Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive228

User:DavidHGrateful reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Initial edit (as IP):


 * 1) 12:04, 11 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 13:19, 11 November 2013  (edit summary: "Trying to work with JamesBWatson to clarify this page.")
 * 3) 14:08, 11 November 2013  (edit summary: "please, let's get this right")
 * 4) 18:18, 11 November 2013  (edit summary: "The distinction between mutilation and modification is obvious to any rational person.... I think  my first experience with an internet troll.")
 * 5) 20:13, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "Another attempt to objectively define the topic of this page. I added cross-references.") - another attempt to redefine the subject of the article in terms of this one issue.


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Hand-written message too: here

Each of these edits revolves around edit-warring back in the phrase "such as the circumcision of infant boys." Also recommend looking at this editor's other contribs to see the same theme happening at related articles too.

— 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

User being reported: (I feel confident these are one and the same editor)

Previous version reverted to:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk pages: and

Comments: Appears to be a WP:SPA solely existing to remove this former band member from the band's article and related template. The IP has some previous edits (including this person's biographical article), but most recent edits have (with one exception) been removing this person from those two pages. Both myself and another editor have reverted this editor's changes, and asked on their talk page to discuss their strange edits, but so far there has been no attempt at discussion (or even an edit summary).


 * I am the other editor in question. User:Central Casting has made no attempt to discuss this, either on the article talk page, his/her own talk page, our talk pages, or even in the edit summary. They seem to be mindlessly hitting the undo button for inexplicable reasons. —  Richard  BB  22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NYCWikiKid reported by User:oknazevad (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: [link]

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

Comments:

Editor has reverted to preferred version despite reversion by multiple different editors. These edits are substantially similar to ones he proposed in September and were rejected. But most importantly, there has been dicussions at the WP:FOOTY project recently about this, and a discussion started today about this at the WP:NORN noticeboard. Despite being notified of all of this, NYCWikiKid has not participated. oknazevad (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion at the NORN noticeboard started a couple days ago actually. – Michael (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User: Solicitr reported by Damwiki1 (talk) (Result: Three editors warned)
Page: User being reported:

Time reported: 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 20:33, 20 May 2013
 * 2) 08:44,  9 November 2013  (edit summary: "/* Armored decks */ Removed false statement and misleadingly used cite.")
 * 3) 03:53, 10 November 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 580928410 by Damwiki1 (talk): Re-reverted- stop repeating your lies")
 * 4) 04:41, 10 November 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 580995188 by BilCat (talk) It is NOT well-cited, in fact the cite directly contradicts the assertion, which is categorically untrue")
 * 5) 20:10, 10 November 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 581017543 by Damwiki1 (talk)Bring on the admin-you'll lose.  Previous attemptst discussion have foundered, and I've let this stand for too long.")

Diff of edit waring: User_talk:Solicitr

—Damwiki1 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Comments - I am unfamiliar with this process. Can an admin help me with it? This is a link to the relevant talk page: Latest revision: capacity comparison. Two editors have reverted the above edits but the page now reflects the last edit above, which an admin should revert?
 * Well, an admin could revert that. An admin could block Solicitr for edit warring, but they haven't broken the 3RR rule since this is really a bold edit, and your revert the first in the process. But I'm more interested in seeing what the current discussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard delivers: whether Solicitr is blocked or not, the problem is still there. So I'll leave this unresolved and will let the usual admins on this noticeboard decide, but my suggestion is to not block but await dispute resolution. That the article is now what you consider the wrong version is immaterial to me: there's no rush, and this is not a pressing matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit 1, above, is substantially the same as the last 4, so edit 2, above, does not seem to be a bold edit.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Solicitr, User:Damwiki1 and User:BilCat are warned not to make further edits like the ones listed above, contrasting the capacities and merits of USN and RN carrier flight decks, until consensus is reached. You should wait for the result of the DRN. Judging from Talk:Flight deck, this dispute has been running since 2012. User:Solicitr may be sanctioned if he keeps referring to [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flight%20deck&diff=prev&oldid=580994322 'lies']. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:PR12477 reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User_talk:Thomas.W. Also on user's own talk page.

Comments:

Straightforward edit warring to include promotional and unverified language. User does not seem to be aware of various guidelines and informs us, for instance, that there are no references available for the text they keep re-adding but that it doesn't matter because it's true: "It's all accurate. No citation is necessary or even available!" Other juicy commentary includes this, "SO...what is your problem? You like to patrol Wiki looking for meaningless words to edit out to make yourself feel important?", on User talk:Thomas.W. As far as I'm concerned this is headed directly toward an indefinite block for NPA, EW, OWN, INCOMPETENCE, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't mind the "Go fuck yourself" so much, but being called "Sheldon" must be some kind of Yankee offense and I won't stand for it. No I won't! Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enok reported by User:Rob984 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Much discussion took place within the edit summaries, as I was attempting to explain that there was not consensus for their edit. Note: This is my first time reporting another user, apologies for any errors or issues. Rob (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You both broke 3RR, but I've chosen to protected the page instead of blocking you both. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So another editor must also be reverting their edits? I didn't realise. Apologies, Rob (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:203.87.133.107 reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No action)
User being reported: User repeatedly engaged in edit war on the article Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox by adding irrelevant plot point.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ., this report is malformed, was put in the wrong place, and there's no edit war. Please familiarize yourself with policy and read the instructions before filing a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 reported by (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) diff (edit summary: "This is not a health effect. It's just an unfounded "concern." We've been through all this") - removes statement about addiction from the CDC, it is a revert of previously added content, the edit summary even indicates Fergus knows this removal of well-sourced content has been contested, see for example diffs from August
 * 2) 03:09, 12 November 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 581274363 by Jmh649 (talk)No justification given for revert; the "restored content" was outdated and is superseded by new research and emerging consensus.") - second revert of CDC statement
 * 3) 03:10, 12 November 2013  (edit summary: "/* Health effects */ None of this is a health effect.") - revert of other material too
 * 4) 03:11, 12 November 2013  (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ Removing again. No health effect is cited, only "concerns."") - revert #3 removing the same statement about addiction from the CDC
 * 5) 23:21, 12 November 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 581402547 by Yobol (talk)Undoing vandalism - not a revert.") - straight revert, claiming "vandalism" exemption but that's clearly suprious


 * Diff of warning: here, editor blocked previously for edit warring.

02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TameImpalaFan reported by User:UpendraSachith (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581396316
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581406908
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581432002
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User keeps unilaterally blanking the page because he doesn't think the person should have a page. UpendraSachith (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:UpendraSachith keeps reverting an edit to a redirect page. The person in question is not notable enough to warrant an entire page dedicated to them. The majority of information on the page has been copy-pasted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Brother_Australia_housemates_(2013_series)#Tahan and doesn't need a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TameImpalaFan (talk • contribs) 04:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that I wasn't aware of the "3 revert rule" and I apologise for breaking it, but my intentions weren't to "vandalize" or "censor" the page as User:UpendraSachith incorrectly claimed that I was. I've explained my reasons above and it was purely due to the total lack of notability of the person in question.

I'd also like to point out that User:UpendraSachith also broke the 3 revert rule, and this was before I actually broke the rule, so that needs to be taken into consideration: --TameImpalaFan (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581393102
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581401805
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581431568


 * Comment from uninvolved user: User:TameImpalaFan appears to have not have been warned about the 3RR prior to this posting. Both users have reverted the same number of times, and User:UpendraSachith obviously knew about the rules on edit warring since they came here. I have posted a warning on both editors' talk pages; if anything this seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually ever remember being warned about the 3 revert rule. I wasn't even aware that it existed. Where have I been warned before? It must have been a fair while ago because I've totally forgotten.
 * RE: User:VQuakr

Once again, I apologise for breaking it, because I honestly do not remember knowing about it before. --TameImpalaFan (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yikes, missed a key adverb there (added in italics above). VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:UpendraSachith has once again added back all the information. This is getting ridiculous.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was ridiculous when you decided to remove all the information on your own initiative. Are you trying AFD a redirect page because that doesn't work. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You've reverted my edits for a fourth time after reporting me for doing the same thing to you. Shouldn't you practice what you preach and leave the page as it stood after a deletion tag was added and after being warned for edit warring? You've reported me, yet I've not retaliated after being warned, while you continue to do the same exact thing that you've reported me for.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . The article is currently intact and nominated for deletion. Despite the edit war, I don't like to lock an article that is being discussed at AfD. However, I don't expect any more battles fro either or . If either editor reverts at this point, they risk being blocked with no notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:200.104.245.226 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ian Gow

Comments:

You will note that the talk page discussion referred to is from 2 years ago. This is a dynamic IP who regularly returns to editing Ian Gow and other articles to remove information they consider trivial but other editors disagree and consider adds information/context to the article. A simple content disagreement is elevated to high drama as anyone who disagrees with him is a "moron", "a fucking idiot" or "a despicable liar" or anyone of a series of delightful epithets reserved for anyone who disagrees with their edit. Eventually after a series of escalataing blocks, example, for edit warring he will usually move to a new IP and the cycle starts again. As it starts with a new IP the clock is reset to usually it starts with a 24 hr block. Started a WP:ANI thread this morning see WP:ANI Wee Curry Monster talk 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:2Awwsome reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: there have been multiple revisions 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: Talk:Frédéric Chopin (last two discussions); see also Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 80

Comments: User has been edit warring on this article for a long time already, disregarding the point of view of the vast majority of reliable sources and long-standing consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Two of the reverts were of removal of content. The removals were blatant and deliberate WP:NPOV violations to get their point across. WP:NPOV is a core content policy, and core content policies cannot be superseded by other policies. And 5 v 3 (becoming 5 v 4) is not a vast majority. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning was after the fourth reversion. And Toccata quarta, Nihil novi and Volunteer Marek are evidently a tag team. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you're saying 'vast majority' because it has 10 times more WP:GHITS, remember that adding words greatly decreases the number of results. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . Locked for two weeks by . That doesn't mean that didn't violate WP:3RR and personally attack other editors. I rarely block anyone after an article has been locked, but another admin is free to take a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I protected before becoming aware of this report, and also gave the user a final warning regarding edit-warring on a different article - I was quite lenient under the circumstances, and wouldn't object if anyone wanted to block. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.20.161 reported by User:UsamahWard (Result: No violation)
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:

The first of his recent removals, concerning the introduction, is strange, given the uncontentious inclusion of the subject matter in the main body, and the strong source attached to the introduction.

The second had not been discussed on the article's talk page, but had been discussed at WP:BLPN. The sources, not the text, had previously been discussed by another editor and me here, where that editor felt less was more; I left it at that. The IP editor removed the text after this, but in his responses at BLPN quoted the sources from the earlier version, not those that he had actually removed.

