Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive232

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:JHunterJ (Result: Protected)
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:, among others

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Beyond My Ken will not permit maintenance tags to be placed on the article so that other editors might address the problems.

 Response by Beyond M Ken:  The placement of a maintenance tag shows that a single editor believes there is a problem with the article. When another editor disagrees, the tag should be discussed on the article talk page, and should not be restored until there is a consensus to do so. Examination of the histories of the article and the article's talk page will indicate that it took several times of my requesting discussion from JHunterH before he went to the talk page:
 * JHunterJ places an "In popular culture" tag on the article
 * Because I disagree that any of the four items in the "In popular culture section" are "trvial", I removed the tag
 * JHunterJ restores the tag, thus violating the third part of WP:BRD, which applies as much to the placement of tags as to anything else.
 * I revert, with a specific request for JHunterJ to follow WP:BRD
 * JHunterJ restores the tag, without starting a discussion on the talk page outlining his concerns
 * I revert, with another even more specific request for discussion.

Finally, after two requests from me, JHunterJ starts a discussion on the talk page -- however, he rather snidely digs at me, saying that I "implied that he asked for discussion when he hadn't", which, of course, isn't accurate, since the reference to WP:BRD had preceded the more specific request for discussion.

There's some discussion between the two of us, but nothing is decided. No other editors contribute, and JHunterJ does not ask for a third opinion, no no consensus is established concerning the use of the tag. Despite this he again restores the tag (for the third time) with the edit summary "See Talk page". This, of course, is disingenuous, since there is no consensus on the talk page to "see", only a non-conclusive discussion between two editors of different views. Because there is no consensus, I restore the status quo ante, as specifically called for by WP:BRD: "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante). When the discussion has achieved mutual understanding, attempt a new edit that will be acceptable to all participants in the discussion." JHunterJ then reverts me, I restore the status quo ante and we're off to the races.

It appears to me that JHunterJ believes that behavior required of other editors is not required of him because he is an admin. He appears to think that as an admin he is a "supereditor" who does not have to discuss edits when asked to discuss them, who can ignore one of the most-followed behavioral precepts around this place, BRD, and who can do what he wants to, when he wants to. For my part, should other editors arrive and make arguments in favor of JHunterJ's position, I would obviously respond, but if the consensus went against me, I would never think of restoring an edit -- any edit, whether the addition of a fact or the placement of a maintenance tag -- against consensus, nor would I continue to insist on my own way while the determination of consensus is underway.

