his talk page. And after his false claim that he was only removing text that he himself had added I saw his new claim that it was a copyvio, a claim that I could immediately tell wasn't true since I noticed that the web article was published on 30 November 2011, while the text here on WP had been added on 9 June 2011 (something Paglatrump ought to be well aware of since I had posted about that, with date, diff and all, on his talk page; see diff regarding that message above), as just another dirty trick. Thomas.W   talk to me  19:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC) (In addition to that I find it remarkable that a brand new user finds his way around WP as easily as Paglatrump does...)
 * , I noticed that he keeps removing messages from his talk page, and I noticed your post as well. It addressed his claim that he added the material, but it didn't address the copyright issue except obliquely. I do agree, though, that it makes harder to accept good faith for his subsequent copyright violation claim. It's all a bit suspicious the more I think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See this: http://www.theworldreporter.com/2010/09/nuclear-energy-is-not-green.html published in 2010.--Paglatrump (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That appears to be a broken link. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a fake/bogus claim. Here is a cached copy of the web page, which clearly shows that the text here is not a copy of that article. So the one false claim about it being Paglatrump's own text plus the two fake/bogus claims about copyvios, with a total of six reverts, have made me issue a level-3 warning for vandalism to Paglatrump. I'm also pinging so that he can see the latest development in this farce.  Thomas.W   talk to me  22:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:XXN (Result: No violation)
Page: User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3

This user remove all club old logos. I told him to stop doing that, but he doesn't listen me. He think i violate WP:NFG. But no!! These are old club logos, and i have rights to put them in article for educational purposes. All articles about sport teams (in particullaryy football teams) have all their old logos in article page. For example look here Chelsea F.C.. An featured article has all previous logos. And this is not infringement. Because NFG says: The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered. This case is an exception. How the kid can't understand this thing? I don′t include in article multiple images with an single person. I include differenet logos of a sport club. Please help to solve this problem. //--//--// XXN (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Comments:


 * Like I have said before please read WP:NPA. I have asked where the exception for this gallery of non-free files was given. I have gotten no response. You dont get to ignore WP:NFCC just because you dont like it. Citing WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt a valid argument. Please note that removal of obvious violations of WP:NFCC are exempt from WP:3RR Werieth (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * PS Ill note that this retaliation for a warning I placed on his talk page about is repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No violation Only 3 reverts, not to mention that a fairly obvious violation of NFCC would be exempt anyway. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mgottesfeld reported by User:Konveyor Belt (Result: Warning about sources)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 580521167 by Konveyor Belt (talk) this info is valid, with cited sources. Please correct and not replace it."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 580519814 by Konveyor Belt (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 580519286 by Konveyor Belt (talk) resid. accred is valid, please move/improve instead of removing."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 580490946 by Konveyor Belt (talk) info is accurate with cited sources, and relevant"


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


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


 * Comments:

User repeatedly adding NPOV, biased material to Logan River Academy with no consensus. He seems to be running a smear campaign against the subject of the article and seems to have a close connection with the subject. It started when I removed a lot of NPOV material that was not suitable for an encyclopedia from the article. He reverted and is now at 4rr. Talk page discussion is broken down and he sometimes does not give reasons for his reverts.  Konveyor   Belt  23:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit by Marty: You have not investigated before editing. See the numerous primary sources in the comments here: https://www.change.org/petitions/logan-river-academy-stop-using-solitary-confinement-a-k-a-precaution-and-development-on-kids

Anonymous is now involved. https://twitter.com/YourAnonCentral/statuses/398142952754536448

Please have another wiki editor, who will do their research, work on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgottesfeld (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * All users note I have removed everything sourced to unreliable sources. That isn't a value judgement on their truthfulness or otherwise, that's simply Wikipedia policy.  Don't re-insert them unless you can find valid cites for them, please. Black Kite (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Black Kite, for being reasonable, what you have done with the page is ok, and I will try to find better sources. TY TY TY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgottesfeld (talk • contribs) 00:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: This report appears to be closed with a warning to all parties about sources. EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kostadin24 reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: The page is under 1 revert rule restrictions.
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of the user intentionally removing my warning and request for him to self revert. 

Sopher99 (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User Sopher99 made repeatedly reverts on page ignoring discussion in talk page. My last edit was to remove duplicated by Sopher99 info. Sopher99 put second copy of city on map.

