Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive229

User: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker blocked for 24 hours, Jmh649 warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first one is not a revert it is simply moving content around. In fact, Doc James reverted every try I made to reorganize the page. There is already ongoing discussion on the talk page which Doc James is making very difficult, so I wanted to make some unobtrusive reorganization. In fact in the first edit he calls a revert I _ADDED_ references. Do I need to supply links for proof? I can. Doc James immediately reverted each one of my edits - only 3 of my edits were reverts, and they were of HIS reverts to my changes. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally his link to "trying to resolve the dispute" predates any of his diffs of changes, and was a discussion started by ME because he kept reverting my changes. He did not even engage in the discussion he linked to today. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Reporter (User:Jmh649) is throwing a Boomerang:


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

Cheers.TMCk (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the first edit was fixing the concern raised in the edit summary which was surrouding the heading which I agree was not good. The policy supporting its inclusion is at WP:MEDMOS as brought up here were there was support for its conclusions.
 * With respect to my other three reverts. The user in question was rearranging the article against WP:MEDMOS recommendations. Additionally they removed the best available evidence from the lead against WP:LEAD which is this 2012 Cochrane review . This even though consensus on the talk page was against doing so So currently now all the best avaliable evidence has been moved to a section called "contraindications" when really it deals with effectiveness.
 * So yes if the first edit counts as a revert there was only 23:26 minutes between these four edits. Lost track of time. Thus my apologies and I will be more careful. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how rearranging content and adding references can count as a 'revert'. That is really really pushing it. Besides that, my edits actually brought it more in like with WP:MEDMOS, even though I was unaware of it. Now, with my latest edit, it is even more in line with it - the topic headings weren't even in line with the specification previously. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this article after a public notice at WT:MEDICINE, and I haven't been involved in these content disputes brought up here. I note that is personally involved in the content dispute regarding the first of Doc's edits listed (the removal of the content regarding "counterfeit" cough syrup), TMCk reverted it back here, and there are others reverting. There are also active Talk page discussions. Suggest considering applying full protection for a bit as the way to go, as happened recently at Electronic cigarette with a productive outcome. 17:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What is the point of your comment in regards to me??? Yesterday I made 1 single revert and today I changed the title of the section in question. Are you implying that I'm involved in the edit warring as well?TMCk (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * TMCk, my point is that there's more than just two editors involved here: I count--over the last 24 or so hours--five editors involved in reverting article content back and forth across at least two (arguably more) different content areas, and as you state you're one of those involved in doing the reverting.  There are active Talk page discussions, the discussion concerning the content you reverted is here, consider joining it.  The purpose of the 3RRNB isn't to get editors blocked, it's to get editors to stop reverting and start using the Talk page.  It's normal when there's lots of reverting involving multiple editors to full-protect the article instead of handing out multiple blocks, especially when there's evidence of willingness to use the Talk page.  I don't want to see you blocked, I don't want to see anybody blocked, I don't think this is a case where blocks would be productive.  I am just making these comments for the closing admin to consider.   18:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Too much nonsense. You won't see me blocked b/c I do not edit war. And BTW, I suggested article protection for the e-cigarette article instead of blocking 2 editors. So you see, I'm far ahead of you. Cheers.TMCk (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Zad68 I agree with you. You will notice that the discussion on the talk page was started by me, even though Doc James used it for his "attempt to resolve this dispute". My changes to the page, though, were uncontroversial and just reordering and ADDING of references. Rather than look at the changes and discuss them on the talk page, Doc James just blindly reverted them. I agree that things should be discussed on the talk page if there is disagreement but Doc James has persistently ignored consensus and ignored the many people who feel differently on the talk page, simply restating the same nonsense arguments over and over. Because he is on here more than anyone else, he tends to have his way, and others tend to give up. One person disagrees with him, he has his way, they get fed up and leave. Repeat. What you have is a lot of people who disagree with him but who are never on wikipedia at the same time. But that's not an issue to discuss here. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker blocked for 24 hours. I was in the process of reviewing this case, and considering either taking no action (as the immediate, heavy edit warring seemed to have stopped) or perhaps protecting per Zad68's suggestion. However, I then noticed that IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker had resumed reverting. I felt that the best course of action was to block IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker for 24 hours. There has been quite a lot of edit warring on this article, and I think that Jmh649 is probably as culpable as the editor I blocked. However, given that he seemed to have stopped since this report was filed, I have chosen just to issue him with a warning. I do believe that if he reverts again, a block would be in order. I hope this resolves the matter but, if it doesn't, and other parties continue to be heavily involved, then page protection may be the next step. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackHades reported by User:Aprock (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:10, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 582967160 by Aprock (talk) When reverting, I would recommend actually looking up the sources instead of going by pure speculation regarding its content.
 * 2) 23:38, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 583059486 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) Specification discussions regarding race and genetic variation involving Fst is not germane to the topic section?
 * 3) 23:57, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 583060263 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) It carries as much WP:WEIGHT as anything else in that section. A little more care should be taken when deleting relevant content.
 * 4) 03:39, November 24, 2013: Fair enough. The Henry Harpending source however would not be an interview statement so I restored that section. Regarding Aprock's recent tag, source is verified so I removed the tag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:35, June 22, 2013

Other indications that BlackHades is familiar with policy and procedure regarding edit warring.
 * 21:51, June 22, 2013: BlackHades filing an AN3 report for Race and genetics.
 * 20:42, July 18, 2013: BlackHades filing an AE report for Race and genetics.
 * 12:51, August 1, 2013: Warning another user about edit warring.
 * 14:26, November 22, 2013‎: BlackHades demonstrating knowledge of WP:ARBR&I discresionary sanctions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Observation: BlackHades extensive special pleading below indicates that he feels that the bright line of WP:3RR does not apply to him. aprock (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The talk page discussion was not constructive from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprock (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Aprock is completely misrepresenting the situation. These edits are not even related to each other.
 * The 1st edit listed was when I restored a citation that Aprock removed for what seemed invalid based on Aprock's edit summary. Aprock implies in his edit summary that he didn't even bothering looking up the source to check if his speculation is correct or not. This is the one and only revert I ever did on this citation. I then opened up a talk page discussion regarding this citation in which I later clearly stated that I have no intention of restoring this citation.


 * Regarding the 2nd edit, ArtifexMayhem deleted the paragraph on Fst because he thought that the sources were not related to the article of race and genetics. I pointed out to ArtifexMayhem in his talk page that the sources are indeed directly related to race and genetics, in which ArtifexMayhem has yet to respond back to. This is also the one and only revert I ever did regarding the Fst paragraph.


 * Regarding the 3rd & 4th edit, ArtifexMayhem deleted the paragraph on Risch and Harpending. I restored the Risch and Harpending paragraph. This paragraph has been in the article for years without dispute, and based on ArtifexMayhem's reasons for deletion, it didn't appear as though the sources should have any less weight than any other source that currently exists. Maunus then reverted my 3rd edit.. Maunus wrote in his edit summary "interview statements do not carry as much weight as peerreviewed articles and this is way undue". I accepted Maunus' reason for reverting. But Maunus' reason would only apply to Risch. Risch is an interview statement but the Harpending source is not and is a publication in a peer review journal. As Maunus' reason for deletion only applies to the Risch source, I restored Harpending but not Risch. Hence the reason I gave in my edit summary of the 4th edit "Fair enough. The Henry Harpending source however would not be an interview statement so I restored that section."


 * These edits involve 3 completely separate topics that are unrelated to each other. The 1st edit (citation) in which I clearly stated I have no intention of restoring. The 2nd edit (Fst paragraph) in which ArtifexMayhem appear to make an incorrect assessment in which no one else have yet to argue in support of. The 3rd & 4th edits (Risch and Harpending), this is the only one where I made even a 2nd revert and it was a partial one at that. Which should be clearly understandable given the situation. BlackHades (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For the second time; No, I do not "[think] that the sources were not related to the article of race and genetics". Please don't accuse me of being ignorant of the subject matter. You might also want to read the information at the top of this page. E.g., "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel I misinterpreted your reason, I apologize. Regarding the information at the top, if we're talking about going strictly by it, perhaps I did technically go over it but that was by no means intention. It is more difficult to keep track of how many edits you're on when it's involving several different issues and parts of the page rather than if it was on a singular issue. I didn't realize the last edit would put me over 3RR or else I wouldn't have done it. I've been editing for over 4 years and never received a block for 3RR and it wasn't my intent to edit war. I will certainly be more careful and be more mindful on how many edits I've made from hereon. BlackHades (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The reverting seems to have stopped and the parties have been having some discussions on the talk page, so hopefully the presence of this report has cooled things. I will leave the parties a note, pointing at that any further warring (regardless of how few reverts take place) may result in immediate blocks. TigerShark (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Ananiujitha reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Prognosis */ restore huh tag. the version you think is grammatical is incoherent, that's why I asked on the talk page, checked the sources, and rewrote it. then you trashed my perfectly good work."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583225359 by Laser brain (talk) rv reversion. I turned incoherent text into clear text after checking the source."
 * 3)  "/* Prognosis */ clarified, having checked source"
 * 4)  "/* Prognosis */ is this something autistic people lack, or are deprived of...?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 583108129 by SandyGeorgia (talk) rv. very necessary. at present the article is horribly pathologizing and dismissive of the people it's about."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "please stop edit warring now"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The entire article is hateful towards autistic people, and treats our differences as a disease. */"
 * 2)   "Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Autism/Archive 14) (bot"


 * Comments:

This is a new user, who has been warned, and seems to be engaging on the talk page, but, is continuing to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Blurred Lines reported by User:AmericanDad86 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

User BlurredLines has been edit warring against three other editors who disagree with him at The Simpsons article and is also engaging in incivility. These editors are myself, User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda22 as shown in the above. Actually, Blurred Lines was originally just edit warring with WikiAnthony and Grapesoda22. I only got involved because I detected the long barrage of warnings for "disruptive edits" that Blurred Lines had flooded Grapesoda and WikiAnthony's talkpages up with (as shown here, here, here , here ). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody at the article (as shown here at The Simpsons article history ). After being witness to all of Blurred Lines' edit warring and uncalled-for stream of warnings to everyone, I tried to step in as liaison with hopes to resolve the matter. I analyzed the edit in question and determined that I agreed with the two editors, also making sure to provide a source. BlurredLines didn't take kindly to that as shown here in his petulant announcement to wikibreak from Wikipedia instead of discuss the matter maturely with everyone if he had a disagreement (as shown here ). With that, we're all under the impression that the edit is no longer in contention since he's wikebreaking. A day later, I come back to see that Blurred Lines has announced that his "wikibreak" is over (as shown here ) and then reverts the edit that three people have shown disagreement with him on without him seeking consensus (as shown here ). As no one knows when this editor is and is off break, retired or when he's going to hissy fit at editors that don't agree with him, it's tremendously difficult to have a constructive discussion with him to seek consensus. At this point the editor is displaying article ownership and refusing to constructively discuss the matter with three other editors, myself included. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edits that you made were not reliable, as of what I said on the talk page of the Simpsons. No, you did not contact me whatsoever to discuss this issue, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article, but somehow either you ignored it, or you knew about it, and didn't even care to discuss the kind of matter that we are having. Yes, those edits made by those users were disruptive, as WikiAnthony was adding the logo on the article, which in my opinion I think that it's clearly disruptive, as it wasn't inserted in before, and it doesn't even look right in the infobox. There were also edits made my Grapesoda22 that were disruptive, as the user kept adding the adult genre without a source, in which of the fact that you wanted to defend him by adding a non reliable source that was just a search from Google. I made all of these points on the article's talk page, instead of jumping to here, we can all be mature users here, and resolve this matter. Also, how exactly am I refusing to constructively discuss the matter with three other editors, yourself included, hours ago I started a discussion on the talk page of the article, in which I said before, you didn't care to respond to it. Actually, no, I am not "against everybody", the only people I'm against is users who are too disruptive on an article just so they can prove a point, and that means you dude. Also, I did not pass the 3RR those days, as it was pass 24 hours, so obviously this kind of matter should be discuss, instead of speedy reporting.  Blurred   Lines   22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:184.91.62.109 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583306204 by Gamaliel (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Accuracy */ Only opinion with no factual or credible backup."
 * 3)  "/* Accuracy */ disputes the accuracy through Supreme Court Documents.  Also disputes accuracy of the william ayers situation. If needed far more discrepancies can be listed or a separate category can be added. Snopes is bias as well as factcheck."
 * 4)  "/* Accuracy */ statements from the subject about themselves is not an acceptable standard. Snopes has been debunked as far as politics is concerned. There are many more references if needed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Snopes.com. (TW)"
 * 2)   "edit warring at snopes.com"