This IP editor has in the last couple or weeks, with variations of his IP address, removed almost all text from the article that he felt was negative. Orginally he seemed to argue that blog sources couldn't be accepted in BLP under any circumstances, and that none of the negative material mattered or was fair. However, recently he has removed content regardless of sources. UsamahWard (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP hasn't broken 3RR, and you're just as guilty as they are in terms of edit warring. Note that a couple established users have voiced similar concerns to those of the IP in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:212.9.8.161 reported by User:Moxy (Result:31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Just need to look at page history - 6 reverts just today. Simple case here

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

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

Has been warned as seen on talk page at User talk:212.9.8.161 Comments:


 * Already blocked for disruptive editing/edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hammerb and User:Arbor to SJ reported by User:GregJackP (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College

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

Diffs of Arbor to SJ's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Uninvolved editor, found due to report at ANI. GregJackP  Boomer!   06:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They seem to be talking now as Hammerb found the article talk page. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

. I've locked the article for a week. I left more detailed comments at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelios123 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has been warned that the information he is adding, based on personal conclusions, constitutes WP:OR. The user refuses to understand and continues to edit war the article despite also being reminded about the WP:BRD process.--16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The user simply refuses to WP:GETTHEPOINT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Chile–Peru football rivalry.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , how is the first diff above a revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, I placed it in there by mistake. However, the edit warring behavior is still evident (especially in the talk page). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been notified about this on my talk page. Per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History, MarshalN20 is banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". The article subject to this edit war relates to the history of Latin America, considering that its lead section reads: "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations." – In consideration of this,, please provide reasons why you should not be sanctioned for violating your topic ban by editing this article, most recently today.  Sandstein  18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I studied this aspect of the report as well,, and, honestly, I wasn't sure whether MarshalN20's involvement in this was a violation of their topic ban or whether that was construing "broadly construed" too, uh, broadly. At the same time I am frequently disappointed by topic-banned editors pushing the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , this is not a violation of my topic ban on "Latin American history" for three reasons:
 * The football' rivalry between Chile and Peru is a current event.
 * The Chile–Peru football rivalry has a history section (please see ) which I have not edited.
 * The "Incas del Sur" matter took place this year, on October 26. The "broadly construed" clause, if used, does not apply to "recent history". I remember that User:Cambalachero asked for clarification on the range of "history", and the agreement reached (from the administrators) was that "recent history" does not apply to the ban (I'd provide a direct link to the clarification request, but "Wikimedia Error" messages prevent me from doing so).
 * This listed, thank you for giving me a chance to explain. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I note that the administrators defined a "recent history" range for Argentina, but not for Peru or Chile. However, 26 October 2013 is a date that, logically, falls into the category of "recent history". Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the link to the clarification request (see ). Quoting NewyorkBrad, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside from anything else, the edits concern recent events the foundation of a new team in Chile in 2013, this is hardly history chaps. Sorry but even that absurdly broad topic ban description is being stretched here to imply a breach.  The original edit is clearly WP:OR and per WP:BRD a talk page discussion should be initiated.  Its been substantially improved since, making the original reason for reverting somewhat moot.   I consider Marshal a wiki friend so it pains me to observe they shouldn't have been solely responsible for reverting Chelios123 as it makes their 3RR report somewhat problematic as both have edit warred.  It would have been better to allow another edit to revert and equally I don't think his first edit summary helped.  I'm not convinced this merits a block of anyone but they both definitely deserve a WP:TROUTing.  Take a deep breath, WP:AGF and take it to talk guys.  Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In reply to MarshalN20: The clarification request is not relevant here. It was about the question of when past events become "history" in the sense of the sanction. Arbitrators commented that anything later than 1983 shouldn't be considered "history" in Argentina. However, in this case, the article which you edited is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to much earlier events, that is, the 1880s War of the Pacific, which clearly are "history". In passing, this concerns the same time period as the Paraguayan War, in relation to which the Arbitration Committee found you had been engaging in misconduct. Other parts of the article deal with such historical events as the creation of football teams in 1895 or 1927. It does not matter whether you edited these more historical parts of the article. Because the article as a whole is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to the history of these countries, you violated the topic ban by editing any part of the article (see WP:TBAN). Your conduct is aggravated by your evident habit of pushing the boundaries of your topic ban, as seen in the WP:AE requests of 10 July 2013 and more recently 5 November 2013, which resulted in a one-month block which I lifted following your assurances that you would not violate the topic ban again. Considering that these assurances are now shown to have been less than sincere, and that a one-month block has proven to be an insufficient deterrent, I am blocking you for the period of two months. After the block expires, you must strictly comply with the ban and not edit any page remotely related to Latin American history. – As to Chelios123, they seem to have edit-warred, but we should wait on a statement by them.  Sandstein   19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again, with a clear threat in the edit summary. I have in the interest of openness declared my previous dealings with Marshall and I hope you'll note I was equally critical of Marshall, perhaps more so because of the previous relationship. Chelios123 is edit warring to impose their view, reviewing the talk page it is clear there is no consensus for their addition but they've added it anyway. I would have hoped this could have been dealt with in talk but it seems not. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering that Chelios123 has ignored this report, but continues reverting, I'm issuing a standard first-time 24 h block.  Sandstein   21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The football rivalry of Peru and Chile has nothing to do with history (reading "history" as the usual topics we may expect to find in history books; sports results are not among them). Do not confuse Chile–Peru football rivalry with Chile–Peru relations, the place for the history of the bilateral relations of both countries is the second one. In fact, the mentions to the old wars are completely off-topic in the disputed article, and should simply be removed. A football rivalry concerns only football topics. Note as well that those mentions do not introduce information expanded in the body of the article, which is not good article style, see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

And note as well that, according to the Banning policy, if an article contains a portion of information covered by the topic ban, but the article itself is not, then there's no violation of the topic ban if the edit is limited to the portions of the article that are not related to the topic. Even if the mentions to the wars were within topic, the article itself is not about history and the portions in dispute do not focus in such historical info, so there's no violation of the ban here. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres reported by User:DeJeweller (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1st revert
 * 2) 2nd revert
 * 3) 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of our discussion

Comments:

This guy has been recently blocked twice, but refuses to get the point that this is not his own website. He has not gone over the 3RR yet, but in my opinion he will do it pretty soon, if I revert him (he did 3 reverts to me in less than an hour), so I expect him to revert to death until he gets his way. Since I don't want to go through edit warring myself, I'm reporting him here as I have no choice. Btw (content wise) he keeps entering in the list of current players of the page of Albania's football national team three players that Either 1. Hever never been called up (Atdhe Nuhiu), or 2. Have not been called in the last four years (Besart Berisha), or 3. Are not even in the U21 of Albania and don't have a page in wikipedia yet (Thomas Strakosha). It's the typical arrogance of someone who thinks they own the page. --DaJeweller (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * O yes, let's see what admins. can say you. If you want send me a request on my Facebook profile and talk more...

--Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This editor keeps adding the player he thinks should be in the squad for example on the article talkpage he has states "better would be that these players to were included on national senior team, cause Atdhe Nuhiu is in a process to receive albanian passport, anyway this is story of our albanian's everywhere on the world" and "they will be soon, very soon part on national team". The players should clearly not be on the squad at the moment. QED 237   (talk)  22:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Tanmaya cs reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581628045 by RegentsPark (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581630711 by RegentsPark (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 581632124 by Abecedare (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581632124 by Abecedare (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . It doesn't look hopeful to me as the user never talks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:86.142.55.12 reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581820849 by Ruby Murray (talk) Stay outta this, Tomica asked for a reliable source and I gave him 5, so"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581820849 by Ruby Murray (talk) Stay outta this, Tomica asked for a reliable source and I gave him 5, so"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581820849 by Ruby Murray (talk) Stay outta this, Tomica asked for a reliable source and I gave him 5, so"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581820849 by Ruby Murray (talk) Stay outta this, Tomica asked for a reliable source and I gave him 5, so"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* R&B */"
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dan56 reported by User:76.107.252.227 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Possible sock saying what other people (besides him and dan56) think is irrevant

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I know this is not the article talk page, but since he was the one who changed it, I thought it would be better to talk to him directly.

Comments:

User:Dan56 has took it upon himself to tag London calling as a post-punk album, despite the general consensus that this is punk into post-punk. On July 10th(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Calling&diff=563601323&oldid=563580001). Dan56 changed the genre to post-punk without giving a reason as to why it was post-punk. since then he thinks any source no matter how reliable can't be added since it goes against what he thinks. several users have tried to revert it back yet his opinion has to be absolute over what others think. I have tried to add sources that conclude the album is punk but he keeps reverting them. Is it ok for a user to become a tyrant over a page? even if other users have reliable source(s) to back up their claim? No other website i'm aware of has London Calling as post-punk. The Clash's next album Sandinista! has a lot of the same elements as London Calling yet he sees no problem keeping that as punk.

I'm ok with post-punk staying but punk should be added as well considering the album is almost universally accepted as punk.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for five days. Dan56 has not edited the article since November 10. More than one editor has reverted 76. 76's representation that there is a "consensus" on Dan56's talk page is wrong. I urge 76 to work these things out on article talk pages. Otherwise, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right but more than one editor has changed it to punk. and like i said dan56 changed it to post-punk so i thought it would be better to talk to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.252.227 (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

72.77.*.* reported by User:AdamRuining (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: Due to being anonymous IPs from a related IP addresses.

Comments: Despite clear referencing of John Fetterman being inspirational for the film, supporters of Latoya Ruby Frazier have staged a campaign to cite her as a major source of influence. Ms. Frazier has not been a resident of Braddock for at least a decade, as evidenced by her own biography: http://www.latoyarubyfrazier.com/bio I understand banning the IP addresses may be difficult; locking the page to a prior version that includes citations to articles quoting Mr. Fetterman as an inspiration would be nice.

Adamruining (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Non-stop edit warring by an IP-hopper; no posts on the talk page. The behavior goes back to early October. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Barney the barney barney reported by User:Alfonzo Green (Result: No action on report; Barney warned for comments here)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:  

The new talk page section is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#NPOV_tag

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#NPOV_Template

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#removed_.22decidedly_psuedoscientific_.22_as_it.27s_not_a_true_statement_but_a_personal_opinion

Comments:

Twice today Barney has removed the NPOV tag from the Sheldrake article despite the fact that an NPOV dispute is currently pending on the administrators' noticeboard. Additionally the contested neutrality of the article continues to spark heated discussion on the talk page. Though falling short of 3RR, Barney's action is potentially damaging to Wikipedia as he's preventing casual readers from being warned about the raging NPOV controversy among editors.

Barney claims I must provide reasons for the NPOV tag, ignoring the brute fact of the ongoing dispute both on the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. After he removed the tag the first time, I noted on the talk page that the tag must not be removed until the noticeboard complaint is resolved. He recklessly removed the tag again and claimed it's up to me to explain how the page fails to meet scholarly consensus. Yet this is precisely the dispute already ongoing on the talk page and not only the NPOV noticeboard but two other noticeboards as well. Does he expect me to duplicate all the arguments against the neutrality of the page just to get the tag to stick? This is absurd.