Bu the way I had troubles with internet connection and reload 2-3 times page when 'save page' button was clicked. Is this counted as one save or more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostadin24 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've formally notified Kostadin24 of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Not strictly WP:3RR, but still 'slow-burn' edit warring just avoiding 3RR, stubbornly reverting to same version, ignoring all attempts at discussion.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław has been warned numerous times about edit warring, and was blocked for 24 hours for disruptive editing on Tourism in Poland. This article has now been semi-protected because this user was editing as IP to revert back to his preferred version. He now stubbornly continues to revert back to this version, ignoring all attempts at discussion, in a 'slow-burn' edit war. Not strictly WP:3RR, but still an edit war and disruptive editing. -- Marek  . 69  talk 15:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is a one-month block for User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław for long-term edit warring. He has made 15 reverts at Tourism in Poland since 1 October. He could avoid a block if he will agree to wait for consensus before making any more image-related changes to articles about Poland. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. The situation is completely out of control. See my own first report from 15 October and the next report from 28 October. All sanctions and warnings ignored, no hope for improvement. Poeticbent  <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk  18:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: Despite being reported here, and another warning to stop or risk a one month block by EdJohnston, the edit warring continues: 8 Nov, 8 Nov, 9 Nov -- Marek  . 69  talk 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – One month, since the editor made no response to the proposed deal but continued the pattern of editing which led to this report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:RioHondo reported by User:MilitaryExpert (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [00:38, 5 November 2013]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:31,  6 November 2013
 * 2) 08:42,  6 November 2013
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

- RioHondo has failed Wikipedia's Verifiability requirements. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. The Military Expert 16:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Anti-hoax reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The information that User:Anti-hoax is repeatedly trying to insert may, or may not, be true, I've no idea - but it is wholly unsourced, POV, and potentially defamatory. And there's no need for it to be duplicated in Portuguese. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Orginofezhava reported by User:Sitush (Result: Semi)
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:


 * I've had enough of the long-term problems relating to anon and newbie contributions to the article in question. I've now proposed at WP:RFPP that indefinite pending changes protection is applied. - Sitush (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article indefinitely semied by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Grammarxxx (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rm unsourced statement"
 * 2)  "Rm unsourced statement"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 580734652 by Grammarxxx (talk) Please stop making unsourced edits."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Sean Patrick Maloney. (TW)"


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

I believe User:Grammarxxx is the party that needs to be sanctioned here. He's been repeatedly adding the same content to Sean Maloney (politician) without providing any sources for it. This is a clear violation of WP policy.CFredkin (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * If I may jump in here uninvited, it's possible that CFredkin simply misunderstands Wikpedia policy on sourcing, though his recent edits have been disruptive. This edit is removing a statement that isn't sourced in the intro, but is sourced below. When I restored it with the source moved up to the intro in this next edit, he followed with this one. This kind of pedantic to-ing and fro-ing is unhelpful. Some of his recent edits also include this sort of thing: chopping large chunks of referenced content, breaking repeat citations. When I pointed this out to him at Talk:Rick_Scott and Talk:Paul_Ryan, he agreed to be more careful. But it's hard to tell from his edit history whether he's being deliberately provocative, or genuinely trying to remove unsourced content based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.
 * I can see no evidence, on the other hand, that User:Grammarxxx has done anything wrong.  Ruby   Murray  17:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ruby, the 2 examples you provided above did not involve content removal due to lack of sourcing, but a concern regarding the propriety of content for article intros. When you reverted my edits, I started discussions on the relevant Talk pages you provided, per WP:BRD.  As for the edits at Scott Maloney (politician), once sources were provided for statements or pointed out to me elsewhere in the document, I stopped removing them.  In fact, 1 of the 3 edits that Grammarxxx provided above is not the same as the other 2.  However repeatedly adding the same content without provided sources for it, is a clear violation of policy.  It appears that both of you need to read WP:verifiability.CFredkin (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I wasn't agreeing that I needed to be more careful at Talk:Paul_Ryan. I was agreeing to your proposed solution.  I do appreciate your condescension though.CFredkin (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better to tag a statement you think is unsourced with {citation needed}, rather than delete it. That way, your fellow editors can find the source, if you're not willing to look for one. Here's another example: removing this statement from an article, rather than tagging it. It took me seconds to find many reliable sources for this online, as it was widely reported.  Ruby   Murray  17:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A higher standard is required for WP:BLP. Unsourced claims should be removed immediately.CFredkin (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP says contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed. But why not simply add the source instead, if one can be easily found? Ruby   Murray  18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe the content I removed is contentious. It's reasonable to expect that the editor who wants to add it can provide a source.  Regardless, this forum is intended for discussions regarding edit warring.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)  In that regard, I find it interesting that you've not addressed my assertions that Grammarxxx is the party who's been edit warring.CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that you believe your edit-warring was done for the right reasons. That's still edit warring though, as noted in the first paragraph of Edit warring. Ruby   Murray  18:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually the first paragraph at WP:Edit warring says: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions".  As I mentioned above, I reverted once.  Now, since you only seem interested in making accusations without addressing my statements, I don't plan to engage with you on this any longer.  Happy editing!CFredkin (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, it would be helpful if you could get your facts straight before jumping into the middle of a dispute next time. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ., all of your edits on 8 November (PST) were reverts. A revert is undoing another editor's actions, in whole or in part. It doesn't have to be through the "undo" or "rollback" features to be a revert. You didn't revert once, you reverted five times. Therefore, you violated 3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:Doniago (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I walked into this as a third party to a forming edit-war between Johnny and. After seeing multiple reverts by both parties I warned them both and started the Talk page discussion linked to above. Johnny engaged me at my Talk page. Despite my advice that he establish a consensus for his edits (which are probably technically correct), he continued reverting my attempts to restore the article to a stable state pending the outcome of the article Talk page discussion and seems to have grown increasingly agitated with me as well.