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


 * Comments:
 * There are three other edits that fall outside of the 24 hr window. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. Edit warring and apparent POV-pushing. The IP has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=583306510 removed well-sourced material] that he seems to have personal disagreement with. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:117.90.241.193 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 2nd damaging vandalising POV by John Blackburn.  Prior to 1997, Hong Kong would have been able to be listed under "country," but after the year 1997 Hong Kong's ownership was transferred from the United Kingdom to China Hong Kong is part of China"
 * 2)  "That GDP is list is also factually incorrect and needs to be corrected as Hong Kong, China, you people are destroying the accuracy of Wikipedia. It is an indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a self-governed city belonging to China, unlike your beliefs!"
 * 3)  "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, but it is NOT a country. The category you guys are trying to list Hong Kong under is "Country" of which Hong Kong does not qualify because Hong Kong is just an autonomous self-governed city of China"
 * 4)  "Reverted damaging inaccurate edits from Baseball Watcher that are laced with false information.  Hong Kong is a city and territory of China. This is official and recognized by the United Nations. To list Hong Kong as a "country" is vandalism and POV"
 * 5)  "Reverted POV pushing by John Blackburn to non-POV version.  Everyone can go google Hong Kong and see the accurate indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (aka. Territory) of the country of China.  Hong Kong is NOT a country!"
 * 6)  "Reverted to correct factual non-pov version from previous POV edits that were pushed by Thomas. W who is trying to push his Hong Kong nationalistic and separatist pov by trying to list Hong Kong as a "country" when it is not. Hong Kong is a city of China!"


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


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


 * There are several users: Thomas W., John Blackburn and Baseball Watcher who are trying to push there Hong Kong separatist POV that Hong Kong is supposed to be a "country" when the indeniable fact is that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, it is officially a city and territory belonging to the mother country of China and as such in order to maintain truthful accuracy and non-POV it is necessary to list Hong Kong under it's mother country of China.  Hong Kong by itself is NOT and has NEVER in it's entire history of existence been a so-called "country" and what these Hong Kong separatists are trying to do is destroying the accuracy of Wikipedia as a repository of truthful information. Please intervene and feel free to read about Hong Kong and confirm for yourself that it is just a SAR of the People's Republic of China and NOT a country. Thanks! 117.90.241.193 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Two points. They all appear to be edit warring. Hong Kong is part of China. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows this is a long-term problem. I don't know why Pending Changes didn't prevent the IP's reverts. But in general I believe Pending Changes is better against drive-by vandalism than for long-term POV pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Zavtek reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This user is a suspected WP:SOCK: Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. This user was also topic banned from all Kosovo related articles. IJA (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * To the person dealing with the issue, I have self-reverted and that is how the article shall remain. Zavtek (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since Zavtek is a sock, a block is inevitable, one way or the other. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * indefinitely at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Thainguyencc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: I also believe the user was also using an IP for this dispute [].
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and my request [] It appears that it is only being objected by one user. Full protection might be needed.

The biggest problem I see is it's being claimed it's a fake map but no improvements are being suggested but the fact that I also believe the reported user was previously the IP complicates matters. I myself am up against the 3rr barrier so I am taking it here.


 * What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The actual issue at hand is a bit dicey. Knowing where to look, one can find the source, but it is poorly explained.  Thainquyencc may be over 3RR, Hell in a Bucket definitely is is at three - there's no way to cast either edit as clear vandalism or anything.  Protection is probably more appropriate than blocks for everyone. Wily D  14:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually reverted 3 times as it appears to be an unsupported change. The 4th edit you see is a revert of a modification to the protection template [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is correct - there's a fourth revert of someone else in the jumble of reverts, HIAB is at three reverts, not four. Wily D 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And [] the changes continue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I replaced by a new map, and added source, not revert.--Thainguyencc (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have stated on the talkpage "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." this is directly from the 3rr policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. It looks like Thainguyencc began the edit war using IP addresses and then continued with his registered account after semiprotection was imposed. It is fair to add up all his reverts when deciding on sanctions. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnamese_language&diff=583381056&oldid=583380637 this edit] he put the words "Kwamikagami's fake image" into the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Aless2899 reported by User:DESiegel (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (entire section is about this one item.

Comments:

Entire issue consists of repeated insertions of File:Status of gay persons.jpg. See talk page and user page reasons given for not using this policy-violating image. DES (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * DESiegel, you did not give Aless2899 a WP:Edit war warning; notifying Aless2899 of this report is not a warning. Aless2899 is a WP:Newbie, obviously; WP:Newbies usually do WP:Edit war until they come to truly understand how this site is supposed to work (and even then some of them carry on with their WP:Edit warring reputation after finally becoming experienced Wikipedia editors). Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough I was perhaps too quick on the trigger, although this talk-page warning came prior to his last revert. But he seems to be engaging on the article talk page now, and not continuing to revent, which is the important thing. DES (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since this new editor was almost certainly not aware of our edit warring policy, I suggest that this be closed with no action. - MrX 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . Based on the above discussion, I'm closing this report as a block would serve no legitimate purpose.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enigmatic666 reported by User:Jianhui67 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583537089 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583535669 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 583534428 by 87.114.254.100 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 583532170 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 583530155 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 583527003 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 583522819 by 146.90.240.199 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I later semi-protected the page for five days due to what appears to be block evasion and/or sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:50.171.11.116 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

So this user seems to refuse to accept the reality of Disney's control and plans for Indiana Jones, which are already well documented in the article (and therefore its inclusion in the template is also warranted). The user constantly reverts any attempts to restore the cited material, using snide edit comments, and blanked outright others' comments on the talk page discussing the matter (see here). The user had previously been warned about edit warring on these same pages in August but blanked them immediately (see here. Clearly not able to collaborate with others or accept consensus or verifiable sources.oknazevad (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Two editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) . This revision was done by anonymous user, however, Shervinsky put his nickname instead of the IP as showed in this diff.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to discuss the issue at the talk page, and suggested to user Shervinsky to prove his statement by providing a reliable reference, but he refused to do so continuing editing war.

--Andrux (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I myself started the discussion but have been involved into an edit war by users who don't even react to arguments by pure claiming they are "not convincing". Please make users participate in the discussion. --Shervinsky (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Shervinsky's contributions in the past have been nothing less than argumentative, uncivil and based on dubious editing practices. I would be more than happy to provide examples of lengthy discourses and attacks on editors rather than content in the past should it be required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "nothing less than argumentative, uncivil and based on dubious editing practices" — WP:NPA detected. HOBOPOCC (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could offer a neutral way in which to define blatantly hostile, POV edit comments such as this one; creating section names on talk pages such as this or this; edit warring by several reverts where citations and translations of non-English citations were noted on a new article he/she created and calling legitimate requests 'vandalism' and 'trivial' and, if you follow the trail, as being violations via harassment and disruptive editing; ingenuous interpretations of established information. The pattern in the choice of articles Shervinsky works on and the attitude which he/she brings to the table can, by no means, be interpreted as isolated instances (they are merely the tip of the iceberg with regards to conduct elsewhere). Would you consider blanking and overwriting existing articles in politically sensitive areas without even attempting to first enter into a discourse on the talk page to be reasonable, good faith, cooperative or civil editing practice? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Shervinsky and User:HOBOPOCC are both blocked 24 hours for warring to deny the Holodomor as a Ukrainian-targeted famine without any talk page consensus for that change. They are also being notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. I'm blocking User:188.104.210.156 for two weeks for abusing multiple accounts since it was used to participate in an edit war at Holodomor. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Two kinds of pork (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Threats are not allowed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583483609 by Two kinds of pork (talk)"
 * 3)  "Her filmography is correct. Please do not attempt to undo it. I don't want to have anymore problems again."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've been through this with him before last week, so it's not like I haven't tried to talk to him already.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This editor apparently doesn't appear to understand that we require sources for all articles, especially for BLPs. Can someone please try and explain this to him? I've notified the BLP board about this article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Being an experienced user for 6 years with BLP issues, I already restored the filmography section and added sources from either side per WP:V and WP:BLP. Just so you know, you are a new user who has edited Wikipedia since June and FilmandTVFan28 has had more experience on Wikipedia and is a competent user. The situation appears to be resolved. I'm sure he understands we require sources for BLP, as I explained to him on my talk page. Can someone please close this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Result: No action. The edit war seems to have stopped. User:AngusWOOF has done a major improvement of the sourcing for Tara Platt's filmography. There could be questions on how to source a filmography that may need to be resolved elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I'm going to leave this open a while longer. The two parties have been edit warring, and others are also entering into the fray. That should stop until a consensus is reached on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:HCPUNXKID (Result: )

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yabrud is rebel controlled,and douma and marj al sultan airport are not besieged."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583590813 by HCPUNXKID (talk),there is no source on douma being besieged ,marj al sultan airport is not besiege ,fighting is reported not in Yabrud ,check the edit history and talk"

I've had given two reliable sources (Bomber kills 15 west of Damascus and Syria regime, foes reject compromise) about that two towns be besieged, as it can be seen on the edit history, but this user seems to ignore it.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol,the second one was my self-revert,and for douma and marj,it was from a Saudi-website making an writing error of besieged,no other source said that douma and marj is besieged ,and for Yabrud I can't find a source confirming Yabrud is contested,no English source confirming Yabrud,also I didn't edit war,the second one was my one time revert,I rarely edit in this article.and he brings up unneutral sources. Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And I am not willing to further argue in this issue,and he can keep it as it is nowAlhanuty (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is still conversations on the talk page about the issue.Alhanuty (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

For the source of Yabrud is a Spanish source that some editors might not be able to read.Alhanuty (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I found no source stating that douma is besieged from all directions by Assad Alhanuty (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And this map proves my argument that douma is not besieged from all directions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(September_2013).svgAlhanuty (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat again,that the map can be left as it is,I have. No intention in reverting his latest editAlhanuty (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

And my second one was my self-revert,no edit warAlhanuty (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you demonstrate that its an editing error or we have simply to believe you? And could you write in columns like me in order to not mess up the discussion, if possible?. And about the claim "I rarely edit in this article", just look at the articles edit history, if you call that "rarely"...As far as I know non-english sources are also allowed. There are for example arabic or french language sources and no one has objected using them...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Like for example,I don't understand Spanish,my second edit was a self-revert,I am not an active editor,no need to go further,and I said I have no intent to push this issue furtherAlhanuty (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the map shows marj al sultan as not besieged,and I want to inform you,that there is a region called al-marj and a city called marj-all sultan and an airport called marj al sultan.,you made the airport besieged without any source.Alhanuty (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ., just about nothing you say above is correct. You reverted twice. You never self-reverted. You don't "rarely" edit the template; you have frequently edited it before. Nevertheless, although not required, you have never been officially notified of the general sanctions (I've done that just now on your talk page), and you claim you'll leave the article alone; hopefully, that one statement is true. That doesn't prevent another admin from taking action, but I'm not. , your report was malformed. Please don't make it harder for administrators to evaluate a report that you file.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