The three noticeboard disputes are located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_is_a_BLP_mess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_.28again.29

Please take action to correct this problem. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see no clearer case of WP:BOOMERANG.  is basically not WP:COMPETENT to edit this article due to his pro-Sheldrake bias and therefore total disregard for policies including WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.  He has been asked several times to explain his objections to the page with reference to policy.  He cannot explain these objections because basically they are not in line with policy.   has been blocked before due his behaviour.  I therefore propose with a heavy heart that  be banned from editing WP:FRINGE articles, broadly construed, until his shows basic competence, under the terms of WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that Alfonzo Green restored the POV template because there is an ongoing NPOV Noticeboard discussion "Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article"(P) which has yet to resolve, and to which Alfonzo Green has made at least half a dozen contributions. The Template:POV suggests that the template can be removed when "There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved". It hasn't.
 * It is also not cool to question another editor's WP:COMPETENCE, or warn them that they have "been blocked before", or suggest that they should be blocked for following the NPOV Noticeboard process, as you did with myself.(P). --Iantresman (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's not cool to point out previous blocks. But I'm not with the cool kids - I'm with the science geeks.  So please do remind me again,, who was blocked after having thrown a massive WP:BOOMERANG at himself?  Oh yes, it was you (the page really is hilarious btw), and unfortunately nothing you've done has convinced me that your lack of WP:COMPETENCE has changed either.  In a nutshell?  I quote  with his delightful urge to the "committee to have a long look at the contributions and actions of it's (sic) bringer, . As a chronic promoter of pro-pseudoscience bias in articles, Iantresman has consistently disrupted pseudoscience article talk pages dismissing WP:NPOV, and has a history of tendentious and disruptive arguments at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, where he's sought to weaken Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to favor his bias".  Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Careful, you are pushing into personal attacks with your tone. You know better to not remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing until it has been resolved either by closing or extended inactivity. There is no reason for you to remove that tag again whilst the process goes on and you are well aware of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I'm the one trying to implement policies properly - ask or  or  - i'm sorry for the "tone" but in this case the "assume good faith" ship sailed long long ago. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * THe purpose of the tag btw is to try to "warn" readers that the article is "unreliable". It isn't.  The complaint is entirely spurious, and they will keep on recycling tired refuted arguments ad infinitum to try to keep it there until someone implements WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not that it is unreliable, but that it may be not neutral in its point of view which is a major concern. Whether or not you feel that the process is being abused or gamed is secondary when there is a very public and active discussion that is ongoing in both the real world and on wiki. Whenever such high profile attention comes to an article the "process" takes over and the tag should remain as a result. Its not even questionable given that far more eyes are drawn to this article - if several people have made a fuss over its neutrality the comment stays and the problem should be worked out. Calling it bad-faith just makes your position weaker. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)The last comment on the board by someone who wasnt already fully participating in the article talk page was Mangoe's comment back on Nov. 8, so that seems pretty "inactive" to me. During the process only two people who were not already active on the article talk page participated in the NPOV conversation and they both concluded that not including the "patterns seem to match" comment was NOT an NPOV violation. "("What all of this talking and talking and talking comes down to is trying to squeeze in the claim that one researcher may have said something that could be interpreted as saying that Sheldrake's ideas may not be entirely unfounded. This is way too weak to justify inclusion." User:Mangoe and "Are you proposing to add something like 'Wiseman conceded that "there may well be something going on"' based on this interview? That would cause readers to think that Wiseman is agreeing that Sheldrake's data gives evidence to show that the dog has psychic powers, and that would be a complete misinterpretation of what Wiseman actually said." by User:Johnuniq)  Alfonzo Green's assertion that there is still any ongoing discussion about that particular NPOV issue and bringing EW review on the removal of the tag is lame at best, and prime example of the WP:TE going on. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the tag is to notify readers that editors are actively discussing whether the article complies with wikipedia's policy about articles being written from a nuetral point of view.
 * Editors are actively discussing whether the article complies with wikipedia's policy about articles being written from a nuetral point of view.
 * The tag should not be removed. I've spent a fair amount of time today trying to make the article more BLP- and FRINGE-compliant. I've received encouragement from sources on several different "sides" of this multi-sided debate. But the POV issue is nowhere near resolved.
 * Some editors who think I'm nuts may just be being polite about letting me finish my most recent stab at putting the article into a state that might be approved on the talk page and justify removing the tag, before
 * evaluating it positively, or
 * concluding I'm still nuts, and reverting me or commenting on the talk page that my effort still falls short. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I'm closing this without taking action against Barney for the two reverts (the tag is back, and he hasn't tried to remove it again). This article has been - and is - on more noticeboards than I can even keep track of. There was no good reason to file this report on this board. However, 's comments here merit a warning. They are unconstructive at best and at worst constitute personal attacks. As for WP:ARB/PS, if someone believes that the discretionary sanctions have been violated, they can go to WP:AE. I've placed a template on the Sheldrake talk page (although there's way too many warnings on that page), and if I have time, I may start issuing warnings to editors of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Dan Murphy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Daki122 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This page is under an ArbCom-imposed 1RR restriction limiting editors to one revert per day. While it's broken from time to time by most editors and often overlooked due to the nature of the content, it's common courtesy to self-revert and cease-and-desist if reminded. It's clear that Daki has not only broken the 1RR here, but has done so even after being warned.

Side note: Daki's third reversion is a reversion of my (lone) reversion of his second reversion. I had intended to revert his first reversion, but clicked the wrong button and didn't realise it until just now. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothar von Richthofen (talk • contribs) 03:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes but you should also know that User:Sopher99 does aprox 10 edits and reverts in 24 hours I was just trying to get the mistake cleared out because he used a source(youtube video 16 seconds long) to change the article I also responded to the Talk page of the map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war where in the section of Sanamayan there multiple complains about the edit that Sopher99 and later the revert of User:Lothar von Richthofen who himself did not give any source what so ever but only said the revert was because i have broken the rules.So I would say that this complain from User:Lothar von Richthofen is very biased and unprofessional for a user like him.I don't think that this is my fault because i was just trying to get it right.Look at this and tell me how many edits did user Sopher99 did in the past 72 hours and look at how many times those got reverted.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for violation of the article 1RR rule which has been imposed through Syrian Civil War general sanctions. Daki122's response (above) to the complaint isn't persuasive, and doesn't seem to be a promise to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hiyob346 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:35, 17 November 2013, (removed info on relationship between Eritrean and Somalian cuisine)
 * 2) Revision as of 19:26, 17 November 2013 (again removed info on relationship w/ Somalian cuisine)
 * 3) Revision as of 20:42, 17 November 2013 (removed all info on ties w/ Somalian cuisine)
 * 4) Revision as of 21:46, 17 November 2013 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Within hours of coming off of a block for disruptive editing and copyright violations on the Eritrea page (notifications which he had earlier deleted, the user reverted back to his preferred iteration of the cuisine section. I attempted to resolve the issue on the talk page, but to no avail as the matter appears to be ideological rather than source based. Middayexpress (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:98.196.232.6 and User:129.7.134.146 reported by User:Rjensen (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: and User being reported:

There has been an edit war over at Phyllis Schlafly in the last hour and a half. Two IP’s from Houston, 98.196.232.6 and 129.7.134.146 (they might be the same person), have inserted contentious material based on a poor blog source about schlafly, and made stated explicitly that she is “Anti-Muslim” without a reliable secondary source. I and two other editors have been reverting in terms of BLP and NPOV rules. The two IP’s have been warned on their talk pages. The more recent IP person 129.7.134.146 has also made BLP violations in his edit summary attacking me falsely:


 * ‘’[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phyllis_Schlafly&diff=582218494&oldid=582217558 (Undid revision 582217558 by Rjensen (talk)undo edit by schlafly employee)]’’

[I am retired and am nobody’s employee literally or figuratively.] Rjensen (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

OH GOOD GRIEF. Rjensen has a sockpuppet removing discussion from the talk page despite Edgar181 demanding I post discussion to the talk page. See : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=582220864&oldid=582220758

RJensen also refuses to make any talk page edits, instead stalking and harassing and failing to notify anyone of his postings like this one or his "BLP Noticeboard" posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

SEE THIS LINK:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhyllis_Schlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=582223969&oldid=582223784

DESPITE administrator Edgar181 telling me to take it to the talk page and then not showing up for discussion, RJensen and his sockpuppet have repeatedly removed the discussion from the talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected by another admin. MastCell Talk 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Cky2250 (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: [link]

Comments:

User talk:Epicgenius is where I picked up on this 3RR warning. The users User:Beyond My Ken and User:Epicgenius are the ones mostly involved. With a final revert from me. —CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I didn't link my revert number under diffs for anyone quickly reading here is my revert just as a quick reference .—CKY2250 &tau;&alpha;&iota;&kappa; 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've protected the article for three days for the editors to come to a consensus. For the record, I'm not sure why CKY inserted themselves into an edit war, this being their first edit to the article. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:166.216.226.23 and User:75.51.171.5 reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: semi, some blocks.)
Page:

User being reported: and

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: The IP is vandalising the page; besides, he/she has not communicated any reason why he/she is doing reverts on the article.

Comments:

The page is being vandalised by this IP. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 18:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for an ANEW report: this is pure disruptive editing and I'll take care of it, probably with some blocks (I wish block could hops) and longterm semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , try and get a range block going here; ask or some other smart person. There is a connection, through one of the IPs I just blocked, with longterm vandal Ararat arev; I can't judge that one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 166.216.226.0/24 soft-blocked. Let's see if that fixes things.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kevin: much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:63.100.172.20 reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I am an uninvolved editor. Involved editors involve mainly but also  and. Epicgenius (give him tirade • check out damage) 20:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a terrific mess and is just as guilty. It took the IP a while to start explaining but they are correct: non-notable people should not be listed. As far as I'm concerned, someone should remove all those red links and then close this report. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * , please have a look at this report. The LinuxUser is just as guilty of edit warring, particularly since the IP did use an edit summary (albeit belatedly) here--and according to our guidelines and practice for such article, the IP is correct, since they removed people with no article and no reliable sourcing for status (and no inherent notability). I just declined the IP's unblock request since undoubtedly they were warring, but this is hardly fair. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is irking me. It doesn't sit right with me that the IP gets blocked but not their counterpart. (Note: if the IP had never explained in an edit summary what they were doing, it would be a different thing.) I'm going to block the LinuxUser for a minute, since they were clearly edit warring also, and then unblock both. This could have been prevented if Alexf had seen this, instead of the report LinuxUser filed at AIV, or if EpicGenius had checked to see whether this had been reported at all (they could have guessed that LinuxUser treated this as vandalism and might have gone to AIV), or if the IP had explained the first time around, or if the IP had stopped at 3, or if LinuxUser had studied the content of the edit a bit closer, or if LinuxUser had stopped at 3, etc. I know what LU is going to say: "unexplained blanking is vandalism". Yes, but this wasn't unexplained, and it was according to our guidelines, which LU could have seen. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I had not seen this until now, kind of late. I did not realize the extent of the damage to the article (now fixed by Drmies - thanks). I added an EditNotice to the article that hopefully will help restrain further issues, or at least give them enough notice of what they should not do. Then it is easier to block outright for vandalism in the face of a stern warning. What a mess. -- Alexf(talk) 23:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Huntster reported by User:LuckyLeprechaun (Result: Action described on separate report below on same issue)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:


 * See User:LuckyLeprechaun reported by me below. The user has obviously filed this report as a preemptive measure to protect themselves, although it seems they have nevertheless continued to edit war themselves albeit now using an IP address. Helen  Online  07:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me correct you, Lucky. The page is Wicca, not Wicca. My two cents will be in the section below. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:LuckyLeprechaun reported by User:HelenOnline (Result: Blocked; article semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: rv edit summary

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:


 * LuckyLeprechaun appears to be a new user whose sole purpose is to add a book not sourced in an article to a list of references for the article. They have not provided any explanation for their edits or responded on talk pages except to file an EW report against an administrator reverting their disruptive edits. It appears they have now moved on to editing with an IP address 70.196.0.92, presumably to avoid violating 3RR which they have already done. Helen  Online  07:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, let's see. We have a user,, who insists on adding a book that is not used as a source in the article Wicca, and that is, additionally, self-published. I'll count out the issues here: violation of WP:SPAM, violation of WP:BRD, violation of WP:3RR (by a huge margin), and if my guess is correct, a violation of WP:COI. Say, Helen, can you think of any others? Any one of these wouldn't be such a big deal, but taken together...in short, we have a user that does not have the well-being of the project in mind, is obviously a single purpose account, and is bent on having his way. Both myself and Helen have attempted to engage subject in discussing his actions, and have been met with no constructive comments but with hostile actions. Yep, my AGF is all maxed out. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Offhand, only almost certainly WP:SOCK via IP address. Helen  Online  09:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've also semi-protected the article for a week and reverted the IP's edit as spam.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Helen  Online  12:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Queen Azshara reported by User:Korruski (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In passing here: and formally:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: # # Comments:


 * This is already at WP:AN, we might want to suspend this EW discussion due to the fact that there's also a COI aspect involved in this edit warring. Hasteur (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point, although thus far it's been given fairly short thrift at WP:AN and, since the most problematic issue is the edit-warring, which is now well into 5 reverts I think, this seemed like the simplest place to deal with it without (I hope) much need for further discussion. I'm happy either way though as long as it gets dealt with :) -- K orr u ski Talk 15:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. An SPA has been warring to include their own picture in an article. If this editor continues to revert after the block expires I would suggest an indef. The editor reverted again at 14:16 today after the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Queen_Azshara&diff=next&oldid=582307310 first 3RR notice] given at 02:12. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Kdie84 reported by User:NeilN (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 582532083 by Richard BB (talk) I am not the only one that contributed to this accurate piece of information. Your SP accusations are also unfounded. Please stop censoring."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 582537380 by Richard BB (talk) there are multiple people who contributed to this piece of information. you cannot just censor it under the guise of talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 582538164 by Richard BB (talk) Please do not turn Wikipedia into a witch hunt. Please deal with the information directly.  Thanks."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 582538843 by NeilN (talk) This is a concerted effort to block valid information.  Please stop this censoring."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Richard Dawkins. using TW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sam Harris (author). using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Also see Sockpuppet investigations/Kdie84  Neil N  talk to me  16:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked editor before I saw this. I expect a permanent block shortly due to sock puppetry Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Worth noting that the sock puppet investigation is open here. I imagine his socks will start edit warring any moment now, seeing as the master account is down. —  Richard  BB  16:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Medeis (Result: Handled at RefDesk talkpage)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff if this is reverted, I will report the matter at WP:ANI
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff "get lost"
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff "get lost"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: friendly notice, formal warning, warning by other user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff NOTE: six of this user's seven revisions occurred before he responded at talk, although the discussion was begun at the same time as hi third revision.

Comments:

The user argues that helping an editor solve a solution equation in regard to the dilution of an over the counter medication amounts to offering medical advice. This is simply false, per Kainaw's criteria, since the OP has neither asked for a diagnosis nor advice on whether to take a medication. The request is simply, how do I balance this equation. Such questions are entirely acceptable, and should not be met with a lack of discussion when offered, threats of ANI,, screaming edit summaries, and admonitions to get lost to two different editors, let alone 7 reverts.

I note also Dmacks has stepped in to this argument. I request ATG be blocked solely for his combative actions, all of which were blocakble before Dmacks' intervention. Note also, the substance is described as a dangerous prescription drug, but is an over the counter, non-prescription product. μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Evidently Medeis has even now failed to read the link provided by the questioner. The medication concerned is not "over the counter", but instead after "a medical examination", it "should only be used as instructed and prescribed by your physician or pharmacist". AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I believe that has intervened in their capacity as an administrator. They are also taking a properly cautious approach to the issue, which seems sound to me in light of the disagreement. I think this board should stay out of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about the medical point or asking for ATG to be reverted. According to 3WW, edit warring has nothing to do with being right.  I am suggesting ATG's behavior has been entirely inappropriate.  Look at my very polite invitation to discuss the matter on the first revert.  He should be blocked as appropriate from his history on this basis, his edit warring, regardless of the over-the-counter nature of the substance in the post. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm sure you'd rather not have your own behaviour discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Admin's should note the personal threat, and that ATG reverted the page 6 times before engaging in discussion. 05:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 'Personal threat'? Don't be ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As for me 'reverting 6 times' before starting a discussion, that is complete fiction. I replied to Medeis's initial post on my talk page - which Medeis chose to ignore. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And some recommended reading for anyone wishing to know what the medical advice could involve: Finasteride: prostate cancer, sexual side effects, anxiety and depression, male breast cancer, teratogenicity... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Medeis and Trovatore tag-teamed to revert it three times each and thus stay within the theoretical bounds of the 3RR. Once Andy reverted it the first time, it should have ended there and then been discussed on the talk page. It wasn't. So despite being shy of breaking 3RR, Medeis and Trovatore are just as guilty of edit-warring as Andy is. And I don't think any of them should be blocked, as it seems to be under control now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Even as he's arguing his case here, I just had to revert an unreasonable revert of the editor AndyTheGrump made this morning on the Psychokinesis article here. Personally I would lay low and not start another edit war while under consideration for an edit warring block. Wow, looks like he just reverted my revert of his revert. This guy is unbelievable. 5Q5 (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You were in the wrong to revert again. The rule is "bold-revert-discuss". After he reverted you, you should have taken in to the talk page. In fact, you still should. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I did take it to the talk page here. You are assuming that his initial revert was justified in the first place and not mischief or outright vandalism. 5Q5 (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm "assuming good faith" on the part of Andy, who has been here a while. He may be given to strong opinions, but not mischief or vandalism. Once he reverted it, you should not have tried to add it back until the issue was settled on the talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been editing since 2006; Andy, 2010. This is getting off the specific issue, so this is my final post. Thanks. 5Q5 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 5Q5, the issue being discussed here has nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute regarding the Psychokinesis article. If you have a specific complaint, you are free to start a new thread at any appropriate place - though I'd recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Per Bbb23, this issue has been handled at the Reference Desk talkpage. MastCell Talk 22:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HaleakalAri reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warnings)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed anything from cif watch"
 * 2)  "see talk page. please delineate any issues you have, on the talk page, before doing a full revert."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Revert, because */ +"
 * 2)   "/* Revert, because */ Re"


 * Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction, I have reverted per BLP & BLPGROUP due to the insertion of blogs as references, this was explained to the editor on the talk page but he readded the content, but only removed one of the blog sources used, so I have had to revert again. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: User:HaleakalAri is warned of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. The BLP issues are confusing and they make it hard to get a clear reading on whether 1RR was violated. The BLP exception to 3RR is intended for emergencies, not for debatable points. We are discussing exactly what shade of anti-Zionism or post-Zionism may exist at a highly-opinionated website, Mondoweiss. Darkness Shines would also be getting a warning if his name was not already in the log. Editors should use the talk page or WP:RS/N to get agreement on usability of sources. If instead they continue to make contested reverts, blocks or full protection may follow. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sumatro reported by User:Nymf (Result: Protected)
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:


 * Result: Article fully protected two days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Nguyen Do Hoang Dai reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "China and the Soviet union just supported North Vietnam"
 * 2)  "I did reach consensus."
 * 3)  Sorry, missed one.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vietnam War. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vietnam War. (TW)"

Sadly he has taken to either socking or meat, I left a note about both on the sock/meatpuppet talk page. But best to block the sock, be aware this is a very new editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * The user has kind of stopped edit warring since the warning was left on the user's talk page. Would you want to wait and see if they continue discussing? If the editor again reverts, I'll immediately block the editor. Also, the sock looks very obvious. Would you wish to take it to SPI? I would prefer we let them have a look before blocking. Wifione  Message 03:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Will mention the sock over at SPI, but he is discussing now so I figure a warning from an adim on edit warring will do the trick, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The reverts have not continued since 19 November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Jthj2012 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Declined)

 * 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:

He is continuously creating articles about films that have not been announced. Please check all his actions and decide whether he should stay or be blocked. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to Dissapoint you (Kailash29792) But the movies i added have been Announced.(talk) 10:48,20 november 2013


 * . This is a board for reporting edit warring. I suggest WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Prototime reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: TBSchemer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [1 ]

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

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

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

Comments:


 * First, I'll point out I was never "warned" for edit warring like is required, as noted by that empty field above, so this report is a bit surprising to me. Second, the diffs listed here concern different issues and completely different editors. For example, the diffs concerning whether a particular subsection of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should be named "Myths" or not were reversions to edits that had made, and we have come to an understanding on my user talk page that we will discuss the issue instead of reverting. Only two of the diffs were reverts of TBSchemer's revisions, whose contested edits to the article have also been reverted by multiple other editors today (see my report of TBSchemer below, which was posted a few seconds after this report of me). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Major revisions to the "myths" section were included in my edits last night. The edits by were largely a reversion of that section to my edits from last night which you have participated in reverting. You've reverted my original edit, in whole or in part, 4 times, without offering any explanation except for a demand for consensus. You have not made a good faith effort to find a mutually agreeable solution to the serious NPOV violations in this article. TBSchemer (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Rms125a@hotmail.com renamed the "Myths" something completely different (and notably more neutral) from what you renamed it. My reversion of his/her edit is unrelated to my reversions of your own reverts. Furthermore, myself and several other editors have attempted numerous times to engage in discussion with you on the article talk page and work to achieve consensus, but you have largely ignored our Wikipedia policy-based arguments and have responded with explicit threats to ignore consensus and Wikipedia policy if you don't get what you want (here and here). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I only see three reverts, and one appears unrelated. I'm just not seeing a 3RR violation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . Based on the above diffs, Prototime reverted three times. The last two diffs are consecutive and therefore count as one. However, TBSchemer easily violated WP:3RR and has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TBSchemer reported by User:Prototime (Result: Blocked (see report above))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

See also: User_talk:TBSchemer

Comments:

TBSchemer has restored edits to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that have been persistently removed by multiple editors, despite repeated pleading with him/her (on both the article talk page and user talk page) to obtain consensus on the talk page first. When other editors initially reverted his/her contested edits, TBSchemer inappropriately responded by quickly placing edit warring template warnings on their user talk pages: see diff 1, diff 2 (, who had only made a single revert). TBSchemer has engaged in some discussion on the talk page, but has done so while continuing to restore his/her edits. TBSchemere has threatened to ignore the consensus-making process altogether if he doesn't get what he wants, see diff. Furthermore, TBSchemer's most recent revert (diff 5 above) was based on an erroneous interpretation of WP:NOCONSENSUS (see diff), and when this was pointed out to TBSchemer (see 1, 2), he/she refused to undo the revert and instead threatened to contact the Arbitration Committee if anyone else undid it (see diff). Not only is this behavior a violation of 3RR, it's pure edit warring and a refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I'll be damned, it looks like TBSchemer reported me here for edit warring mere seconds before I reported him/her. I'll leave this debacle up to the admins. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is much more serious than a simple 3RR violation. It's outright disruption, trying to force such a massive change, opposed by multiple editors and without consensus, and then threatening ArbCom proceedings if the changes are reverted? Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I was looking at the report above and didn't see this one. As noted there, TBSchemer has been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mistrout reported by User:Tarlneustaedter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


 * 1) 21:23, 19 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 02:19, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "rv vandalism")
 * 3) 04:10, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "Central American immigrant stealing history from Mexico")
 * 4) 05:46, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "Yours obviously is the incorrect thing, which you do not specify those who invented it (Olmec), only you say that " it is of Mesoamerica ", on the other hand, I IF I SPECIFY those who invented it, that is to say, give the most exact information, say...")
 * 5) 05:51, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 05:53, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "those who invented it (Olmec), do not believe that there is need to explain it, anyone understands, and that is it of " We now nothing of Olmec cuisine ", perhaps your you are my boss or that?")
 * 7) 21:47, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "Because of it, Wikipedia is one shi%$")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I believe this is simply the case of needing to get the attention of a new user. While the user edited his own talk page a week ago, he doesn't seem to be aware of messages on it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:172.10.100.75 (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:

AndyThrGrump is clearly violating all norms by deleting even a one-line insertion related to a news item about Tarun Tejpal who resigned as the editor-in-chief of Tehelka because of an event of "misconduct" with a woman. This is all over the Indian media, but AndyTheGrump is blocking it from appearing on Wikipedia. For the same revert, he has even made different excuses. He keeps saying those who wish to post should read the WP policy and in one case he claimed it was unsourced. Another reason he has given is that it was copy-pasted which is a ridiculous reason for the revert because nothing was copy-pasted.