It should be noted that Johnny has been blocked for edit-warring in the recent past and has maintained that what he is reverting is vandalism despite the fact that the only changes involve the adding/removing of a category. He additionally alleged that his fellow edit-warrior was a sockpuppet, though I could not find evidence that the editor has been formally accused or found guilty of such. DonIago (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits in question are correct within the context of the article. A category was added that is clearly supported by facts discussed in the article itself. The removal of the category is not supported (and is thus incorrect) by the actual content of the article. Repeated removal of a legitimate category is vandalism. Replacing the legitimate category due to incorrect and unsupported removal does not qualify under the 3R, it is *not* "edit warring", it is preventing vandalism. =//= Johnny Squeaky 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, it IS edit-warring. WP:TRUTH is not an excuse, and removal of a category is part of the WP:BRD cycle, and can NOT be called vandalism by any stretch  ES  &#38;L  01:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * for violating 3RR; length of block is commensurate with recent history., it's pretty clear you don't understand the definition of vandalism. The only type of vandalism that qualifies under WP:3RRNO is the kind that is so obvious that nobody could question your edits to remove it. For example, profanity, nonsense characters, and unexplained section/page blanking are exceptions to 3RR.  Adding/removing a category is not. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is unjust. In no way can reverting clearly inaccurate and simply wrong edits be considered disruptive. It is punitive in a way that will do little to address the problem, which is inaccurate information pushed by editors with WP:OWN issues that happen to know a friendly Admin. What a shame, especially when the inaccurate edit was done by a sockpuppet. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly deleting the block notice in violation of WP:BLANKING is probably not helping your case Johnny...in fact, all that's likely to result is that your Talk page access will be revoked. Seriously, I think you mean well but you've got to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. DonIago (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AmourReflection reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: indefinite block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticisms of fractional reserve banking */ Resurrection of Protected Material into Criticism Section"
 * 2)  "/* Criticisms of fractional reserve banking */ Resurrection of Protected Material into Criticism Section"
 * 3)  "/* Criticisms of fractional reserve banking */ Resurrection of (parts of) Protected Material into Criticism Section"
 * 4)  "/* Criticisms of fractional reserve banking */ Resurrection of (parts of) Protected Material into Criticism Section"
 * 5)  "/* Criticisms of fractional reserve banking */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2013 */"


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


 * Comments:

AmourReflection has edit-warred on this page before and blocked for it. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 01:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

For repeated violations, socking, and block evasion I'd say an extended block is warranted. SPECIFICO talk  01:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Third block, same article +block evasion ... indef. ES  &#38;L  01:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That, and I think they're up to 40RR (or more) and just blind reverting at this point. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 02:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . This is just ridiculous. I'll unprotect the page in a minute. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:124.169.113.132 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments:


 * That this was a clear-cut case of edit warring can hardly be disputed. Whether we should block after the fact is another matter. Note also the current ANI thread ("Short-sighted, dickish behaviour, not assuming good faith, yadda yadda yadda"), and Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking. Drmies (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator, but I posted on the ANI thread. The editor clearly did violate 3RR, and I'm not familiar enough to say whether this is sock activity (FWIW, the editor denies it), but I am encouraged by his response to the suggestions on the ANI thread on the Talk page here -- it's not quite as conciliatory as I would have hoped, but it backs off the undue aggression and suggests the editor is willing to negotiate in good faith toward consensus. As I said, not an admin, but my inclination would be to suggest a warning for now and for admins who monitor Anarchism to keep an eye on the editor for a little while. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm withdrawing this report. The editor has come to the Talk page to discuss his/her changes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:40, October 29, 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:33, November 6, 2013
 * 2) 09:15, November 7, 2013
 * 3) 09:36, November 7, 2013
 * 4) 07:18, November 8, 2013
 * 5) 22:28, November 8, 2013
 * 6) 10:42, November 9, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:56, October 26, 2013‎ (first and only edit to his talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I don't know why this article is on my watchlist, but I'm not involved, at all.