I do not ask that any sanction of any sort be placed against JHunterJ for his uncollegial and un-admin-like behavior, only that he be told not to restore the tag to the article until there is a talk page consensus to do so, and that he not do this kind of thing again in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs about my beliefs notwithstanding, I have made no claims about my adminship, nor used the admin bit in this discussion, but it is typical for editors to pretend that admins they disagree with are simply unworthy of being admins. The reference to WP:BRD is indeed where you implied that you asked for discussion when you hadn't. and I are in agreement about the tag for questionable citation (from Urban Dictionary), and at least tacitly about the in popular culture tag. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be "typical" of other users, but it is not typical of me, and I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between an incident of improper behavior and general unworthiness to be an admin. I would never call for an admin's head over one edit-warring incident, and I have not done so here.  It is true that your behavior in this instance has been unworthy of an editor who is an admin, not only because we expect better behavior from our sysops, and it would be totally unwarranted for me to make broad generalizations about your editing history based on a single incident.  I have simply characterized your high-handed behavior in this instance as it appears to me as being that of an editor who believes that being an admin gives you leeway not provided to other editors.As for your other claims - as is explicitly clear in the diffs I presented, my second restoration was accompanied by a request to follow WP:BRD.  Surely you must be awate that the "D" in "BRD" stands for "Discussion".  So when you started a discussion after my next very specific request for discussion, you had no reason to say then (or now) that I had not previously asked for you to discuss your edits. Finally, there is no way to know what Epicgenius thought or whether he agreed with you, because he did not participate in the talk page discussion, and simply slapped a "sources" tag on the entire article, which I removed.  A near-stub article with 5 references - the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, Moscow's Street Book, two NY Times articles and the Urban Dictionary is not a candidate for a "sources" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You said I didn't ask for a third opinion when I explained that tagging the article with in popular culture serves that purpose. You claimed that I believe that behavior required of other editors is not required of me because I am an admin. Please provide a diff for this claim. Or don't. The point here is that you violated 3RR, and none of your hand-waving here addresses that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you made a request for 3O and I missed it, then I'm wrong about that - please provide the diff where you posted at WP:3O and I'll certainly apologize for that. As for the other, I made it explicitly clear (you are reading what I wrote, yes?) that the characterization of your behavior was just that, my opinion of what your actions look like to me.  I am a sentient, perceptive human entirely capable of summarizing the behavior of another human based on what I see.  If you're asking me to provide a diff where you said to me "I don't have to do that, I'm an admin", then, no, I won't be able to comply with that request.  But I can say how the things you did appear to me based on my 8 1/2 years of editing here, and my innumerable interactions with other editors. Just like when I asked you on your talk page to do the right thing, and act in a manner befitting an admin, and wait for a consensus before restoring the tag, and instead you filed this 3RR report, when you were the other participant (!!) and the party violating WP:BRD by their actions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize you're only feigning ignorance for rhetorical purposes, but here's the diff where I explained that tagging the article with in popular culture serves that purpose (you are reading what I wrote, yes?): Since you can't comply with the request, please stop assuming bad faith. And stop violating 3RR. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am "feigning" nothing, so your "realization" is in error. The dispute between myself and JHunterJ was over whether the tag should be in the article. A third opinion would have settled whether or not there was a consensus to use the tag.  Unilaterally putting the tag back on the article didn't fulfill that need - since editors rarely see a maintenance tag and then go to the talk page and say "Gee, that tag is a good idea!". Re-tagging the article merely marked the "In popular culture" section as having trivial contents - which is JHunterJ's opinion in the first place, so how he can see that as asking for a third opinion is beyond me.  So, restoring the tag was not the equivalent of asking for a third opinion to settle the dispute, which was about whether the tag should be used in the first place. JHunterJ, please tell me that you do see the difference, yes? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, JHunterJ was right in putting the popular culture tag in the article.
 * Additionally, Urban Dictionary is not a dependable source, as most of UD's entries are written by readers, and anyone can just put an entry on the site whenever and wherever they want. Regardless of whether the entry is true or not, it gets accepted most of the time. I don't doubt the reliability of the other sources on the page, however.
 * Finally, JHunterJ did not use his admin tools in this argument, so I don't know why this is being brought up here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I never claimed he used his tools, please be more careful in your reading. The remainder of your comment should have gone to Talk:Great Jones Street - but since you posted it here, has there been a determination at WP:RSN that Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source? If so, a diff would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In an attempt to cut the Gordian knot, despite my belief that nothing additional was required (see my comments on Talk:Great Jones Street), I have now extensively referenced the "In popular culture" section of the article in question with sources such as the NY Times, Salon, the Hartford Courant, the New York Daily News, and so on. Perhaps this will appease JHunterJ, and he will move on to more productive pursuits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected one week. It is hard to see optimal behavior on either side. Consider WP:DR. Both BMK and JHunterJ surely know how to open an WP:RFC. If this is part of a long-running dispute about popular culture sections, find an appropriate venue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Msloewengart reported by User:Vegaswikian (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Las Vegas (link to discussion)

Comments:

Suggestions to move the discussion to the talk page were made in edit comments which by the nature of later ones were read. Also false edit comments were used to add the same content. Reverts of the content were done by 3 different editors including one by a support of the content for the false edit comment.

Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:Msloewengart has been mass-adding airports to infoboxes, and has violated 3RR here at Las Vegas. A [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Airports_in_infoboxes general discussion about airports in infoboxes] has been opened and I recommend that all parties wait for its outcome before reverting the airport entries in any other infoboxes. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Liberalufp (Result: Malformed report )

 * 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:

this guy has engaged in at least 4 edit wars and is current engaging with me  on an edit war he is distruptive and wreckless. i suggest u block him for 2 or 3 days to teach him a lesson Liberalufp (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean this fine piece of work that you have for some reason been edit-warring, even though the article should not likely have ever been created in the first place? ES  &#38;L  21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * i dont like your rudeness he is been conducting edit wars on multiple occations and he is marking it unotable when it clearly is and has been deleting text in the article that says why it is. i am trying to make it better but he is obstructing my efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberalufp (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:StringBandDivisionThesis reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "a consensus within the Wiki community in regards to my reliable source article still was not presented to this author. Therefore, I will need to revert the page."
 * 2)  "Reverting because it is a reliably published source."
 * 1)  "Reverting because it is a reliably published source."