Some other user has given a laundry list of mainstream media links and asked why they are not legitimate and AndyTheGrump has stated he will not enter into a discussion. 172.10.100.75 (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP has repeatedly violated WP:BLP policy. The first revert was of material cited to pastebin.com, and Wikipedia (!) - neither of which is a reliable source. The second cited no source at all. The third and fourth (which appeared to have been copy-pasted with little paraphrasing) contain an utterly irrelevant (and unsourced) comment that "The incident happened not long after a woman in Delhi was gang-raped and murdered leading to outrage across India" - clearly synthesis intended to cast Tejpal in a negative light. As for me stating that I "will not enter into a discussion", I note that the IP has provided no diff - unsurprisingly, since it is complete fiction. Yes, I suggested that those adding this material should familiarise themselves with policy - and as the above diffs illustrate, I was entirely correct to do so. If and when the IP, and User:Anmol.2k4 who was also involved in these WP:BLP violations, show some signs of actually being willing to discuss the matter, rather than casting aspersions, making accusations, and generally behaving in an obnoxious manner, I am more than willing to see how we can add due and proper material to the article - material conforming to WP:BLP policy. That is non-negotiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . The article has been semi-protected by for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:ArdenHathway reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:46, 11 November 2013  (edit summary: "Actual impact on record sales.")
 * 2) 17:48, 12 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 20:35, 15 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 21:54, 15 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 05:42, 16 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 07:40, 18 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 19:54, 18 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 15:46, 19 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 01:21, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 14:25, 20 November 2013  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This is not a breach of WP:3RR. This is a continuous push by the user to express his point of view in the article, despite being reverted by multiple editors (including me). There has been a discussion on the talk page here. The editor accused me of a conflict of interest on my talk page, the usual assertion by an editor with an agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I checked a majority of the diffs above, and it's clear the editor doesn't understand, or care, that sources must accompany and back their edits. Recommend blocking, and maybe recruiting a mentor (if the editor agrees of course). Arkon (talk) 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned User:ArdenHathaway. Any further reverts of this nature (prior to consensus) may lead to a block for disruptive editing. A comment he left on my talk page suggests he has stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Facts.people reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The editor also seems to be edit warring in other articles related to the Bold and the Beautiful. Widr (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See the next section below. This user is edit warring on several other articles. Widr, you were slightly faster on the draw than me, yet again! -   t  u coxn \ talk 20:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have been even faster if I wouldn't have had to make the report manually. ;-) Widr (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Facts.people reported by User:Tucoxn (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Pages:, , ,

User being reported:

This user is involved in persistent edit warring across several articles (mentioned above), although the editing timelines of those articles may not violate WP:3RR.

The extent of the user's reverts is evident from the histories of the articles:

Also, here's a list of diffs from Forrester Creations that probably satisfies WP:3RR:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrester_Creations&diff=582689406&oldid=581417593
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrester_Creations&diff=582690639&oldid=582690079
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrester_Creations&diff=582698857&oldid=582695504
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrester_Creations&diff=582701676&oldid=582700805
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Forrester_Creations&diff=582711827&oldid=582704895

Diff of edit warring warning:

Extensive attempts to resolve the various disputes on user's talk page:

Comments: Feel free to contact Tucoxn if necessary. I'm an uninvolved editor who noticed this while cleaning up image red-links. -   t  u coxn \ talk 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Farolif (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: And plenty more if you go looking...
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Safe to assume that user is aware of 3RR rule.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: More exchanges between me and Zoltan on my talk page and a dead-end DRN request.

As I noted in one of my recent edit summaries, I find it highly suspect that the | changes made by a third user two weeks ago went unnoticed by Zoltan, but within 24 hours of my making | an unrelated edit on the page, he realized that the leaders' personal titles had been removed and saw fit to start this whole issue up again. Zoltan does not hesitate to revert my edits without explanation, as can be seen in the first diff listed above as well as instances such as or, he has resorted to various ad hominem attacks to discredit me on the discussions above (particularly the DRN exchange), and has used fallacies of false alternative in explaining his reverting my edits. This has turned into a personal grudge between him and I where he talks down to me in the edit summaries and has yet to address my doubts as to the relevance of the personal titles on the page(s) at issue here, choosing instead to blanketly refer to a UN protocol list as his main excuse (,, etc) - a document he has also used in a separate dispute on this same page. Farolif (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Farolif and I already had a very long discussion about this topic (with ad hominem attacks on his side, which funnily he is accusing me of now) and the dispute resolution attempt lead to no substantial results yet. Despite the unended dispute resolution process Farolif keeps reverting my amendments time and again quoting the very same arguments which he had used in our debate. I have already explained my reasons and arguments in great detail in our earlier discussion threads (arguments to which he often seemed immune, either by ignoring some of them, or shifting his position) and I already effectively addressed his concern in the List of current heads of state and government that was related to the same topic. The latter demonstrates that this is not a personal issue on my side. The reason I hadn't notice the mass deletions by another user is that I hardly had any time to edit Wikipedia over the past weeks. I just see no reason to repeat my well-explained arguments in the short edit summary field every time Farolif decides to mass-revert my article improvements yet again. ZBukov (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Both blocked 24 hours. The talk page has not reached an agreement, so neither of you can claim that consensus justifies your reverts. You should be following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution instead of continuing the war that began in September. User:Farolif was right to go to WP:DRN but no conclusion was reached there, and he's continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:WSEngle reported by User:Timtrent (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */  We are now a credited site by the National Association of School Recourses Officers.  They approve our page as a site that shows this is real and not a sterile site. It brings it into the real world.""
 * 2)  "This activity is real. Parents need to know real kids engage in it. Patents and caregivers and youth are familiar with Wiki and information it provides."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding spam links on Choking game. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* You need to understand COI */ new section"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Adding spam links on Choking game. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* You need to understand COI */ just stop."


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


 * Comments:

I am not the first to attempt to resolve this on the editor's talk page. Unfortunately he seems intent on adding a link to a perfectly useful and helpful web site that is, by our definition, a spam link, that he is connected to, perhaps owns. He is most definitely in a sensible crusade, but refuses to understand that Wikipedia is not the place to do so. This goes back to early November. The editor means well, and has a valid objective, but not one congruent with Wikipedia. Fiddle  Faddle  22:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The best outcome is that other eyes view this and find a way to resolve this without the editor being blocked, hence the WP:IAR style report. Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Result: User warned. I see a total of three edits by this user and no further reverts at Choking game in the last 18 hours, so there is no instant need to respond. Certainly he doesn't appear to grasp our policies. If he continues with this type of edit at Choking game he will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, A useful result, though the editor suffers from WP:IDHT. We have his attention, though I have been roundly abused for trying to engage him in any meaningful dialogue. I fear he will just get himself blocked anyway. He did use a username he had to change to enter the link before he started to use his own name. Fiddle   Faddle  00:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Mouh2jijel (Result: Warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * Result: No 3RR violation, but you both are warned not to continue these reverts without discussion. There has been a long-running dispute about the Western Sahara. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric_Corbett reported by User:Inglok (Result: protected)
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:

I have made every attempt to settle this dispute on the talk page in a reasonable and civil manner. See Talk:Wells Cathedral. Eric Corbett has made no attempt whatsoever, choosing instead to be rude and uncivil and to make personal attacks, including making snide comments in edit summaries. Their behaviour breaks one of Wikipedia's five pillars, Civility.

Inglok (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit history and the talk page discussion. It seems to me that two editors disagreed with you. So aren't you acting against consensus?


 * Also, Eric explained to you that:
 * Even the source you linked to says "In many cases, in British English, both words are equally correct". But we're not writing for a purely British audience, so it would be as well to remember that.
 * And in regards to a report for edit warring, weren't you reverting to your preferred version (using which as opposed to that)?
 * This report and your actions seem disruptive. The dispute itself seems rather trivial and your approach to it seems unconstructive (handling the situation as a battleground and using noticeboards to win). Might it not be best just to move on to other areas and make constructive contributions elsewhere? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits or otherwise of Inglok's edit-warring report against Eric, you cannot claim any kind of consensus based on a few comments by a few editors. I have an advanced understanding of standard British English grammar and I agree with Inglok on this issue ~ so that now removes any so-called "consensus". Anglicanus (talk) 06:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So, how do you account for your comment where you called Eric a "patronising git", then? This issue has also mentioned incivility, but I see you have been offensive in your remarks to Eric, and you claim to be a clergyman. I think given the reactions of some to comments made by Eric, if things were more even-handed, you might be facing a warning at least for this (and possibly more). Your later comment  also needs some attention on a similar basis. Consider your position!   DDStretch    (talk)  06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that my comments above were purely about consensus. But you have chosen, very inappropriately, to instead take the opportunity on this page to make allegations of my incivility towards Eric. I can only assume, therefore, that you think it's somehow okay for Eric to be as continually and gratuitously uncivil towards other editors as much as he likes. You also seem to think that it's okay to patronise me on the basis of how you personally think a "clergyman" ought to act. That comment was entirely inappropriate, uncivil and offensive.  You need to consider your own position! Anglicanus (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It is quite apprpriate for your own behaviour to be looked at in this matter, since incivility was also mentioned before. You are not showing yourself in a good light for refusing to consider the problem of your offensive language toward Eric. I was making a comment about your behaviour, and your imputation that I care not about something else is itself a slur upon me. I am thinking of blocking you for your continued disruptive behaviour, and refusal to deal with your own behaviour as shown in the Talk page under discussion. Anything to do with Eric's behaviour is for other people. It is not disruptive to raise relevant issues in this forum about complainants where they contribute to the problem. Be warned, and step back. DDStretch   (talk)  07:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comments about my "behaviour" would only be appropriate on this page if I had referred to Eric's incivility myself. But since I didn't then your comments about me on here are entirely inappropriate. The appropriate place is either on my talk page or on the article's talk page.  Your gratuitous comments about my profession were entirely out of order and unacceptable, especially from an administrator. I am entitled to challenge you about this and to expect an apology. Anglicanus (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are not entitled to an apology. You openly publicise you priesthood, yet for a Christian priest you frequently use language and terms which are inappropriate for a man of your calling. Your behavior leads me to personally question you suitability to be a priest. I would remind you of Matthew 5:39.  Giano   10:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are simply wrong here. Since you mention you are a clergyman on your user page, it becomes relevant because your behaviour is the issue here, since behaviour is part of the issue being discussed. See other comments about Inglok in this thread (and not just by me) You can challenge me about it if you like, and you can even demand an apology, but I note that there has been NO attempt by your to withdraw the comment that Eric was a "patronising git", and it seems as if you are just trying to deflect the issue to avoid having to do it. I apologize for upsetting your idea about what is and what is not relevant to these discussions. You will note that one other at least has already commented on other aspects of Inglok's behaviour here that also refer to disruption by him. You are in the same situation here!  DDStretch    (talk)  08:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear here, I draw Anglicanus' attention to WP:BOOMERANG, and especially section 1 of it. Although this is an essay, it sums up exactly the common practice here. Additionally, he or she dragged up behaviour of Eric's in the past in the course of making the "patronising git" comment about him. If the complaint about me had any force, he or she should not have dragged that up about Eric. Once again, instead of deflecting attention away from legitimate issues about their incivility here, they need to address their incivility to Eric. How is calling him a "patronising git" in any way trying to resolve the issues in a civil way? It seems to me just another example of behaviour that is likely to provoke a response that can then be used against him.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Noting also that you are both edit-warring and that this is a relatively minor thing to be edit-warring about. Talk it out, please, bringing in uninvolved editors as needed. (And please note for future reference that a notification of a discussion here does not constitute a warning; it's a notification, to come after the warning if the editor persists). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I dispute the fact that you, Inglok, made a reasonable effort to resolve the dispute. I say this because you made a threat to Eric about reporting him here, and made mention of a possible block against him (links already given to the discussion on the talk page of the relevant article). This seems highly disruptive, and would have the effect of inflaming the situation from the point of view of many established editors. It could also be interpreted as an attempt to use this noticeboard as an attempt to game the system and prevail in your point of view. You also did not take into account that at least one other editor agreed with Eric. In my opinion, a block against you, Inglok, for baiting and inflaming the situation unnecessarily would be in order. Additionally, it takes two to edit war, and you were the other party, so for that and the reasons I have made, above, I consider you more at fault here.   DDStretch    (talk)  04:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Your dispute is noted. Please note that I took to the talk page first and twice he responded in such a way that could not be called anything like an attempt to resolve the dispute, and once calling me ignorant. It was in response to this that I wrote that last paragraph here, which with hindsight was bad judgment on my behalf, and for which I apologise. But this was with the knowledge of his past behaviour, for which I have never received an apology. I think I was attempting to get him to actually discuss the issue rather than resorting to something such as "my only difficulty is with your ignorance."