,never meant to edit war,but for Yabrud,like not everybody understands Spanish,and for douma and marj,I showed that map that proves my argument Alhanuty (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also,there is no source that marj-all sultan airport is besieged .Alhanuty (talk) 02:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not everybody understands Arabic, and there were several arabic language sources used in the map or other related articles, so that's not a reason. As I repeat again (how many times do I have to do it?) Douma and Marj are clearly marked as besieged in the two articles I bringed. I put as besieged the only Marj al sultan that is on the map, wich is the air base. Also, differently from other cases (Damascus airport or Aleppo airport, wich are km. away from the cities) the air base you mention is next to the town, there are not even hundreds of meters between the last houses of the town and the base (see Wikimapia), so logically, if the town is besieged, the air base is besieged too. And that all not counting that the sources could refer to the whole Marj al-Sultan region, wich would include at least two more towns as desieged. At least, you dont defend now that sources are unreliable, thats an advance...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Im sorry if my report was malformed, as its perhaps the first time I had to resort to this. , if you can told me where are my errors and teach me the correct manner to do it (wether here or on my talk page), I would be very glad. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:98.200.208.230 reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cancer research */  removed the vandal snipe about not having formal scientific training.  Hollands PhDs was earned not honarary.  He does in fact understand the scientific method."
 * 2)  "Please stop editing this page if you are unfamiliar with the person or subject matter. Edit warring should be avoided"
 * 3)  "/* External links */  added Hollands research website"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 583645898 by Ruby Murray (talk) please stop edit warring and double check your references . You are committing libel. Please use the talk page to suggest further edits"
 * 5)  "/* Cancer research */  please use accurate information holland works with plasma field emissions therapy.  Check the given references."
 * 6)  "/* Cancer research */  Ruby   Murray  10:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 583646723 by Ruby Murray (talk) please use talk page to suggest further edits."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 583646939 by Ruby Murray (talk) PLEASE use the talk page to suggest further edits."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583646723 by Ruby Murray (talk) please use talk page to suggest further edits."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583646939 by Ruby Murray (talk) PLEASE use the talk page to suggest further edits."


 * Diffs of user's reverts from another IP address: and   by Special:Contributions/108.247.104.253, evidently the same editor at another IP.  Ruby   Murray  16:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Seeking qualified unbiased editors */"

I had to ask you multiple times to join me in the talk section then I had to ask you to stick around in the talk section to actually talk about things...and even then you were still revising every edit I made you disapproved of. As I said before, journalist license belongs to journalists. Hollandis not armature and he is not a pro. He just is. If you would remove the emotion from the equation a better understanding might arise. Also you made mention that holland has never passed any science classes. Not one single class. Your words Ruby  Murray. Where did you get this information. Care to cite source on your source/claim that holland has never passed any science classes?
 * Comments:

Also I really dislike the passive aggressive tone and the subtle threats of admin retribution. Please do not do that.98.200.208.230 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I locked the article for five days. Both editors breached WP:3RR, and the discussion on the talk page is mostly between the same two editors, so there is no consensus. I would, however, warn the IP that accusing other editors of lying and libel can result in a block independent of edit warring conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sillsdorust reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Edit warring at Holy Roman Empire:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Edit warring at User talk:IIIraute

Previous version reverted to:


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

Edit warring at User talk:Rschen7754
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Editor edit-warring past WP:3RR to include unsourced, contested material to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 05:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverts 5 and 6 were made after the editor was notified of this discussion, the editor apparently intends to keep edit warring indefinitely.. - Aoidh (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now also blanking the talk page discussion entirely. - Aoidh (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sillsdorust has also accused me of edit warring after I made one reversion of an edit reverted already by others, and has accused me of being a sock. Editor is further taking the discussion to various other talk pages rather than that of the page in question, despite polite requests to discuss in the appropriate forum. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and making further accusations and threats. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Sillsdorust has further changed and reverted comments made by other editors on a talk page multiple times. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillsdorust (talk • contribs) 07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Please check Laszlo Panaflex (talk) sock of IIIraute and Aoidh (talk)--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Frivolously accusing others of sockpuppetry is a personal attack, and does not excuse your excessive and unrelenting edit-warring. - Aoidh (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * it is your excessive and unrelenting edit-warring.--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

accusing others of edit-warring is a personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When there are ample diffs to back up that claim, it is not. Please see WP:NPA. - Aoidh (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * see "the editor apparently intends to keep edit warring indefinitely.. - Aoidh (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)"--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't have to "see" it, it's above your comment, and it's not a personal attack because the diffs back it up. That claim also falls flat given the comment you made before it. You are edit warring far beyond even WP:3RR and have shown no intention to cease. That is not a personal attack, it is verifiable editing behavior. Hopefully this clears up any confusion you may have regarding WP:NPA. - Aoidh (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * accusing others of edit-warring is a personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Laszlo Panaflex (talk) also accused me of edit warring Please check Laszlo Panaflex (talk) sock of IIIraute and Aoidh (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillsdorust (talk • contribs) 07:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:IIIraute reported by User:Sillsdorust (Result: No violation (see related report))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "remove nonsense"
 * 2)  "...yawn"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 583750582 by IIIraute (talk)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 583757419 by IIIraute (talk)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 583750582 by IIIraute (talk)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 583757419 by IIIraute (talk)"


 * Comments:

Per WP:TPO, Editors are permitted to remove comments from their own talk page. Adding a dozen templates to an editor's talk page is not "attempting to resolve dispute", and the "Diffs of edit warring" are your own diffs, not his. His removing your comments from his talk page is an acknowledgement that he has read them, it is not edit warring. However, you restoring the content is edit warring. See also the edit warring report concerning Sillsdorust above this one. - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

 Please check Laszlo Panaflex (talk) sock of IIIraute and Aoidh (talk)--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"remove nonsense" "...yawn" is also a personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...no, but vandalising another editors talk-page with multiple/random warning templates, without any valid reason - that's nonsense that makes me yawn. --IIIraute (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * again personal attack "That's nonsense that makes me yawn."--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

accusations of vandalism--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Panta rhei. --IIIraute (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check Laszlo Panaflex (talk) suspect sock puppetry of IIIraute and Aoidh (talk)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillsdorust (talk • contribs) 07:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check "So tell me what you want, what you really, really want - I'll tell you what I want, what I really, really want....." again personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sillsdorust has now violated WP:3RR on User talk:IIIraute in addition to being at 8RR on Holy Roman Empire and attempting to blank the discussion on Talk:Holy Roman Empire multiple times. - Aoidh (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

the discussion on Talk:Holy Roman Empire is banned--Sillsdorust (talk) 08:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Please check      
 * Aoidh (talk )sock of IIIraute (talk) sock of Laszlo Panaflex

has now violated WP:3RR 6RR on User talk:IIIraute in addition to personal attack in addition to suspect sock puppetry in addition to accusations of vandalism!! in addition to being vandalis     --Sillsdorust (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This has already been explained to you, IIIraute is permitted to remove comments from his own talk page as often as he wants per WP:TPO. That is not edit warring, so accusing him of edit warring because he removed comments from his talk page is inaccurate.  The SPI you opened was deleted by an administrator because it was frivolous and lacked any evidence, so it would be in your best interest to stop making those accusations, because they are baseless.  If you are accusing me of violating 6RR on a given page as it seems you are doing, then provide diffs of that, because you haven't. - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:IIIraute has violated 6RR on User talk:IIIraute suspect sock puppet of Aoidh (talk )--Sillsdorust (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:IIIraute has violated 6RR on User talk:IIIraute

per WP:TPO

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sillsdorust, per WP:TPO: Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. He's allowed to remove your comments from his talk page. In fact, He asked you to stay off his talk page. Respect his wishes, drop the stick, and go edit productively. You won't get anywhere with this report.  Ish dar  ian  09:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * are You sock of IIIraute and Aoidh--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not.  Ish dar  ian  09:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again

per WP:TPO

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again He asked you to stay off his talk page is personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not even close. I suggest you read "What is a personal attack" before making another comment like that again.  Ish dar  ian  09:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again

per WP:NPA He asked you to stay off his talk page is personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse removing a comment completely with moving a comment to change it's meaning, those aren't the same and what you're quoting is not relevant to any of the diffs provided; the editor simply removed your comments, that is more than permitted. Even if you think removing comments is not permitted, that does not excuse your edit warring on the editor's talk page. Also, your use of the term "personal attack" is wildly inconsistent with Wikipedia's definition; in no way is that anywhere close to a personal attack. - Aoidh (talk) 09:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again

per WP:NPA "What is a personal attack"

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:D--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again again again per WP:NPA "What is a personal attack" per WP:NPA "What is a personal attack"

accusing others of edit-warring is a personal attack--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC) per WP:NPA "What is a personal attack"
 * See WP:IDHT. You are edit-warring extensively on multiple pages, evidence has been provided that shows this therefore it is not a personal attack. If it were, this noticeboard would not exist, because every entry would be a personal attack. - Aoidh (talk) 09:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

again

per WP:IDHT

Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with": The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you; see if you can see their side of the debate; and work on finding points of agreement.per WP:IDHT--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

One option to consider in these situations is to stop, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

stop, listen

abuse of multiple accounts is banned--Sillsdorust (talk) 09:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC) banned
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Cobanas reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the reference about the persian ethnicity of al jazari is not credible, the book which you refered to is not about this muslim engineer"
 * 2)  "hi the reference which is offered for his kurdish ethnicity, is saying : he lived in the kurdish habbited area , in the saladin's era ! who was a kurdish , so please do not remove the resourced article"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of referenced information by IPs and user:Cobanas */ bad ref for Kurdish, hardly better one for Persian, lack of Middle Ages biographies about him means we really don't know"


 * Comments:

two earlier reversions as an IP and  Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . Principally because the account is brand new, I've left a note/warning on the user's talk page asking them to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

After being unblocked today, User:Shervinsky is continuing editing war by adding a controversial data to the article. Although the discussion has been started at the talk page, user ignores it.
 * per WP:ARBEE.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Farsheed96 reported by User:115.248.130.148 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:



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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Farsheed96#Edit_warring

Comments:

User Farsheed96 has been warned about disruptive edits and adding un-sourced, inaccurate, promotional and other non-encyclopedic content on previous occasions resulting in a temp-block (and a protective edit lock on some pages). User thankfully seems to have not discovered the revert functionality, resorting to manual reverts by adding/removing the same undesirable content repeatedly despite being warned/his edits being reverted. 115.248.130.148 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Les Etoiles de Ma Vie reported by Bbb23 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:04, 28 November 2013‎ (this is named account before logging in)
 * 2) 00:12, 28 November 2013  (edit summary: "/* Vogue article */ Seriously? What relevance does this Vogue article have? We argued this TO THE BONE and I'm upset that someone (under Bbb2's watch, no less) has resurrected this article on this page. Refer to Talk Page for debate.... yet again.")
 * 3) 00:22, 28 November 2013  (edit summary: "/* Vogue article */  Refer to Talk Page for discussion.")
 * 4) 20:50, 28 November 2013  (edit summary: "Consensus on Talk Page. Due for further discussion.")