Comments:

(making the edit reverted in edit 1), (reverting edits 1, 4, and 5) and  (reverting edits 2 and 3) may also have been edit warring. I will shortly notify them of this report, as well. I haven't checked talk page consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48h. The user has been consistently edit-warring against multiple editors and talk page consensus, and therefore I see no other option. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dontbeastranger reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 3)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 4)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 5)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 6) 18:07
 * 7) 18:10


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

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


 * Comments:

I have tried to talk to this editor on their talk page (in addition to the templated warnings). They claim they are Beetham's assistant (makes it even worse). The source they are adding doesn't even support the material, to the extent it's reliable. Bbb23 (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They may claim not to know anything, but they're fast (added 7th revert).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also editing talk page comments . Plus I could not find any indication the source they're using is genuine. -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  18:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's worse than that. It's a hoax. Joel Beetham has nothing to do with the Hyatt hotels. Another admin has indeffed the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't yet seen this report when I blocked the user. The edits are using fake refs, unsubstantiated claims and pleas, etc. Appear to all be a hoax and a trolling of the community. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:80.111.172.25 reported by User:Somchai Sun (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned repeatedly to stop edit warring on the linked page, and has refused to obey by the guidelines. Broken 3RR multiple times and been warned multiple times. (Urgh, forgot to fill in fully, I am very tired apologies, if I could just leave this now as I have to be somewhere else. Thanks). Somchai Sun (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:94.11.164.233 reported by User:Nymf (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Other than the fact that there is edit warring going on, there is obviously tremendous BLP issues with calling someone the Antichrist. Nymf (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strangely, the person behind this IP has a good knowledge of policy for only editing a few articles over the last three days. Methinks there is something else afoot in concert with the personal attacks, name-calling, and edit-warring behavior.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Tommy Pinball reported by User:Obiwankenobi (Result: Locked; warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581180530 by JHunterJ (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581181342 by JHunterJ (talk)"
 * 3)  "rv"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 581192921 by Bkonrad (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 581193544 by Bkonrad (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 581193994 by Bkonrad (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 581194140 by Bkonrad (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ place official warning"

Discussion happening here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User has been warned multiple times, but continues to edit war. Similar edit warring happening at NDE (disambiguation) Some discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation but as there is no consensus for the changes (which include a copy/paste move), they should be reverted. 3 different users have tried to revert his changes, only to have them edit warred back. It seems this user is willing to go to 20RR to have their way. A block seems the only reasonable solution here. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My only defence is that User:JHunterJ and User:Bkonrad should equally be admonished. User:JHunterJ's method is to bait, prod, and aggravate...and he is an admin?...,shurely shome mishtake Jimbo Tommy Pinball (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked both articles for a week. I've taken the unusual step of restoring the status quo before the edit war because the changes to both pages should have been discussed first, and in this instance, not discussing the changes would violate rather entrenched guidelines. With respect to, I do not see any problem with their edits/advice to Tommy. Their link to WP:RM was sound. However, just like Tommy, JHunterJ and violated WP:3RR, JHunterJ on one of the articles and Bkonrad on both. All three editors are warned to be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reverts of Tommy Pinball's cut-n-paste move were necessary for copyright reasons, per How to fix cut-and-paste moves. That should fall under the "obvious vandalism" exception. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The hatnote at Near-death experience also needs to be returned, for reader navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the revert falls under the "obvious vandalism" exception (see the examples at WP:3RRNO); however, it might fall under copyright violation exception, although it's not the kind of copyright violation that leaps out at me. In any event, although in one of your revert edit summaries, you did say cut-and-paste move, it's always best to clearly claim an exemption to edit warring in all edit summaries. Even if the evaluating administrator disagrees with you, if it appears to be done in good faith, it's often taken into account. As for Near-death experience, that wasn't on my radar screen, so I didn't even look at it. Based on the current state of the articles, it makes sense to reinsert the hat note. You can do so without fear of sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)