 * Please see also my reply at User_talk:Worm_That_Turned.


 * My resorting to this board was in no way an attempt to "win" the argument or "game" the system. For anyone to assume this to be the case is to assume my bad faith. I thought that reporting here was standard practice. I have been under the impression that if a user twice makes an edit and twice it is reverted and the person reverting starts a discussion on the talk page with the intention of resolving the dispute and the user imposing the change makes no effort to do so and instead behaves uncivilly, and also keeps reverting to impose their change, then the place to take the matter is this board. If this is not the case, please direct me to Wikipedia policy pages where this is set out. If I have done this wrongly then I apologise.


 * And "baiting and inflaming"? This is an odd reading of the situation, and I completely reject it. As for being the other party in the edit war, I concede that I was reverting, but I also was the one attempting to resolve the dispute very early on. Eric did not. In light of all this it is quite obvious that Eric's behaviour was far worse than mine and he was therefore more at fault. Inglok (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the facts correctly, that between "which" and "that", British English is indifferent, while American English expresses a preference, then using the American English preferred term is an example of Pareto Improvement, even in an article in which British English is appropriate. (Which point was made by Epipelagic, I'm simply giving it a name.) Time to move on.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  15:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not entirely time to move on. I do not agree that British English is indifferent. Furthermore, both Inglok and Anglicanus need to be strongly reminded that their own behaviour amounted to disruption in the language they used here against Eric.   DDStretch    (talk)  16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I warned both this morning. Inglok on my talk page, then extended that warning to Anglicanus. I don't see that there's anything more to do here. Worm TT( talk ) 16:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, well, this explains a lot. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:205.213.104.154 reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 582737642 by Blurred Lines (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 582667258 by StewieBaby05 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 582692330 by StewieBaby05 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 582691875 by StewieBaby05 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 582675866 by Cwmxii (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 582691875 by StewieBaby05 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 582675866 by Cwmxii (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Simpsons (season 25)."


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


 * Comments:

Anyone who is using this IP address has made more than three disruptive reverts on the season 25 of The Simpsons. If I knew that the person reverted the edit by the time I reverted their edit, I would have reported sooner.  Blurred   Lines  23:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: I am also consuming that this IP address, "2602:306:37EB:49E0:4FA:5852:1691:55E0", could be a sockpuppet to the IP address above.  Blurred   Lines  03:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . Even if you assume the second IP is the same individual as the first, that makes only three reverts, meaning no breach of WP:3RR. Your argument that the edits are disruptive is more compelling, but I'm afraid I know little about how these articles are conventionally done, so the only way I can tell it's disruptive is by the fact that three different editors reverted the edits. I also don't see any discussion about the issue on the article talk page. Another administrator may be more disposed to take action. If I were going to do anything, I'd semi-protect the article. As an aside, you might take a look at this edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP named in this report made five edits on 21 November that are marked 'Undid' in the history, even though some of them were consecutive. They did not engage in discussion or leave any edit summaries. It's hard to explain this unless they were going through the history undoing specific edits by others. (That would sound like vandalism). Semiprotection would be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * by for one month, so we won't be able to see edits from IP addresses for a while.    Blurred   Lines   13:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Virtualtyper reported by User:Goodsdrew (Result: Both users blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user was section blanking and removing a significant part of the article, without good justification, so I never discussed it on the talk page.

Comments:

Result: Both users blocked for extensive edit warring over several days. Virtualtyper blocked for 24 hours, and Goodsdrew blocked for 48 hours (second block for edit warring). TigerShark (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that Virtualtyper did not revert the article in question again, after the warning. However, they continued another ongoing edit war with Goodsdrew over on Portuguese people. TigerShark (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Evano1van reported by User:Turnitinpro (Result: No action Turnitinpro blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reported user reverted me 4 times within 5 hours for the paragraph on "alleged sexual harassment", but he actually made 6 distinct reverts in 24 hours over this topic. I discussed this mild / budding edit war with reported user on his talk page (and not the article talk page - see above requirement) as I assumed good faith for the reported user who indicated a willingness to learn more of Wikipedia's policies.Turnitinpro (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A note for any admins: there have been serious WP:BLP issues with this article recently. The above diffs are a small part of a wider story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Why are allegations made in the Supremem Curt of India and published by the Hindustani Times problematic? μηδείς (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me add the background User:AndyTheGrump mentioned before giving out my defence on why I felt I didn't break WP:3RR. I made 2 reverts, to tone down the sexual assault as I felt there was an WP:UNDUE coverage to the incident, revealed contents of private emails circulated on Twitter though some references to news sites was made. The source of all the stories referenced was based on leaked emails and hence it surely violated WP:BLP. In order to avoid 3RR, I then referred to WP:BLPN. User:FreeRangeFrog mentioned the entire section needs to be kept off unless there is greater impact and reverted even the mention of assault. Although I felt it cannot be ignored, I was convinced that section needs to blanked and so was User:AndyTheGrump as there was 3 reverts by User:AndyTheGrump -,, and 2 by User:FreeRangeFrog - ,, all of them suggesting blanking of the mentioning of the incident to be in line with WP:BLP.


 * It was with this background, I made the first diff mention in this report to blank out the section as discussed at WP:BLPN. User:AndyTheGrump reverted me saying it cannot be blanked altogether and asked me to tone down if I wanted to, which was what I did in the second diff  reported. To move the section of sexual assault below that of career as its common sense edit that all controversies in BLP are placed at bottom unless the person is notable only for controversial things which was clearly not in this case. To me both these edits cannot be considered for edit warring as the primary concern was to uphold WP:BLP. Now User:Turnitinpro made 3 edits and essentially blanked out career section reducing the BLP just to introduction and sexual assualt while not mentioning contentious claims on the sections / not making any effort to source them. User:Turnitinpro reverted and I reverted that again asking him to specifically discuss what part of his career section is contentious to be removed. As per my understanding I did 2 reverts without 'talking' and the first 2 reverts was for the sake of WP:BLP. User:Turnitinpro insisted on my talk page that WP:3RR is about bean counting while I want to learn if my edits are valid enough to be considered as an BLP exception.


 * I don't understand the reference to Supreme court here. There was no allegation made in the court. Can you please explain?


 * PS : Contrary to claim made on the report there was a 3RR warning / discussion initiated by the reporter on the article talk page before 3 reverts, Both the 3RR warning and the discussion  was on my talk page after the 4 reverts mentioned in the report. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't speculate on what the User was thinking for his first 2 reverts of my text as I am not a mind reader. Relying solely on the 7th "BLP" exception to 3RR for the later reverts is dangerous, as I had previously removed considerable unsourced and potentially libelous BLP text which he repeatedly restored back (by insisting that I should source it). His 3rd and 4th reverts were completely out of line and ought to have been left to another editor (he had already gone to BLPN against other editors). The only lesson I want Evano1van to learn from this is that 3RR is a Bright-line rule which leaves no scope for interpretation or subjectivity. In keeping with the letter and spirit of 3RR, I thrice offered him the proper way out If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake. but he was so caught up in his righteousness that he stood his ground like a brave little apprentice WP:WikiKnight.Turnitinpro (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action Diffs do not show continued reversion. Some edits delete material and some move it around. As the reporting party warned the other party, they are now both aware of the prohibition on edit warring and are aware that any further edit warring may result in a block. TigerShark (talk) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sloppy checking of diffs by Admin:TigerShark (3RR is an objective technical rule, all you had to do is count and compare). For eg. please see microdiffs below - focusing on the term "stepped down"
 * Revert #1
 * Before: "Tarun has reportedly stepped down as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * After : blank
 * Revert #2
 * Before: "Tarun has reportedly stepped down as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * After : "Tarun has stepped aside as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * Revert #3
 * Before:"Tarun has stepped down as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * After: ""Tarun has stepped aside as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * Revert #4
 * Before:"Tarun has stepped down as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * After: "Tarun has stepped aside as editor of Tehelka for six months"
 * Incidentally the word used by the Managing Editor of Tehelka in her widely reported email which broke the news was "stepping down" as the original reference said, and which is why 9 times as many online news reports say "step down" as compared to "step aside". The importance of this term lies for the statutory internal investigation within Tehelka.Turnitinpro (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't get too caught up with the idea of a strict 3RR rule. Any edit warring can get you blocked. In this case there has been edit warring on both sides but, even with you example above, the other user did not strictly revert three times. I'm also surprised to see that you created this report almost 24 hours after the other user's last edit to the article. I suggest that you try to seek consensus, if possible. TigerShark (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @TigerShark, Don't level bald allegations and don't be so casual in future for computing 3RR reverts.Turnitinpro (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we both accept that we didn't use talk page wisely and are of guilty of using one line edit summaries. Much like you couldn't imagine what happened on BLPN, I could not imagine you have micro-disputes (down/aside being one) on my reverts in just the edit summary you had given. I will be happy to discuss and arrive at consensus if you post your views on the talk page. Thanks Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: After making it clear that the edit warring revolved around switching between "stepping down" -> "stepping aside", Turnitinpro decided to revert it back to "stepping down" again this evening. This was done after the discussion above and after Evano1van had seemed to step back from the dispute and attempt to open discussion. I have blocked Turnitinpro for 48 hours. TigerShark (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't get too caught up with the idea of a strict 3RR rule. Any edit warring can get you blocked. In this case there has been edit warring on both sides but, even with you example above, the other user did not strictly revert three times. I'm also surprised to see that you created this report almost 24 hours after the other user's last edit to the article. I suggest that you try to seek consensus, if possible. TigerShark (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @TigerShark, Don't level bald allegations and don't be so casual in future for computing 3RR reverts.Turnitinpro (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we both accept that we didn't use talk page wisely and are of guilty of using one line edit summaries. Much like you couldn't imagine what happened on BLPN, I could not imagine you have micro-disputes (down/aside being one) on my reverts in just the edit summary you had given. I will be happy to discuss and arrive at consensus if you post your views on the talk page. Thanks Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: After making it clear that the edit warring revolved around switching between "stepping down" -> "stepping aside", Turnitinpro decided to revert it back to "stepping down" again this evening. This was done after the discussion above and after Evano1van had seemed to step back from the dispute and attempt to open discussion. I have blocked Turnitinpro for 48 hours. TigerShark (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Protection, warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Consensus against these users edits can be found here