Warned:

Discussion on talk page:

The editor is very passionate and stubborn.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am passionate and stubborn, but I believe the same can be said about Bbb23. There is agreement by at least another editor (2 vs. 1) on the talk page of the Asma al-Assad who agrees that the Vogue piece should have limited place on the article. The article, as it stood prior to my edit, was sensationalist at best and a tabloid, at its worst. I would like for a outside mediator to look at the article with objectivity and neutrality, as this is clearly a quality that Bbb23 lacks. Thank you.
 * I must further add that I have expressed yesterday that the talk page should be used, as I told Bbb23 after he issued out a warning last night. However, Bbb23 then proceeded to undue the edits today, alleging supposed "status quo". I am under the notion that Bbb23 assumes he is the "status quo" as another editor, FormerIP, has agreed on the talk page of the Asma al-Assad article that the Vogue article deserves no more than a sentence of a mention. As the article originally was, the Vogue article was given it's own actual section. The Vogue article in question was retracted by the publisher and therefore does not deserve it's own personal section "sensationalizing" the person in question. Again, I would like to request an outside/unbiased set of eyes to have a look at the Asma al-Assad article, as it appears Bbb23 believes he owns the article and can do as he pleases, without reaching consensus on the talk page. I would also like to note that there is an incredible amount of repetitive information (repeated information) in the article. This needs editing, which I am reluctant to do myself, as I am sure Bbb23 will undo such changes as a tyrannic editor . Les Etoiles de Ma Vie (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. This is four reverts in one day. Though Les Etoiles seems to be arguing 'sensationalism' on the Vogue issue, there is no claim that the Vogue material was factually incorrect or defamatory. The four reverts thus are not justified by the BLP exception. The claim that there was consensus to *exclude* the Vogue material can't be verified from the talk page. I take no position on the ultimate value to the article of the Vogue material: it is simply wrong to edit war about it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Thainguyencc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "find source yourself, scammer"
 * 2)  "find source yourself"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 583916344 by Kwamikagami (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 583917988 by Hell in a Bucket (talk)I need page(s)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor has just returned from a block for edit warring that was extended for IP socking and is continuing personal attacks and edit war. Source has been discussed and provided previously. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston if you are able to look at this it would be appreciated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I add, it's normal, Hell in a Bucket and Kwamikagami are bullies--Thainguyencc (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd remind you again to not make personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the editor has changed their mind about edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRaulRomero reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583932803 by STATicVapor (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583926145 by STATicVapor (talk)"
 * 3)  "Correct tracklist"
 * 1)  "Correct tracklist"


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


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


 * Comments:

Continues to revert to their preferred changes after a 3RR warning. Not to mention they keep removing sourced content and replacing it with unsourced content. The user is already reported at WP:AIV for disruptive editing after receiving a final warning, but now they have violated WP:3RR on top of that.  STATic  message me!  19:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked only for a breach of WP:3RR. I have no idea about the content dispute itself, except,, that the blocked user has made edits to other Cyrus song articles that I imagine are consistent with their viewpoint. Somehow this should be straightened out. The best option, at least as a start, would be a discussion with the user about the dispute itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Barney the barney barney reported by User:Alfonzo Green (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Barney has violated 3RR with five edits in a 24 hour period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583962799&oldid=583954786
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583836460&oldid=583833462

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583895829&oldid=583859534

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583912438&oldid=583912061

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=583914473&oldid=583913057

Despite my repeated request, Barney has failed to make a case on the talk page in support of his edits. Here are the relevant threads:

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

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

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


 * Comments:

I myself have made three edits in the same 24 hour period. Two of those, however, involved the same section of the Sheldrake article and were reverted by Barney in a single edit. As the above threads demonstrate, all of my changes were accompanied by talk page discussion. Alfonzo Green (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect to, both of these editors are parties to a ArbCom request that is in the works, and for lack of a better term it appears the AN3 report is a end run of trying to silence a discussion that is in the works. Hasteur (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was vaguely aware that a request had been filed, but I haven't been following the situation very closely. I blocked Btbb because it was a pretty clear 3RR violation that he made today. While he wasn't the only editor engaged in questionable behavior there recently, he did violate the bright-line rule. This block doesn't preclude WP:ARBPSEUDO sanctions against other participants in the Sheldrake dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:78.35.243.205 reported by User:MarcusBritish (Result: Stale)
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:

NB: Warned by myself shortly before this report was made.

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

Comments:

4 reverts within 24-hours, none appropriate to WP:3RR exceptions.  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhny reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583943500 by ThePowerofX (talk) sources say 399.99, as I say on talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 583929335 by The1337gamer (talk) official price actually has the 99c i.e. US$399.99"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See Talk:PlayStation 4


 * Comments:

Is edit-warring inaccurate pricing details into the article based off rounding methods ViperSnake151   Talk  22:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The edits do not appear to have reached the point of an edit war otherwise. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Queen Azshara reported by User:Hasteur (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User recently was blocked for 48 hours for attempting to edit war a picture into a fictional character's biography (see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256 and Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive228. User appears to have sat the block out and attempted to restore the image.  User has not used the Talk page to explain why they believe that the image should be used or to attempt to change the existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC) * It might be better to table this as both the reporter and offender are parties to a current request for Arbitration. Hasteur (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What arb case? I issued the previous block of Queen A. per the original 3RR case. This is an obvious case of self-promotion, since she trying to force inclusion of [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mara_Jade_Skywalker.jpg her own photo or artwork] to the article which already has the official image of the same Star Wars-related character. There is no discussion whatever and there are no edit summaries. It seems logical to issue an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The comment was intended several times for the discussion just below. Somehow the comment gets being moved back to this report. Hasteur (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * indef. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86 reported by User:Blurred Lines (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:







Here are the relevant threads to prove that sources are not context:

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

The user AmericanDad86 is currently edit warring because due to the fact that the user keeps on adding sources that are not reliable, nor they are context. The user has been told times to choose sources that are reviewed by experts, and most of the sources he provides are from Google Books, not from anything that has to do with expert reviewing. Otherwise, the user complains that the sources are reliable, and context, in which I can't tell how that is possible to say that it is without an excuse why. Well, the links that I provided above, the user makes points to the RS noticeboard, that is not helpful, nor a excuse to put in very weak context source on an article. Blurred Lines 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Be aware that you're edit-warring in much of the same lieu as AM86 with regards to this dispute and are not approaching this from a high ground. I would suggest withdrawing this claim and instead allow for your page protection request to be attended to and to allow for consensus to develop on the reliable sources board. This is from the perspective of somebody who is not involved with the dispute, but here to give a third opinion. D arth B otto talk•cont 04:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I recommend that this be closed with a warning to both parties not to continue to revert the article until a consensus has been found on the article talk page. Both parties should also be warned not to remove any sources from the article until agreement is reached. (Blurred Lines has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Simpsons&diff=prev&oldid=583990032 removing] AmericanDad86's sources that he was trying to use to justify the 'adult' description). I don't see a case for full protection when this is really just a fight between two editors. Neither party has been behaving well. It's a traveling circus involving multiple noticeboards and lots of rhetoric. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You are both edit warring, even if it is a slow-motion edit war, and in fact, was just off a previous block for edit warring on this very same article. STOP IT. Really. Take it to some form of dispute resolution if the talk page discussion doesn't resolve things. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:83.29.181.170 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583997471 by Editor2020 (talk)The source is RS, no matter if you like it or not."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 584048857 by C.Fred (talk) It stays here, opinions of those who haven't read it are irrelevant."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Discuss to reach consensus; don't edit war */ same as 83.4.156.158"


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


 * Comments:

This is also with reverts at 17:13, 30 November 2013‎  and  30 November 2013‎ Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This edit has been reverted now by 3 editors (me being one) with a 4th at WP:RSN saying it is not a RS. The IP has responded there with insults. Thinking about it more, the article needs semi-protection given the changing IP address. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've semi-protected the article for four days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:99.236.215.170 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kwamikagami&oldid=584081130 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.215.170 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments: The user continually reverts edits made in good faith. Three reverts and messages to "refer to talk" where the IP (reported) was the only one making any arguments, including the first, on the talk page. Three reverts of good faith edits is beyond the pale


 * The purpose of editing WP is to improve the articles, not to soothe our editors. Good faith only means they are not a vandal: It does not mean the edits are appropriate.  We have discussed the issue, several times, and they seem immune to reason.  This argument is typical:  Claiming I did not participate in the discussion when anyone can see I did.  Their reading of their source is similarly divorced from reality, but regardless it's up to the person proposing the change to convince the rest of us. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . and, both of you have edit warred, and both of you have discussed the content issue on the talk page, although without resolution. The next step is dispute resolution. Continuing to revert may result in block(s).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MagicKirin11 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "accurate description"
 * 2)  "more accurate"
 * 3)  "reverted Good faith edit"
 * 4)  "Restoring a vandalization"
 * 5)  "made description NPOV"
 * 6)  "NPOV is one can not criticize it, one can not compliment it"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned several times: 00:50, 1 December, by Irn, 22:34, 1 December, by Jack Greenmaven, 05:50, 2 December, by Wtmitchell RolandR (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Like Sean this person has a political agenda. This is another attempt from people who are biased against Jews to silence a poster.MagicKirin11 (talk) 11:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a political agenda and Roland is Jewish. This is about you not being able to follow simple rules.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also this editor's BLP-breaching edit warring at Talk:Omar Barghouti: "Neutrality", "Editing another removal from Sean Hoyland", "Correcting editing abuse from Sean Hoyland", "Correcting Sean Hoyland's vandalism". These articles are all covered by the WP:ARBPIA 1RR restriction. And this editor's practice of constantly editing articles to describe critics of Israel as "antisemites", and to throw the same baseless accusation against editors here, is in breach of several Wikipedia policies. RolandR (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's already a thread at ANI about this editor, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, but it doesn't seem to be getting admin attention.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've indeffed the user. I explained at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ruby Murray reported by 98.200.208.230 (Result: Stale)
Page: User being reported:

Forgive me, I am using an iPad and it is.very difficult for me. This page has glitches on me several times so now I will explain Myself as fast as I can. Click the history on the Souter page and you'll see Ruby Murray has been engaging in some edit warring for months! And seriously frivolous editing. He is abusing his target. Forgive me for not sharing the links proper, I've already lost this page several times trying to do just That.

This is not retaliation or anything like that. I am just trying to report on a misguided editor who frequently engages in this kind of Misguided behavior. Sir Brian Souter page. Check recent history, the edits are legion with some pretty flimsy erroneous edits.

Again my apologies for the technical difficulties of not filling out this form as intended.


 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * . And please log in when you edit here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Simple bright-line breach of 3RR, against two other editors.

Note that this is not a copyvio (or BLP) or some other such clear-cut excuse that might justify ignoring 3RR. It is a removal of images of a living artist's artwork from their bio. This is a matter of opinion between editors acting in assumed good faith. We discuss such matters through talk: and there is also WP:NFCR. We do not edit war to bully one opinion over others.

The justification for removing these appears to be, "The article is about the artist not the works" Yet our clear practice is that we consider images of artworks to be of relevance when discussing a visual artist and their works.

Werieth is an account who removes NFCC-labelled media from articles. He also makes meta-edits defending such removals. He makes a great many such removals. He does not appear to make any other types of edit, other than these NFC removals. An editing rate for a relatively new account (34k since 2012) with such a narrow focus that has led to suggestions that he is the infamously banned.

Werieth's editing style is highly aggressive. He issues stern warnings "Do not re-add", he templates widely and inaccurately (reverting Werieth is not "uploading an image", no matter how much it obviously offends him) and he also threatens other editors with topic bans. Past warnings for edit warring on just this issue are here: There's a lot of WP:BITE at User_talk:Chriscs26, where a new editor and creator has been slapped with final warning templates on this article and an article they'd just created at Ian Scott (artist) to such a point that we're almost free of this pesky new editor already.

Werieth does not attempt to ever fix anything, no matter how trivial. Nor does he see a trivial paperwork glitch as being a reason to stop his removals. Here we have " one does not have a rationale" – it does, but not formatted with a template. A constructive editor would simply do the formatting work, but Werieth instead favours deleting the image. I first encountered this editoor recently at Tweenies (see Wikipedia:Non-free_content review/Archive 38) where they removed a set of character images because only a composite image would be acceptable. Again, a constructive editor would see this as a need to provide just such a composite image – but not Werieth, he just does deletions.

Other relevant talks:
 * User_talk:Werieth
 * User_talk:Werieth

This (in the scope of ANEW) is just bright-line 3RR, something to which Werieth is still subject.


 * I will note that Werieth has been warned about editing warning over subjective application of NFCC, which this is (I do believe his removals are correct but that's a subjective call and not an exception under 3RR). It is very difficult to support Werieth if he does not bring these to WP:NFCR where better discussion can be made (and he's done this with other pages). --M ASEM (t) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth has already been blocked for edit warring (a remarkable 18RR at Arts_on_the_Line), and I don't know how many other warnings there have been before or since. From his attitude towards other editors though, clearly such rules only apply to the little people and he's here to right some greater wrong instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That block was immediately removed (about 15 min later) because the remove was objective - no non-free images in tables is policy. This is far different because it is subjective, and if you go through the logs here as well as at ANI, there's plenty of times Werieth has been cautioned about unilaterally applying NFC and edit warring on the subjective criteria. --M ASEM (t) 03:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Seriously? these personal attacks need to stop. I am not the user you accuse me of being (With zero evidence and in fact quite a bit of counter evidence, Ive uploaded 200 non-free files) Andy is just attacking me because he doesnt like the fact that I removed files from his pet article a few weeks back. Please see WP:NFCC and WP:3RRNO File:Jeff Wall Mimic.jpg doesnt have a rationale for that article. Werieth (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS the warning that I use is a standard warning (Uw-nonfree) which states However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy (my bolding) which is 100% accurate, If andy fails to actually read the notice its not my fault. Werieth (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a new user, who is merely attempting to contribute some articles of quality (and has begun to & intends to improve many of the articles on New Zealand artists which are sorely lacking) I found Werieth's attitude extremely rude and offputting, to the point I am considering withdrawing work and quitting wikipedia. Whether or not English is his first language I do not know, but all I have to go by is WP:NFCC, and I honestly, as a professional writer, cannot for the life of me see how the images I used do not meet those guidelines.
 * That he makes comments here User_talk:Werieth such as "The article is about the artist not the works" & (the images)"can and is fairly easily replaced with plain text" makes me wonder, what possible interest he could have in editing articles about art, if he is so uninterested/clueless about art, and oblivious to the fact that when talking about art, visual examples (at least a few) are always be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscs26 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Andy's evaluation of Werieth is spot on. Werieth is fairly much a uni-dimensional editor: he doesn't create, write or improve articles, all he really does is delete images, and when he's challenged he gets upset, since his sole Wiki-shtick is under apparent attack, so he responds in ways such as this: edit-warring.  The problem is that removal of images is a simple thing when the violation of NFCC policy is straight-forward and objectively obvious, but when it comes to a subjective evaluation of the purpose and function of images within an article, Werieth is, as pointed out in several noticeboard discussions, rather a disaster.  He should really keep away from those instances, or, better yet, find some other, more productive, function to fill here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with both Andy and Ken; Werieth's behavior toward art appears to be clueless - images need to be seen and accompanied by text and context as well as fair use rationale's they need to be left alone. The other day he removed all the sculptural imagery from the Alberto Giacometti article; one of the most important sculptors of the 20th century...Modernist (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Modernist, We didnt need all 8 non-free files in that article. It was a clear case of over use. Just because the art section of wikipedia is heavy in non-free material doesnt mean that they are correct. A limited example set is sufficient in most cases. I have not been targeting articles with just a few examples, I have been focusing on those articles with 5+ non-free files, in a lot of cases they just are not needed, or can be link to the article about the work. Werieth (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not discuss that on the talk page - rather then just deleting the imagery. In several cases I agree with you that the imagery can be pared down and those used accompanied by relevant text...Modernist (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In a lot of cases I do, I take it to NFCR, where both sides can discuss it. Werieth (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "a clear case of over use"
 * So what about Cinematic style of Abbas Kiarostami, a GA bio on a cinematographer and film director where in one undiscussed edit you removed all of the images? This is an article that has reached GA, and by implication a review of it by a large number of eyeballs. Yet again though, Werieth's single-purpose editing overrides all other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want me to break down every file I can, however this isnt the place to do it. GA process doesnt fully review NFCC issues. Werieth (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And you're already edit-warring on that article too. No attempt at discussion, just steamroller editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given your incompetent understanding of NFCC, and blind reverting my removal it was warranted. If you want to discuss the removals I will, but this isnt the place to do so. 16:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's "incompetent", I think you will find.
 * You haven't discussed this on either article talk page (you're already edit-warring similarly on the related article 10 on Ten), or where it's raised at NFCR. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You just opened the NFCR seconds before posting here, to which I have posted a fairly detailed rationale for removal. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet there was plenty of time for you to revert me first. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is WP:ANEW, not WP:NFCR. We shouldn't digress into whether you think Giacometti is an important artist or not, or whether bio articles on visual artists warrant illustrations of their artworks. This is about your edit warring and your bright-line breach of 3RR, nothing more.
 * Your edit history is single-issue and you are prepared to use bullying and edit-warring until you get your way, no matter what other editors think. OK, so at Giacometti you only had to go to 2RR before you won, but that's still edit-warring. Edit-warring is toxic: it is a powerful tool for the use of editors who don't give a damn about policy or other editors, which is exactly how you keep using it. Other editors aren't being won over to your position by the strength of your logical argument, they're merely less prepared to breach WP:EW than you are.
 * The more you do this (and the chronology of when you started doing it), the more I think that you really are Betacommand returned. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to stop with the baseless personal attacks, I am not Betacommmand, from what I have read they wouldnt ever upload non-free media because they where so pro-free content. I have and will continue to upload non-free media. I have already uploaded 200 or so files, and will continue to do so. This is your final warning if you continue to make personal attacks I will request an interaction ban. Werieth (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "baseless personal attacks"? 3RR:  - Why do you think it doesn't apply to you? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * False accusations of socking and ban evasion are personal attacks. Please actually read what I type. Werieth (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment: concerns about socking should be raised at WP:SPI. This is the wrong forum for that kind of thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no hard evidence for any socking, but the 3RR is clear-cut and should be addressed. There are behavioural issues here that belong at AN or RFC/U too. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I know I've said this about Werieth before but it is critical: you get one free (via BRD) removal of images from an article on an NFCC#3/#8 claim, both which are subjective. If as such that edit is reverted, the only appropriate next step is to open discussion, either on the talk page of the article in question or at NFCR (set up explicitly to invite broader discussion). 3RR does not excempt the enforcement of the subjective measures of NFCC, only the objective ones (like where clear free replacement is possible, #10c, or NFLISTS). Any other time, you're edit warring to enforce your opinion about NFCC. --M ASEM  (t) 17:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . Werieth has been the subject of edit wars, as well as reports to other noticeboards, regarding images over and over again. They have been warned on this board at least twice: and . If another administrator wants to unblock Werieth, they may do so without consulting with me, but from my perspective, enough is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to address something that may be beyond the scope of this discussion, but I'm going to go ahead anyway. I think it would be damn shame if User:Chriscs26 leaves Wikipedia because of this. He seems a very promising (and bold) editor, and Chris, if you're reading this, it's just bad luck that you ran into an editor like Werieth so early in your Wikipedia career. I've been here 7 years, and a good 90% of the editors I've worked with are pleasant, genial people willing to discuss matters and simply work to improve Wikipedia. Even users with whom I've had disagreements, I've become friends with after the fact. I don't doubt for one second that Werieth thinks he's doing good, but as everyone has pointed out above, it's the way he goes about it. Threatening you with a block was absurd behavior. I'm sure Andy and the others involved with this discussion would agree with me that you've been unfortunate to get such harsh treatment, and advise you to chalk it down to experience and continue editing. Bertaut (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:119.67.234.78 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 583681885 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 584310140 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 3)  "this page contains about "Labour rights" in this planet. not only in us. so no reason to strain using us type spellings.  by DavidLeighEllis (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Labor rights. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned about language changes and 3RR, continues to revert &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  17:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC) User continues to revert other editors, leaving this message: "see ILO, ITUC sites how to use the word word "labour or labor" and no matter for WP:ENGVAR guidelines. so don't strain using us type spellings. just read WP:ENGVAR"-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  20:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Roccodrift (Result:No action; user self reverted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User MilesMoney has been slow motion edit-warring on this article since November 22, mostly with editors other than myself.

Concerning the most recent dispute... After 24 hours of Talk discussion involving several other editors, in which he has failed to convince others of his views, he has falsely and WP:TENDENTIOUS-ly claimed consensus and logged his 4th revert in just over 30 hours, all within the same article section. I suspect he thinks he is safe from AN3, but that's only true if he is allowed to get away with this obvious WP:GAME. Roccodrift (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Noting in particular, the edit summary in #4 "conforming to consensus" is less than accurate. – S. Rich (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)03:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * MilesMoney has self-reverted: . I don't think we need to continue this noticeboard discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The situation is resolved. Roccodrift (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Per above clarification.  Wifione  Message 04:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tokyo2001 reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

While not formally violating the 3 RR (he has reverted 3 times within 24 hours in a number of articles), it is clearly a single purpose account created for mindless edit warring against established consensus in a number of articles. Edits consist only of reverting against a number of editors,.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (a request at user talk page)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably the same person is now continuing the edit war as . There is a good chance that this user is permbanned . -- Sander Säde 09:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Nubia123 (Result: No violation)

 * 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:

A group of users have been consistently and collaboratively undoing user edits and contributions to the article in favor of the material they seem to have authored. These undo (or reversion) activities are conducted by the group in a spam-style manner. As soon as I make a contribution, the material gets reverted back within only a few minutes. I tried to contribute a number of times, but in vain. One user of the group placed a 3RR warning on my Talk page today, while another reported me on the Administrators' noticeboard for nothing other than attempting to contribute.

Also, the material imposed by this group, who basically have no tolerance for other user contributions, is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. Their material is concerned with Egyptian history with very little, or no connection, to the history of the Kushite kingdom.

I find the activities of this group to be strongly abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia. This group of users include, , , and. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs)


 * Do explain why their edits are "abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia" and yours are not. People who add content to Wikipedia don't get any special permission over those who remove. There is a talk page for that article that I notice you have not touched for the duration of this edit war. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a single group of users collaborating to prevent individual users from contributing with any alternative material, that is why their behavior is abusive to the collaborative and intellectually free nature of Wikipedia. The group uses a single set of material. And like I said, the material forced by this group is essentially irrelevant to the subject of the article. It appears that the group is made up of online commercial advertisers for tourism in Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nubia123 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Nubia123


 * You think that your edit warring is OK because multiple editors disagree with you? Do you have any evidence that these editors are "commercial advertisers for Egyptian tourism" or are you pulling that out of your ass? Read Edit warring and tell me if there is an exception to edit warring for "content that Nubia123 really really thinks belongs in an article". I'm going to be very blunt here (as I have been already): You have been an editor on Wikipedia for five years, you are expected to follow the same rules as everyone else, and when people disagree with you you are supposed to follow the instructions at dispute resolution. Several editors all disagreeing with you is not a conspiracy, it is a consensus. When someone reverts your edit, your first course of action should not be to revert revert revert, accuse them of bad faith, and try to get them blocked. Your first course of action should be to contact that editor and try to understand why they disagree with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Nubia123 decided that to counter multiple editors he/she needed multiple accounts, with the usual result. Lucky to get away with a 72 hour block. Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Torugames12 reported by User:ThomasO1989 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Comments: User is repeatedly aadding unsourced information to the article. The IP in the first diff is the same user.