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: There is a great deal of discussion on the talk page. User in question feels they should be able to refute the CDC, FDA, and WHO with primary sources. This is against the WP:MEDRS policy. The previous 3RR report is here

Comments:


 * I note that the reporting editor is being somewhat disingenious here. NPOV tags don't need a consensus, and indeed it would be a bit silly to require one as the editors pushing the POV would be required to agree that they were doing so. In fact there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not the section in question is POV, which the reporting editor has largely ignored. I also note that it's against WP:MEDRS policy to use primary sources to refute secondary sources, but I can't see anything in the policy about using them to add context to statements of opinion or expressions of hypothetical concerns; for example if the FDA say they're worried about the risk of teenagers becoming zombies and eating their teachers it seems relevant to point out that every relevant primary source concludes that there are no zombies. This does not appear to be what the MEDRS policy is discussing. However the reporting editor refuses to acknowledge the difference between an expression of hypothetical concerns and a review of existing research; extensive discussions dating back over several days make clear that this is the root of the problem.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User considers the World Health Organization, the FDA, and the CDC to be none main stream per here. Not really much to discuss really. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and another misrepresentation. I said that their opinions on this issue are not mainstream because there is no mainstream. There is not a consensus and without that there cannot be a mainstream. Major organisations disagree with the WHO, FDA and CDC stance on this.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that I have attempted several times to engage with the reporting editor on the article talk page. He shows no willingness to find a compromise solution and frequently misrepresented sources or declared that respected organisations are not to be used as sources. This "edit war" was sparked by his repeated removal of a tag I had placed on the article; I attempted to discuss it with him and was ignored.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any doubt that Fergus broke 3RR on that article, but i also think that the problem is significantly beyond Fergus here. The trouble was that Fergus attempted to put an POV-section tag on the article, while there was active discussion about the perceived NPOV issue... apparently some of the other editors believed that such a tag is a blemish and should only be there if a consensus of editors thought the section was POV. (as a shame tag)... which imho is contrary to the actual idea of tags.
 * Disclosure: i was part in the discussion, and i tried to keep the tag (i used up 3 reverts), for the purpose of attracting other editors in to the active discussion. --Kim D. Petersen 22:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are another 4 reverts in the last 24 hours.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Undoing vandalism doesn't count.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reporting editor has repeatedly undone my edits while leaving misleading edit summaries. Typically this involves claiming that the source I cited does not support a claim which my edit did not in fact make. I have asked him several times to stop doing this and he has refused to engage with me. In fact overall his engagement on the talk page has been marked with repetitive, canned answers and a failure to answer when asked for a substantive opinion. It's almost as if he's trying to provoke 3RR breaches. Also, IMO Exhibit 55 isn't even a revert anyway; I was merely restoring information that another editor had, on his own admission, deleted without knowing why he was doing so.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus concerning where to place the text restored in revert 55, and it was also questionable if it was even to go in to the article as it was by several editors deemed irrelevant as it didn't concern the subject at hand. Also none of your other reverts can be classified as reverting vandalism as per WP:VANDALISM. -- CFCF (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a statement on the addictiveness of nicotine and I put it in the Addiction section. Do you seriously think we needed another round of consensus-building to work that out?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 14:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As for several editors deeming it irrelevant, the section is about the addiction potential of nicotine containing products. How is the addictiveness of nicotine not relevant? Consensus depends on the weight of the argument, not on numbers.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Interestingly CFCF broke 3RR himself while he too was falsely claiming vandalism as excuse. Article protection might be the way to stop that ongoing edit warring.TMCk (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, broke 3RR as well . --Kim D. Petersen 16:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But reverted himself a few minutes latter  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Plus Canvassing for others to join edit warring including to make a specific revert on his behalf. Anyhow, even w/o breaking 3RR, there is plenty of edit warring going on over there in the last few days. That's why I suggested page protection as a remedy. But of course he has "... been forced to revert a number of times relying on [[WP:3RRNO],..." but doesn't "...want to rely on it anymore".TMCk (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected three weeks. Blocks of both User:FergusM1970 and User:CFCF for 3RR violation would have been justified. Fergus should be aware that he is pushing his luck since he has been blocked before on this article. For the next three weeks, if editors on the talk page can agree on any changes, they can make an WP:Edit request. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Abog reported by User:Barek (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:54, 22 November 2013  (edit summary: "undo vandalism, section blanking")
 * 2) 22:47, 22 November 2013  (edit summary: "references have been added")
 * 3) 23:10, 22 November 2013  (edit summary: "references and content has been fixed")
 * 4) 23:21, 22 November 2013  (edit summary: "please refrain from edit warring; i have already addressed the issues; the content has been cited, the prose has been improved, and i have yet to see anything that says the content is unencyclopedic")


 * Diff of warning:

—- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Various users reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Block, PC)
Yes, I'm reporting myself, because I cannot allow Marmelstein to abuse Wikipedia the way he is doing, and has done in the past, and I can't seem to stop myself from trying to stop him. I'm not going to fill out the damn form, but here're the facts:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Marmelstein, who has a strong conflict of interest in regard to The Players (New York City) and has been sanctioned in the past for the same kind of shenanigans he's pulling here, posted a short piece of material to the article using the IP above.
 * Even though it was promotional in tone, I marked it as needing a source, and went looking for something from a reliable source to support it
 * What I found was information which did *not* support the material Marmelstein had posted, so I wrote up what the reliable source said, and removed the worst of the promo from M's material.
 * Marmelstein, as 69.203.87.201, reverted all of my edits, including the CN tag, thus replacing information supported by a citation from a reliable source with his original, unsourced, promotional material
 * And then I reverted and so on.

Bang me for edit-warring if you have to, I'm willing to take the rap, but this kind of blatant misuse of Wikipedia for promotional purposes from a COI editor who is out to skew the article in a direction totally opposite from what the published sources say makes my blood boil. I've put much too much time and effort into improving Wikipedia and making it accurate and neutral for it not to upset me. So, I'm willing to take whatever sanction you hand out to me, but please remove Marmelstein's crap, block him indef as an SPA COI, and shut down the IP for as long as possible to prevent this person from abusing and misusing this wonderful resource of ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP has been blocked, another editor reverted his last revert, so perhaps this incident is over, and I needn't have offered my own neck for chopping - but I did it, and it can't be undone. So be it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Other admins have blocked the IP 24 hours and put the article under pending changes. That should be enough action for now. If there is no sign of a change of heart by Marmelstein, an indef block may be needed. Report again if more problems occur. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:124.253.24.48 reported by User:Itemirus (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Rajvir Singh Randhawa. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Result: No action, the IP has already been blocked (for 72 hours) for block evasion. TigerShark (talk) 14:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked for one month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Neljack (talk) to last revision by Joefromrandb. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Neljack (talk) to last revision by Joefromrandb. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Neljack (talk) to last revision by Joefromrandb. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 582925252 by Neljack (talk)rvv"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Neljack (talk) to last revision by Joefromrandb. (TW)"
 * 6)  "please stop this nonsense; i took great pains to phrase this in a way that is BLP-compliant"


 * Comments:
 * Neljack has a history of harassing users (i.e. Wehwalt) about phantom BLP-violations (i.e. Natalee Holloway). He has opened a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, which he was free to do in the first place. Instead, he chose to revert 6 or 7 times. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have certainly not been harassing editors. I took the dispute with Wehwalt over my redaction of a comment of his to the BLP noticeboard and several other editors agreed that it was a clear BLP violation and properly redacted. I make no apologies for removing BLP violations when I see them - it is an extremely important policy and needs to be strongly enforced. The reason I didn't open a discussion at the BLP noticeboard earlier is because Joe kept immediately reverting me before I could do so. I could hardly allow what I regarded as a clear and grave BLP violation to remain in the meantime. Joe has continued reverting even after this report was filed, contrary to policy that requires that disputed BLP material stay out while discussion is occurring until there's a consensus to restore it. Neljack (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, that comment has been up for hours. It's not going to kill anyone to let it sit for a few more.  To be honest, when I first read it I thought it was directed at the subject, but also thought it might have been directed at another editor.  In any case, neither of you should be jabbing at the red-button like you're playing Galga on a 6 pack of Coke.  Better off finding an adminTwo kinds of pork (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Joefromrandb blocked for 1 month. The user has a long history of blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing, including a week long block back in October. I believe that Neljack was walking a fine line with their edits, and I was tempted to issue a 24 hour block to them also. However, their last revert was just after this report was posted (unlike Joefromrandb's, which was several hours later, after having had a chance to cool down), and their intentions seemed good. That doesn't excuse edit warring however, and I would suggest that they try to tackle this kind of issue more appropriately in future (including the BLP noticeboard, if appropriate). TigerShark (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Neljack reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 582926677 by Joefromrandb (talk) I have started a thread at the BLP noticeboard - please discuss there, rather than edit-warring against BLP actions."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 582925867 by Joefromrandb (talk) Starting discussion on BLP noticeboard - again, you are edit warring against BLP actions and disputed material must stay out in the meantime"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 582925408 by Joefromrandb (talk) Please stop edit warring against a BLP action - I'm happy to start a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 582925085 by Joefromrandb (talk) Look, by all means let us have a discussion about it, but the BLP policy requires that the disputed material stay out in the meantime"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 582924681 by Joefromrandb (talk) Saying he'd done it for a disgusting reason is not BLP compliant. Please do not revert BLP actions without consensus - it is against policy"