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ostalocutanje reported by User:Firstlensman (Result: Stale)
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:

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

 

Comments:

This page is for strictly Symphonic Prog artists. This user has been pushing a Space Rock (Tako) act, who've only had 2 albums, and a Crossover Prog act (Galija), who have NO recognition outside Yugoslavia. Before I rewrote this page it had entries for bands like KISS that happened to use a symphony orchestra on one album. Firstlensman (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been adding these two bands, but with reliable sources which say that these bands were symphonic rock acts. The source for Tako is Petar Janjatović's Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, the most extensive work about Yugoslav rock music, I could have found more sources but I believed Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija was enough. The sources for Galija include an interview with Galija member Predrag Milosavljević, a 1980 review of their second studio album Druga plovida, and a text from Popboks magazine. Galija is not more or less recognized abroad than any other band mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section; besides Yugoslavia, Galija saw some popularity in Eastern Europe and some attention by progressive music fans around the world. The band Tako did release only two albums, but so did The Stone Roses or Joy Division (of course, I'm not comparing the impact of Tako to these bands). Besides, the band Opus, also mentioned in the "Yugoslavia" section has released only one album, but Firstlensman doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Ostalocutanje (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Could you post an excerpt from your source translated into English? If it says things like "This band SOUNDS symphonic" doesn't automatically make it acceptable on this page. As I posted on the Talk page:


 * Sounding symphonic is not an automatic include. We are covering a subset of Progressive Rock called Symphonic Prog. For instance, Queen and Styx are not represented here because they are considered Crossover Prog bands at best. Some of their output definitely sounds symphonic. The Neo-Progressive bands are just mentioned in passing because the Neo-Progressive movement was basically a bridge between the classic era and the new era of Symphonic Prog. But no write-ups for Neo-Progressive bands appear here. A lot of the Neo-Progressive bands definitely sounded symphonic. In both cases, the bands did not achieve the other requirements for being a Symphonic Prog band. I would recommend that Crossover Prog and Space Rock pages be developed for the bands listed above. Firstlensman (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not want to completely wipe out the Yugoslavia section of this page. Opus is a Symphonic Prog band despite only putting out one album. I did an entry for Harmonium that had only one album because it is a highly regarded Symphonic Prog work. Tako was formed from the ashes when Opus broke up. But, between the two, it's like comparing Transatlantic to Flying Colors. The only other Symphonic Prog bands that I can verify are Laza I Ipe and Zeljko Bebek (and Podium). The rest belong on other sub-genre pages. Firstlensman (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the excerpts:


 * For Tako: "Symphonic rock-oriented band Tako was formed in 1975" (EX YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, page 223); "In long, mostly instrumental tracks they offered their vision of symphonic rock with jazz elements." (EX YU Rock Enciklopedija 1960-2006, about their debut album Tako, page 223)


 * For Galija: "In the beginning, Galija was symphonic rock, and later sailed to pop rock waters." (Predrag Milosavljević in an interview, http://aleksandararezina.blogspot.com/2010/10/galija-nasljednici-kneza-mihaila.html#more); "Symphonic rock which insists on technical virtuosity, which was reduced here to a level of naive interlude of the instruments...", "...the band's failure to lyrically fit into symphonic rock concept, which, by deafult, says nothing - because it doesn't have anything to say." (Petar Luković's review originally published in Džuboks in 1980, http://www.e-novine.com/mobile/entertainment/entertainment-tema/32314-Srebrna-galija-bez-krila.html, one should probably bare in mind that the review was unfavorable, published in, at the time, mostly New Wave-oriented magazine); "Galija not only decided to play that symphonic rock at the time when in the West it was already a subject of jokes..." (Uroš Smiljanić, "Dabogda crko rokenrol!", http://www.e-novine.com/index.php?news=21784)


 * - however, I'd like to remind both of you that edit warring is not acceptable even if sources are being provided. If your contributions are reverted, start a discussion - don't re-add the material. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Nubia123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked elsewhere)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Name */"
 * 2)  "/* Origins */"
 * 3)  "/* Origins */"
 * 4)  "/* 25th Dynasty of Egypt */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

warned by another editor at - before their last revert Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note, Nubia123's last diff above is not an actual revert or edit warring, and he/she has not edit warred the revert again since I warned them, so there is still some room for benefit of the doubt, unless they revert again... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd call it the least of his pov changes in other people's text. Technically a revert but perhaps there is still some room for doubt. His edits appeared to be aimed at removing almost every mention of Egypt from the article. I'm going to restore a bit more of his deletions. Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTE: A brand new account, has just surfaced making the identical edits, which looks like 3RR evasion to me... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't close my own report, but this can be closed now as Nubia123 is now blocked for 72 hours for sock puppetry. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Sephiroth storm (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I added an entry to the AFOSI article reguarding an event that recently came to light. NightShift has reverted 3 times, violating the policy. I have attempted to get him to converse on the subject prior to his 3rd revert but he waited until breaking 3rr before posting on the talk page. I ask that NightShift be warned and an uninvolved editor review the situation to see if my edits are in line with Wikipedia policies and procedures, and encurage NightShift to engage in dispute resolution rather than a revert war. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently the editor doesn't understand what Warning he should be talking about. There was no 3RR warning, there was a notification of this complaint. Second, there were 3 reverts. He apparently thinks that a 3rd one is a violation. Lastly, check the times. I responded on the talk page before I reverted. He may pretend otherwise, but this editor hasn't really done much talking. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, quibbling about whether or not you were warned properly is straight-up wikilawyering. You don't need an edit war warning, Nightshift36, because you've been repeatedly blocked for it in the past, so you already know it's incorrect behavior. As for 3RR, you should also know that it doesn't take 4 reverts to be an edit war anyway. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nightsift is correct that he only reverted 3 times, my claim of 3rris incorrect, which I admit with no issue, however, this was still under the purview of this noticeboard, which is used to report edit warring which can occur without 3rr being broken. My request stands, that an Nightshift be warned and that he enter into mediation. While I had no intention of mentioning this, Nightshifts tone indicates he has no intent to be civil, therefore I must also report that Nightshift may also have a conflict of interest. details are on his talk page if he has not removed them (He has. Nightshift has a logo on his talk page which identifies him as a member or former member of the US Army's Criminal Investigation Division a Federal Law Enforcement Agency similar to the one in question. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your request for mediation is premature. Again you make your baseless and uncivil allegation of a COI. There were no "details" on my talk page. There was a template and some trolling. Yes, that has been removed. Army CID is "similar", so that's your whole case for a COI? Well there is a COI noticeboard. Please, feel free to take that to the board and I'll listen for the laughter. And BTW, it's fairly uncivil to repeatedly spell an editors name incorrectly. Once or a typo is one thing. Repeated is either incivility or gross inattention to details. You can pick which applies. BTW, the complainer complainant states a lack of respect for the Army CID. I wonder how much of that plays into his decision regarding his actions towards me and my edits.Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sephiroth storm, please avoid allegations of conflict-of-interest unless you have some form of direct evidence. Many editors find such allegations offensive if not true, and persistent allegations can be considered personal attacks. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - Niteshift36 for 48 hours due to prior history, Sephiroth storm for 24 hours. See comments inline above - you have both misbehaved in this encounter. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:HCPUNXKID reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (23:59, 3 December)
 * 2)  (23:42, 2 December)
 * 3)  (23:01, 1 December)
 * 4)  (19:42, 30 November)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

While HCPUNXKID is technically not currently in violation of the 1RR restriction on the page (by a matter of less than 20 minutes), this is blatantly edit warring. He even openly stated in a self-revert (23:31, 1 December) after I warned him of the 1RR that he intended to simply circumvent the 24-hour technicality instead of finding stronger sourcing to support his change.

Given his stated intent to push a POV and his generally hostile manner of interaction, this should be seen as part of a larger pattern of problematic editing in a highly contentious topic area. It's natural that people will lose their temper at times in such an environment (I'm certainly guilty), but there is a limit of acceptability. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reading your link to his supposed "stated intent", it reads as if he doesn't agree with your characterization of his edits or intent. 02:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, should've given relevant context. I reverted an edit of his in which he sought to prevent a town shown as government-controlled being changed to contested. My "interpretation" that he talks about is not of his actions, but of sources. He seems to have taken that as a challenge. In any case, I'm not sure how you can talk about him disagreeing with any "characterisations" that I would have made to provoke that response without showing me where I made them first. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . I find this behavior extremely telling.  You know about the rule and simply decide to work around it, instead of understanding the point -- which is to require discussion instead of disruption.  Given your previous record of edit warring, I have blocked you for 1 week, during which time you are welcome to appeal if you can convince another admin that you will refrain from further disruption. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:75.157.19.124 reported by User:Kokot.kokotisko (Result: both blocked, 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:

The edits of user User:75.157.19.124 contain personal opinions and are worded so as to disparage Feathercoin and its creator. The edit comments contain emotional ad hominem statements.


 * . Also protected due to possible sockpuppetry exacerbating the dispute. You are both edit warring and (in my opinion) POV-pushing. Neither version of the article is neutral; I strongly suggest opening a talk page discussion or DRN thread. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:86.154.204.73 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: protected and blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Dispute resolution noticeboard; User talk:DrKiernan. Previous talk page discussion from some years ago at Talk:Wallis Simpson.

Comments:


 * by another admin, . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Asiaten-Kenner reported by IIIraute (talk) (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:12,  3 December 2013  (edit summary: "after discussion in de.wiki: there is no national motto; no gov page cited; and it is not a shame that Germany has no national motto")
 * 2) 17:28,  3 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 584391302 by IIIraute (talk) no citation for that")
 * 3) 17:35,  3 December 2013  (edit summary: "there is no national motto, hard to understand? don't spread lies to the world")
 * 4) 17:41,  3 December 2013  (edit summary: "so you confirmed, there is no national motto")
 * 5) 03:15,  4 December 2013  (edit summary: "non sense and no consensus")
 * 6) 12:49,  4 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 584508697 by Horst-schlaemma (talk) simply no consensus in the discussion page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments: The user continually reverts long-standing, sourced content without having reached consensus on the talk page.

--IIIraute (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - 3RR violation followed by another revert the following day. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:66.176.74.117 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:AOnline (Result: sanctioned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Comments:

It's not his first action. He already warned by User:Bbb23 few weeks ago. I also tried to warn him several times but seems like he doesn't have intention to stop. AOnline (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * for bright-line rule violation. Furthermore, under the Syrian Civil War general sanctions, is officially topic banned from any pages relating to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks effective immediately. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Ariskar (Result: duplicate)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [changed to previous version according to POV, no source provided, rude comments]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (1RR Article)Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user Sopher99 was warned for edit warring and 1RR violations on: 18 September 2013 and was blocked temporarily on 11 October 2013. He provides rude and insulting comments on editing. Promotes POV over direct objective source editing. Violated 1RR on the specific article tens of times over the last 2 months. There is a WP:CONSENSUS case on the talk page that he should be banned/blocked from the article Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This report is the result of multiple repeated 1RR violations and article vandalism by the user and not only the case presented.Ariskar (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - this was already reported above and has been resolved. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rauzaruku reported by User:Legionarius (Result: both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Content dispute getting out of hand. Active RFC here

Legionarius (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This user is doing pure vandalism since I've started to edit Arena Corinthians, "his" article. He is erasing all my contributions, and all my sources, claiming, without foundation, that all sources are unreliable and that everything is speculation, when it's a lie: I've related very reliable sources, very important personal statements and documented facts, but he insists to say that nothing serves to "his" article. And now he says that "we need a consensus" but his consensus is: erase all what I've did and block me. Do a favor for Wikipedia and block this guy. Rauzaruku (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Michael Reed 1975 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and edit summary here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Michael Reed 1975 continues to insert content from a book he has written despite being reverted by multiple editors and a consensus not yet being reached on the talk page. Bahooka (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - 5 reverts on this page within 24 hour period. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiril Simeonovski reported by User:Taivo (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * previous warning which resulted in block
 * current warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reported editor persistently edits against consensus and the principles of WP:BRD. Instead of being bold, getting reverted, and then building a consensus before editing again, he edits, gets reverted, then edits again insisting that his edit remain in place until he is proven wrong. The reported editor should be severely restricted from editing in Balkan-related subjects per existing sanctions and administrator discretion. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't show me where, when and by whom the consensus was reached. All the time you were trying to wave a non-existing consensus even though I made a thorough examination of the archived threads on the discussion page. Please provide link to that discussion and I will voluntarily agree to be blocked indefinetely. Else, it's highly inappropriate to use words of mouth and insinuations against me to illustrate your point. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia process is crystal clear, Kiril, in WP:BRD. You make an edit.  Then if someone reverts your edit you go to the Talk Page and build a consensus for your edit.  If you can build a consensus, then you make your edit again.  If you cannot build a consensus, then you leave the article alone.  You have violated that process repeatedly by continuing to make your edit even after you have been reverted by multiple editors.  You have not built a consensus for your edit and simply keep insisting that we prove you wrong before you will leave the article alone.  We don't have to prove you wrong.  You have to build a consensus before your edit stands.  It's a simple process, but you have violated the process over and over and over again.  --Taivo (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User was previously blocked in October. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: Blocked for 12 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restore the sources after vandalise"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Read the countries (copied from my talk page)--Tco03displays (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) */"
 * 2)   "/* Read the countries (copied from my talk page)--Tco03displays (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC) */"
 * 3)   "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"
 * 5)   "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"
 * 6)   "/* Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources */"


 * Comments:

User ignores rules on primary sources and adds information that is not supported by sources. User has been informed repeatedly why this should be avoided. User also exaggerates intentionally reactions on this event; based on unreliable sources, while s/he had vandalized Murder of Pavlos Fyssas and the information added there in regards to reactions that are based on secondary sources. The two events are interlinked politically, and I suspect that the user is trying to promote propaganda/misinformation for political purposes. Please refer to Talk:Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office and Talk:Murder of Pavlos Fyssas. I have tried to avoid reporting all these days by talking to him/her on his talkpage, on my talkpage and on the relavent articles talkpages. S/he keeps ignoring me and I cannot find a response that can form a basis for co-operation. The reason I have reported so few edits by the user is because the article has been moved repeatedly the last few days to different named pages. The problem however has been going on from the first day. Tco03displays (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comments: The user has again reverted my edit. I will not edit it again until a response is given here to avoid an edit war over the article. The article has also been suggested for merging with Terrorism in Greece and discussion is undergoing in the talkpage. The majority of editors has expressed a view in favor of merging and a possible consensus might be reached in the following days. Maybe it would be wise for the page to be protected until a decision on merging is reached, to avoid further edit wars and edits with political implications in them by unknown or newly created users. Please refer to the talk pages mentioned above in order to further understand the political implications of the article and the edits that have been going on. I believe this is a serious issue, because non-Greek speakers do not have up to date information on Greek politics of the far right, making Wikipedia an important source of information - this is precisely why Wikipedia can be exploited by people with political motives to affect the views of people outside Grrece on the Golden Dawn party and its international and local support. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User had been warned before the last edit as well: User_talk:Katcheic--Tco03displays (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given the failure to engage in discussion even after the talk page warnings and the second being created on the talk page. There seem to be be a few interested users on the talk page, so I hope that they will contribute to the discussion about the content in question. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:4401:7F01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F reported by User:Shudde (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The anon has repeatedly removed sourced information from the article. Has been warned to resist edit warring, and two messages have been left on their talk page but has continued doing so over a 36-hour period. A discussion was started at Talk:Rugby union regarding the edits, but the user has simply dismissed the discussion and continued removing content. A clear consensus has been reached that the material is sourced, verifiable, and uncontroversial, and therefore should remain. Despite this the removal of content and edit warring has continued. I'd prefer a block than to semi-protect the page as the user does not seem to be IP hopping. – Shudde  talk 08:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * clear violation of the 3 revert rule. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:Blue Duck T (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:34, 1 Dec edit summary: Undid revision 583945526
 * 2)  08:00, 2 December 2013 edit summary: Undid revision 584152522

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User has many warnings for edit warring

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

Comments:

This is a page subject to a 1-revert per day limitation, as an article that is in the scope of the Arab-Isralei conflict


 * Blue Duck T is likely to be a NoCal100 sockpuppet by the way. The editor repeats an edit by NoCal sock GoGoTob2 and targets Sepsis II and Pluto2012, editors he apparently doesn't like. Typical NoCal behavior.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 02:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is correct that I am stalked (and pursued) by NoCal100. He is also the one who reported but last time. But it is also the 2nd time I do the same "mistake" with the 1RR rule : and NoCal100 is not involved in this article.
 * I suggest that I am blocked in compliance with the rules.
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * An editor with integrity.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Pluto. When you slip,(I presume for thinking 'yesterday' was 24 hours ago as often happens), and note it, or have it drawn to your notice, you should just revert your second edit (I refused to once and was sanctioned for the refusal, because the revert would have meant reintroducing false reportage of sources, which is different). The second edit you fixed by removing a bad edit by Ykantor: the ongoing attempt to make Husseini worse than Hitler (compare the lead of Adolf Hitler, which has managed to be neutral) is what one has come to expect of that page, but enough serious editors are there to cope with this rhetoric (I might add that the Mel Gibson page, lead and text underplays the outrageous antisemitic statements or ignores them). In the meantime I have reverted your revert, but that kind of clogging of the lead with specifics will be dealt with in the next few days. Your judgement was correct, but your timing skewed.
 * The plaintiff is the usual kind of sock, which while attenuating circumstances, (Pluto is constantly under fire, has been for years) does not absolve wholly. Precisely for this reason he should learn to smile, and hold off from the provocations. That article has taken so far some 7al years for us to get it into some kind of NPOV equilibrium, and will always require close surveillance. I suggest either that you voluntarily withdraw from I/P for a week, or be suspended for 2, if you prefer to let an admin handle it, though these slips are innocuous. We expect malicious gaming in there, but we should learn to raise the rigour we impose on ourselves -esp. since the IPS, SPAs, and the usual suspects flaunt their indifference to rules, and you have admitted the error. Breaks refresh, and one has in any case more time for background research. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have just discovered why Nishidani reverted Pluto, while claiming that Pluto's deletion will be repeated probably. Anyway, in my opinion this edit warring is less important than Pluto's repeating pattern of cheating / telling lies as an excuse for his systematic deletions, including this specific deletion. Wikipedia apparently promote such a behavior, since Pluto is never sanctioned / warned. Ykantor (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - while technically an ARBPIA 1RR violation did occur, blocks are preventative and not punitive; since the editor has acknowledged their error, no block is necessary at this time. I agree that taking a break from a topic can be a useful tool to regain perspective, but I see no need to impose a sanction or topic ban of any kind in this case. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Iranzamin-Iranzamin reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Article 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: See Talk:Madai

Comments:


 * This new user has been relentlessly blanking the same referenced information from Madai and has done so four times in the last 24 hours. I admit I have been nearly as aggressive in restoring the referenced information but have carefully avoided crossing 3RR.  This is all while the most surreal discussion is ongoing at Talk:Madai where he says the information is wrong because he just knows it is, despite several reliable sources being found for it, he insists he is right and they are all wrong and he absolutely refuses to provide any source for his pov or even understand why he should need one. Pointing him to our policy pages like VER, RS and OR has been fruitless. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This "old" user reverted my edit 3 times and actually 4 times. Because he do the same thing and just because avoid the 3RR he used"edit" section instead of "undo". He deleted the map that I added without any reason. I tried to reach a consensus with him for 5 hours! I've talked too much on talk page. You can see everything there. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: You do not know my sex. Therefore you cannot call me as "he". Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This user also trying to show my arguments that including the Torah is just my POV. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - I have full protected the article for 24 hrs. The two above have been arguing and warring back and forth on talk and edit warring the article for about 2 weeks; Til does not have clean hands here, a third opinion or uninvolved admin should have been sought earlier.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I was on the verge of doing just that, when the warring crossed into 4RR territory! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This user also trying to show my arguments that including the Torah is just my POV. Despite the sources I've shown him and even despite the Mitanni and Medes articles he continue to say that all of these are my POV. It is ridiculaous. He is doing this beause he is not objective. His last change-actually revert- on the article has one aim: To have a reason to comlain me here. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Mr Georgewilliamherbert. We need the third opinion or uninvolved admin. Iranzamin-Iranzamin (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for locking the article, albeit on the WP:WRONGVERSION that is lacking the referenced information that Iranzamin-Iranzamin objects to so strenuously. We definitely could use an uninvolved admin at Talk:Madai because I am apparently unconvincing on my own that WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VER are our "cornerstone policies", and you can't just get information you don't like or disagree with removed on your say-so without even one published source dismissing the information, and pointing to any number of books that make no mention of the name Mitanni under that name (like the Torah) is worthless for purposes of proving anything about Mitanni, because you can't prove something by an absence or negative; any points made about "Mitanni" must be made in sources that actually mention "Mitanni". I-I has asked me for source after source for the Madai-Mitanni proposed connection, and I have provided source after source, only to have I-I brush each and every one of them off as "incorrect" because they are incompatible with I-I's superior knowledge, but if I ask I-I for any source for her views, it is being called "harassment" because her views evidently don't need to appear in any published source. So where do uninvolved admins hang out? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Avaya1 reported by User:Dovid (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Here is a straight list of Avaya1's revert difs form the last month, followed by mine. A detailed explanation follows showing the sequence of events and what I have tried to do to end the warring: Mine:
 * 1) 21 Nov 15:28 - deleted an introduction to a section
 * 2) 21 Nov 15:32 - deleted an introductory comment to a quote, not justified by # 1 Dec 15:24
 * 3) 1 Dec 15:25
 * 4) 2 Dec 13:47
 * 1) 10 Nov Not related to Avaya1; Arabic name was spelled inconsistently
 * 2) Nov 15 Not related to Avaya1; removed a non-RS (source is a WP article)
 * 3) Nov 18 Not realted to Avaya1; mistaken reversion, corrected by another editor
 * 4) Nov 20 Not related to Avaya1; undid vandalism
 * 5) Nov 20 Not related to Avaya1. Formatting only, no content.
 * 6) Nov 22 Many small copyedits, I don't think any constituted reversion, but can't be sure
 * 7) Nov 22 Reverted Avaya1 #1 and #2
 * 8) Dec 1 Reverted Avaya1 #3 and #4

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovadia_Yosef&oldid=581730140

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Avaya1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: added a section on the talk page to discuss this

Comments:

Article Ovadia Yosef is currently under WP:1RR, per Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement, which is posted on its talk page. On two occasions in the last couple of weeks, Avaya1 has removed existing material twice or more in one day. Since one of the those sequences included 3 reverts within 24 hours, it also calls for a WP:3RR warning, aside from the 1RR issue.