 * Comments:
 * BLP is of course an exception to edit-warring and 3RR. As is evident from the edit summaries, I have repeatedly explained that material removed on BLP grounds must remain out while the matter is discussed and can only be restored with consensus (per BLP#Restoring deleted content). I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard. Neljack (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Which you could have done before your plethora of reverts. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I made clear right from the time of my original redaction - in the note I left on your talk page - that I was happy to discuss the matter on the BLP noticeboard or wherever you wanted. I am not the one who has be violating policy - it is crystal clear that you must not restore material deleted on BLP grounds without consensus: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." Neljack (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Would the both of you please put down the sticks and hash this out on the BLP board???? If not I suspect an admin will certainly block Joe, and likely block the both of you.  While Neljack may be able to claim 3RR, he is certainly contributing to a food fight.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would very much like to, which is why I started the discussion there. Neljack (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, please see report below. TigerShark (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Plot Spoiler (Result: Ryulong blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Very combative editor. Barely making use of talk page. Deleted 3RR warning from another user on his talk page. He then went on to delete my notice of this report on his talk page.Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All of @Ryulong's edits above are reverts as defined by WP:Revert:"Reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." You're welcome to self-rv yourself Ryu. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the most part that's what's happened. Am I forbidden from copy-editing the content I've reverted to incorporate it in a way that is beneficial to both sides of the argument? Do I need to actually restore an older version prior to my edits for it to be considered a self revert?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The content remains in the article. Just not in that separate section. Plot Spoiler has been told on multiple occasions that the content that he added in the first place did not meet WP:NPOV and is himself as guilty of edit warring on this topic. And as it stands I have not myself exceeded three reverts on the article. The first diff is my first edit to the page, the second one is a revert, and the third and fourth ones are a series of attempts to actually incorporate the content better, simply not in the manner in which it was originally presented.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert 1
 * Revert 2
 * Revert 3

And this isn't "an attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Ryulong broke 3RR and he also removed my warning immediately prior to Plot Spoiler's warning. Ryulong has also made disruptive insinuations on the article's talk page as pointed out by Plot Summary. Ryulong does not know the first thing about me and making blind accusations of racism is a personal attack - saying I would do something different based on the race of the perpetrator is the same type of attack I got back at Trayvon Martin for opposing the inclusion of the deceased's minor offenses at school. Ryulong's racial ad hom comments are unacceptable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * These accusations are just wrong. You stated that a source should not be used despite the subject being a near match to what the article discussed other than the name the event was given (as well as the race of the suspect). The article as previously presented treated any instance of an attack occuring in the United States where "knockout" was mentioned by the suspect as being evidence of the existence rather than neutrally analyzing the subject. And as has been stated many times, anyone is free to remove content from their talk page as they see fit as it indicates that the content was at least read and acknowledged.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Ryulong blocked for 24 hours. Rather than relying on the diffs, I stepped through the recent edits to the article and Ryulong has made multiple reverts of other users' recent edits. I note that Ryulong has quite an extensive list of blocks for edit warring (although the last one was about 3 years ago), so is obviously aware of the rules. However, their comments above suggest that they still believe there is a 3 revert allowance). TigerShark (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Прискорбные reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Rv. Take it to talk."
 * 2)  "Note."
 * 3)  "/* Criticism */ Evidence of public dislike as well as critical."
 * 4)  "Dreadful. Lede should summarise per MOS, and why was a link to Criticism section placed in the section? Rash editing."
 * 5)  "Rv."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 583019070 by Rodericksilly (talk)"
 * 1)  "Dreadful. Lede should summarise per MOS, and why was a link to Criticism section placed in the section? Rash editing."
 * 2)  "Rv."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 583019070 by Rodericksilly (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Remove from intro */ not really verifiable coming from only one online source"
 * 2)   "/* Remove from intro */ not really verifiable coming from only one online source"
 * 3)   "/* Remove from intro */ not really verifiable coming from only one online source"
 * 4)   "/* Remove from intro */ not really verifiable coming from only one online source"
 * 5)   "/* Remove from intro */ +"
 * 6)   "/* Remove from intro */ +"

If not edit warring by definition of 3RR, definitely edit warring behavior, in my opinion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I'm not clear that two of those edits are reverts. I left him a message that the 23:50 edit is clearly his third revert within the last 24 hours, and I'm prepared to block him if he reverts again in the near future. —C.Fred (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Juding by the edit pattern, edit history, edit summaries and language, the user is most likely User:94.11.164.233 and User:Jimbo: "Ooohhh", who were both blocked for being disruptive in the same article. I would say a 24 hour block is not going to cut it. Nymf (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I blocked for 24 hours before seeing that message. I'll look further to see if I need to extend. —C.Fred (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection in pattern. I'm standing by 24 hours, but other admins are free to extend, either on independent review or after SPI. —C.Fred (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * My bet is also on this user being User:94.11.164.233 and User:Jimbo: "Ooohhh". Time for an SPI? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  00:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Quack. Nymf (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw that. Removed it, after indef-blocking and revoking talk-page access for ban evasion. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops...opened an SPI. Now what? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  00:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:66.108.179.42 reported by User:Jax 0677 (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page: User being reported: Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   Comments: User has also added websites to the talk page repeatedly, although I believe it to be irrelevant to the song. I can not revert due to WP:3RR. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * – GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Mcepeci reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result:Mcepeci blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Single-purpose account adding poorly sourced and formatted POV-pushing trivia to BLP without edit summary; content challenged by four editors; SPA has now reverted eight times over the past four days including three times on November 22.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * While technically not three reverts in past 24 hours, there's definitely an edit warrior here and s/he needs to cool off.   K rakatoa    K atie   12:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:92.20.241.106 reported by User:dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Blocked for 48 hours.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Daki122 reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The page is under 1 revert rule restrictions. Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 Sopher99himself constantly breaks the rules, he is the reason why the rule of 1 edit is broken there are not enough administrators to fix his mistakes.

Here are the examples:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6

And these are only some of the examples. Sopher99 has repeatedly misrepresented information to use it for editing, and no reliable sources have used Facebook and YouTube. Daki122 (talk) 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all I don't break any of the rules or guidelines, that your personal bias. Second of all this is not the page for that discussion.

The topic is your reverts, which you have done three of them in 24 hours despite the one revert rule restriction. Sopher99 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I party Deonis 2012 and I admit that violates the rules, but I do not try to deny it, unlike you. You break the rules systematically engaged in falsification of facts and if you take to check all your changes at once will become clear. And the way you do not violated the rule 1RR. By the way you yourself were blocked three times and it says that you do not just let themselves instilled in flagrant violation of Wikipedia.

Here's your discussion page, and then just as you have seen warnings about violations. There can also be seen for what you were blocked:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sopher9937.52.27.151 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I have 299 (thats about 300) different discussions posted on my talk page ranging from everything to new page creation to Burma. I am also the most active user on the pages that I do edit - so of course I am going to be your target and the most conspicuous editor.

Once again that has nothing to do with anything here. Daki reverted 3 times in two hours on separate occasions, breaking the 1 revert rule. Sopher99 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No your wrong I reverted only once and edited the page twice so your very wrong I didn't break any rules.I reverted your first edit and then I edited the map twice so  by that if you can edit the map 11 times in 24 hours why can no one else edit the map i did not break any rule I just made some edits go check the history of the map no rule was broken by me.Daki122 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC) And also to point out that the edits were for the same thing and you used  a source that does not give the info about your edit but your doing it anyway.I think you should go over the talk page and see what people think of your  edits to just see how many complains have gotten up  about you  because you are  misusing sources for your own purposes and trying to change things based on nothing.You are constantly vandalising the map.Here is the talk page go check and see what do people think of your edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map Daki122 (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

At 19:30 you reverted Al Hanuty's 19:06 edit

At 0:44 you reverted my 22:20 edit

At 15:13 you reverted my 14:55 edit

And at 15:31 you reverted Al Hanuty's 15:21 edit

Sopher99 (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh please now you started deleting edits by the other user that has reported you good job.That only shows how clear headed you are.So it is ok for you to revert and edit a dozen of times a day but not ok for anybody else. Those reverts all are for the same reason you reverted my edits and I have reverted it back.Because you used a source that says fighting is going on near rebel held suburbs and change 6 or 7 government held towns as contested that is rely the problem here, you're one-sided and not objective and if you can not be objective about a theme like this you can not edit it because you will always be on that other side you never did one thing out of objectivity.Have you seen me revert any other users except you and and user Al-Hunty's,NO because everyone else gives a  source that is reliable and is not misused like you always tend to do, that in the media is called propaganda and your doing just that nothing else.Daki122 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sopher99 you do not violate the rules and once you have lots of warnings:
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6
 * 7) 7

About Sopher99 even here you are trying to distort the facts. And if you're a fighter for the observance of the rules, why do you surprise you incriminating evidence. You may even break the rules here now distorting information. And once you do not violate the rights 1RR, and made ​​changes based on the controversial sources or no relationship to your change.

And a clear violation of the rules 1RR (5 times in one day):
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5


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

HERE is what the other user post it why do you keep on deleting that let them see all the evidence let them see whit what we have to put up on the Syrian civil war map everyday.Daki122 (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you clinically insane? None of those show me reverting anything, or distorting anything.

That's beside the point. The point is you Daki122. Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it was not but 1 week ago when User:EdJohnston banned you for the very thing I am reporting you on. Sopher99 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC) No the point is you insulting me and nothing else your constantly editing the map with no reliable source but with twiter and facebook and youtube and your telling me that i'm insane well you can keep on insulting me but I will never step down to the level where you are standing.Daki122 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * when did I use any insulting language whatsover? Furthermore - lets back track on the sources I used just today - Reuters and The Daily Star
 * For that matter, where are your source Daki? I don't see any.

Stop sidetracking the point. At 19:30 you reverted Al Hanuty's 19:06 edit

At 0:44 you reverted my 22:20 edit

At 15:13 you reverted my 14:55 edit

And at 15:31 you reverted Al Hanuty's 15:21 edit

4 reverts in 24 hours on a one revert rule page.

Sopher99 (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher 99 you accuse the other of violating the rules and do not follow them. You ignore all the participants who challenge your changes and trying to get lock all participants who do not give you freely to make your changes are not correct. You inflict great harm by their actions, because even in this discussion you remove everything that you do not like. Here also you have removed quite correct comments on the talk page and it's already included in your habit. Here are some examples http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aleppo_offensive_%28October_2013%29&action=history
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5
 * 6) 6

No Sopher Im not sidetracking the problem Im pointing out at the problem that is your edits and your lack of objectivity.The problem is that anything you don't like on the page of the Syrian Civil war you revert it  or re-edit it.May I remind you that this is a civil war where people lives are lost and you are giving misinformation about it this is not a football match where you cheer for one or another team this is a war where objectivity must prevail anything else. Daki122 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Such examples are more than 20. After all, you are ready to remove any information which refers to the success of the Syrian army or lesions Syrian rebels.37.52.27.151 (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 you used today, reliable sources such as Reuters and The Daily Star, but you have interpreted the information from these sources on his own and have added much to myself. After all, the sources said about the fighting in the area of Damascus and was not indicated on the fighting in specific cities, but you yourself why exactly you added the city controlled by the army. And it's just the ones I have and distortion of the facts in favor of one of the parties to the conflict.37.52.27.151 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes I am going to undo any content you or your other sock ips add because your an Ip sock puppet of Deonis 2012. You even admit being one above on this very page. Sopher99 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Even User:Lothar von Richthofen has to undo your sock content.  Sopher99 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

But if the information is not fictional and from a reliable source and you delete it, you will not delete it from the fact that I blocked, you just do not like reading the truth that goes against your beliefs. But you would not delete my information if I had written about the victories of opposition fighters. Be a man and admit that at the moment I'm right. I do hope that all of you like a real man type the courage to admit that you delete my comments are not personal affection from me.37.52.27.151 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

But if not, then God will judge. I have nothing more to say.37.52.27.151 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I also blocked 37.52.27.151 for one week for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)