I am not pristine, as I have also done reverts of his changes ("unreverting") in that article. I do not think they were in violation of 1RR, but they do constitute early edit warring. After two rounds of mutual reversions, and a third by revert solely by Avaya1, I elected to stop, and attempt discussion, but have been ignored. I feel the only way at this point that I can get this resolved is via outside intervention.

The first violation (1RR only):
 * 21 Nov 15:28 - deleted an introduction to a section
 * 21 Nov 15:32 - deleted an introductory comment to a quote, not justified by his edit summary (compare introduction to quote)

The above constitutes a violation of 1RR. I subsequently restored some of the material put some of the reverted material, and also made an unrelated edit, which did some minor copyediting throughout the article. However, it is possible that while doing the unrelated edit, I may have also changed text that Avaya had worked on. I'm uncertain about this, since Avaya made many other edits around the same time as the above 1RR, and I have not checked everyone of my changes against his. If I did, it may be an unintentional violation of 1RR by me.

Approximately 10 days after the above, Avaya1 deliberately reverted my change in two edits. This is the second violation of 1RR, and in this case, also became 3RR-eligible shortly thereafter: Based on his edit summary, there is a legitimate copyediting question, but nonetheless, this is a revert and a violation. Even considering the copyediting issue, the revert does not seem to show good faith, but rather an attempt to protect Avaya1's previous edits. The third revert appears below, about 22.5 hours after the above two (see next bullet) constitutes "brink of 3RR."
 * 1 Dec 15:24
 * 1 Dec 15:25

When I saw Avaya1's two new reverts, I should have immediately turned to the talk page. Instead, I did revert the changes again. This was stupid on my part, as it should have been clear, if I had been thinking about it, that this was already considered an edit war.

Avaya1 then reverted it back again: This was within 24 hours of both his previous two reverts, is also a 1RR violation. Further, since it is the third revert within 24 hours, it raises a 3RR warning flag.
 * 2 Dec 13:47

When I saw this, I finally did the right thing, and added a section on the talk page to discuss this, pinging Avaya1 in the entry. When Avaya1 did not respond for a few days, I went to his/her user talk page to ask him/her to discuss it. There has been no response for several days. I have deliberately avoided making further changes, so as not to perpetuate the edit war. I did not immediately report the violations, because I preferred to work them out rather than escalate this. But if Avaya1 won't respond, I either have to bow out of any editing of that article, or risk continuation of the edit war. I did not mention the 3RR issue to him, though I did mention that the article was in 1RR.

I don't think the 1RR needs to be enforced against Avaya1, unless s/he remains unresponsive, especially since the main article does not have a clear 1RR notice, though it probably should. I recommend that an admin add to the main article. Currently, only the talk page has a notice.

As far as the legitimacy of my material removed by Avaya1, please see the talk page entry linked above, as well as the edit summaries for the diffs of my edits linked above. They show a clear rationale for keeping the material. You can also see his rationale in his edit summaries sometimes, though I don't think they hold up. I don't know who is more likely to consensus built, but the main point of 1RR and 3RR is to force editors to prefer discussion and consensus building over just ignoring the potential legitimacy of the other editor. Avaya1 seems uninterested in that.

Dovid (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think taking action in this case would be helpful. Avaya1 hasn't edited the article for a couple of days so a block won't prevent any disruption. Protection is a possibility but given the other useful edits I'm not so sure. Maybe an article ban (for the article only) under discretionary sanctions for a relatively short period of time. But again I don't see what it's going to achieve. As a side note I've officially notified Dovid of the sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Avaya1&diff=next&oldid=584667175 warned] Avaya1 to avoid this behaviour in the future. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I violated the 1RR as far as I can see, which I didn't realise existed, since the subject is not related to Israel-Palestine. The actual content of the edits is completely uncontroversial and very trivial. I re-phrased a couple of sentences to make them NPOV and removed unsourced editorial content. Those sections need stick to the quotes in the citations (without adding additional editorial content). Avaya1 (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that, despite the wording of the template, only the relatively small part of the article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" would be covered by 1RR with the rest being covered by 3RR as usual. Of course I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Imagine if an editor had been topic banned from the ARBPIA topic area. They would still be able to edit anything in that article unrelated to the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed", so why would those edits be subject to a restriction that only pertains to content they are not allowed to edit ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 17:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:2.102.187.14 reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result:24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:     

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (discussed on anonymous editor's talk):

Comments:

Several editors now have tried to discuss with the anonymous editor why this edit is inappropriate, to no avail. The editor is now well past 3RR and shows no intent to stop. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Several jobsworths have tried to bore me, with great success. 2.102.187.14 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

User:114.250.177.106 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Year-End Championships */"
 * 2)  "/* Year-End Championships */"
 * 3)  "/* Year-End Championships */"
 * 4)  "/* Year-End Championships */"
 * 5)  "/* Year-End Championships */"
 * 1)  "/* Year-End Championships */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

While not warned, this article was just protected for a week by administrator "Diannaa" because of this anon editor's removals. A couple hours after the protection expired he's back at it.. and with more than three reverts. He uses multiple IP's. He actually could be arguing with himself (for mischief) since the other IP is very similar to one he used before here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * update. The article has been protected again so blocking and warning this anon IP (who keeps switching IP's over and over) probably won't help. I hope it's not some old mischievous sockpuppet raising from the dead. Or it could be editor User talk:Sith-Lord since as I look back he has been warned for the same thing. Perhaps a check user? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page for 3 weeks. Blocking won't work as well, but is always there if they start editing other articles. It certainly seems like someone who is constant and practice. If you can find evidence to suggest that it is a past sockmaster coming back please do take it to SPI. Though you'll need behavioural evidence to link it a past sockmaster. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time and effort to look at this. Much appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jezebel1349 reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revision
 * 2) Second revision
 * 3) Third revision
 * 4) Fourth revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning on Jezebel1349's talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Trying to reach a consensus on the article's talk page

Comments:

The conflict has also spilled over onto my talk page


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:92.232.108.69 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC) ""
 * 2) 17:43, 6 December 2013 ""
 * 1) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC) ""
 * 2) 17:43, 6 December 2013 ""
 * 1) 17:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC) ""
 * 2) 17:43, 6 December 2013 ""
 * 1) 17:43, 6 December 2013 ""


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


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

Past 3rr. IP is continually removing sourced content from the article he finds unfavorable. No edit summaries or attempts to discuss. Multiple warnings. A short block would be helpful.
 * Comments:


 * — Kralizec! (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

User:LoriCarter16 reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I made an information change, showing the real biography of Anish Kapoor"
 * 2)  "It needs to be here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 584899893 by Mduvekot (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 584911483 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 584911483 by Ruby Murray (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Anish Kapoor. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Anish Kapoor. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Recent edits to Anish Kapoor */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Red and black partisan reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (08:38, 5 December)
 * 2)  (09:13, 5 December)
 * 3)  (09:42, 5 December)
 * 4)  (11:08, 5 December)
 * 5)  (20:00, 6 December)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Upon coming across the article and finding some serious problems with it, I spent around two and a half hours rewriting numerous passages to correct for POV issues and removing some particularly egregious instances of OR and unreliable sourcing. After this partial overhaul, I left a note explaining my changes on the talkpage should any user want to discuss. R&B came in, silently reverted me, and removed (09:04, 5 December) my note on the talkpage. I counter-reverted both actions, and though he left the talkpage alone (but never posted on it to discuss the issue), he continued as before on the article. My continued counter-reverting was probably not the best course of action, but had he made the slightest move to discuss anywhere I would've stopped.

His first edits to the page—and to the project—consisted of adding an unsourced and highly POV screed to the article. His posts on the talkpage indicate that he intends to give as much coverage to the "movement" as possible, regardless of how tangentially related it may be (and despite the fact that there is no reliable source demonstrating that there's even an organised "movement" as such). This wall of text is particularly revealing of R&B's mindset. He views himself as the reason for the article being "high profile", and would prefer that those who disagree "take their prejudices elsewhere".

This is not the first time R&B's actions have caused issues. His talkpage seems clean at first glance—but only because he's removed most of the warnings he's gotten. To be quite honest, I'm almost inclined to see WP:NOTHERE in this user's behaviour, but I'll leave final judgement to the qualified authorities. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Bbb: That AN/I thread is yet another example of the project's disenchantingly poor track handling of "civil" POV-pushing, and it looks like this report will end up the same. Given that R&B clearly has neither the intention of allowing any modifications he doesn't find conducive to his platform nor the willingness to seriously discuss, I might as well simply abandon the article outright at this point. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the problem, but edit warring is not the answer. You have to involve other editors so it's not bouncing back and forth between just you and the user and so there's discussion about the edits, at least for that particular article. If you want to build a case, it's usually better to do it one step at a time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * R&B has made his attitude toward discussion abundantly clear at this point, so I think I'll spare my blood pressure the trouble. As far as I'm concerned, this report is done with now. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If he continues to revert without discussion, please come back here or let me know. John Reaves 02:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding. The article is currently in his preferred version, though, so I'm not sure he has much cause to revert—or discuss. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not seeing any discussion from you either (no, warning templates do not count). I suggest addressing your specific concerns on the talk page and notifying him of the discussion. 03:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ., as you acknowledge, you have been edit warring. Both of you have violated WP:3RR. Red and black partisan has been taken to ANI in late November by a different editor, but no action was taken, as far as I can tell. I'm not familiar with the subject material to determine whether Red and black partisan's edits are disruptive to the point that they should be blocked independently of the edit warring or whether they constitute vandalism, which would exempt you from your reverts. I don't see any evidence of NOTHERE. Whether the edits are non-neutral I can't say, although I suspect that at least some of them are. Another administrator may choose to take action, but I don't think this is the right noticeboard for these issues, unless, of course, you want two blocks. The warring is a bit stalish as well, although I assume you finally decided to stop reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * While there is edit warring from both sides, there is only communication from one side. This simply doesn't work on a collaborative encyclopedia and I have left a message at Red and Black and partisan's talk page addressing the issue.  If they continue to ignore attempts at communication, they will have to be blocked. John Reaves 02:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:108.162.157.141, User:Survivorfan1995 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: dozens in the page's history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 108.162.157.141

Survivorfan1995

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

Comments:

Did one revert then 3RR warning, then reported.

Jim1138 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , only just saw this report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Talskubilos reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Relevant discussion references Talk:Kassites/Archive 1

Comments:


 * I fear this edit war is part of a curious pattern that has recurred over the past couple of days, where an editor with a red-linked name and few contribs will pick an obscure topic watched by me and hardly any other editors, begin stripping references with IDONTLIKEIT type arguments where basically it is the wikipedia editor quibbling with the published experts, and do so four times or more in one hour. All of the articles where this has happened are in the Ancient Near East category and roughly the Kurdistan region.  Usually on my wl I only see a case like this every 3 or 4 months or so, but the fact that there is a sudden flood in the last day makes me wonder if some agency out there is making a concerted at effort trying to goad me into crossing 3RR myself. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the user Til_Eulenspiegel is acting in BAD FAITH and I suspect he/she's a SOCKET PUPPET of an author whose relevant publications are self-published articles. Talskubilos (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm reporting the fact that you reverted four times in one hour. You object to this Hurrianologist Fournet being cited, even though I have already shown you he is published in the peer reviewed journals, incredulously you are insisting that is not enough.  I really don't know that much about the man, other than that his name pops up a lot in Hurrian studies and he is one of the top published experts in the field of Hurrians and Hurrian languages.  But what do you know, you accused not only me, but also one other editor who disagreed with your summary blanking, of being agents of his.  I guess anyone who has ever heard of him who stands in the way of your agenda to delete all mention of him from this project must therefore either be an agent of his or a "sockpuppet" of his.  I am obviously not he, but even if I was, that is not what wikipedia defines as a "sockpuppet", thanks for playing though! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)