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

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


 * Comments:

despite discussions on talk page and WP:RS/N RS/N the editor is insisting on adding a self-published source Leaky  Caldron  22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not the editor of the website, so this should make the discussion moot. I am merely publishing a reliable source, which itself, is based on over 110 years of Philadelphia Newspapers. I have been told that newspapers are an allowed resource to verify authenticity. The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", which is assessed at http://www.StringBandRecord.com is based on these newspapers. Not hearsay, not opinion (and again, I am not the author of the work in question). The original Wiki "poster" stated that historical newspapers ARE INDEED allowable under Wiki rules. The source I am quoting from does NOT list the Aqua String Band (a Philadelphia Mummers' String Band) s having performed in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade during 1927, 1928 and 1929. This information came from up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers. If Wikipedia DOES NOT allow historical newspapers as published sources, I (and the rest of the ENTIRE Wiki community) will need to know this.StringBandDivisionThesis (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Gulmammad reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: is the first edit of this series of edits

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:

Gulmammad has for months come on to the article occasionally in order to push their preferred version of the lead in, despite the objections of every one else in the talk page discussion. They refused to list their issues with the former lead, and instead asked others to list their issues with their lead. My pointing out of the puffery elements of the lead eventually led to the conclusion that I "have nothing but hate towards the subject of this article", and the implication that I'm an Armenian (not that I'm offended by this, but it wasn't intended as a compliment). I didn't give them a talkpage warning as they're not a new user (DTTR), but I added one today due to the request for such in the instructions for filing this report. CMD (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Gulmammad is warned that if he reverts the article to his own preference again, without getting consensus on talk, he may be blocked without further discussion. This appears to be a slow edit war in which he returns to the article at wide intervals to change it to his version. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr. EdJohnston, I must confess that I am surprised to see you still active on here after so many years. I got bored very early and have been semi-retired since 2009. But once in a while I contribute an edit or two at my leisure. This time an e-mail notification dragged me here and let be known to anyone that I have no time or desire for fruitless tit for tat discussions with users like CDM. Some months ago when I read the lead of the subject article, I realized it was outdate and rewrote it. Furthermore, to eliminate any bias I even had several other professionals critique it. Then I proposed the final version in the talk page and asked for changes if anyone wished to make. On an article watched by over 300 users, only CMD and two other editors proposed changes and I immediately incorporated them into the lead and waited for a month. Only then I moved my version to the main article assuming they agreed by remaining silent. But mysteriously, CMD immediately appeared and reverted my edit and left yet another vague argument on the talk page. Perhaps this is what you call a slow edit war by me. The question is, Mr. EdJohnston, why you haven't treated this case impartially? Gulmammad  &#124; talk  05:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you and User:Chipmunkdavis can't agree on the article you can follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. One option is a WP:Request for comment. Since Azerbaijan is an important article, a listing of the article at RfC should be noticed and will bring in a variety of opinions. If instead of waiting for consensus on the talk page you just continue to revert, blocks of at least one party are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's consensus on the talkpage against the new lead, and it's disingenuous to portray this as Gulmammad vs Chipmunkdavis. Two other users have commented on the revised version on the talkpage (others commented on the similar previous one), and I quote from each, "the proposed lead is not only less concise...but has an unfortunate "advertising tone" that is not a good WP fit...Too much hyperbole", and "The current version still has some problems...I think we can resolve the issue by considering what should be added to the previous version, not by completely rewriting it." CMD (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 589079632 by ViperSnake151 you want profanity? well, Fuck You!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 589078032 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Symbolism */ per source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Censorship of material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* January 2014 */"


 * Comments:

Reverts the inclusion of uncensored translations in Lufsig, asserting that it is "per sources", uses an inappropriate edit summary on the third revert. Has a history of similar edits on this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is there an obsession to include profanity when it's dealt with [not totally] circumspectly by the sources? Just how's this censorship? --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, we present facts, as attributed to reliable sources. Different sources have their own editorial policies on the use of profanities in the context of news; but our policy is that we do not generally remove or censor offensive materials when they are "relevant to the content" and legal under relevant laws. In fact, we have an entire article on Chinese profanities. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment-when the source uses "mom's c***," how does WP:NOTCENSOR apply when it's a direct quote?


 * only (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zmflavius reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: No action )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * No action taken. only (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Ohconfucius (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "rewrite"
 * 2) "WP:NOTCENSORED"
 * 3) "WP:NOTCENSORED"
 * 4) "rv; sources of questionable reliability, removal of pertinent content"
 * 5) "Okay; I actually missed that the first time I looked at the Time source, but yeah."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * "Edit warring"


 * Comments:
 * It's clear from the last two reverts cited above that some knee jerk or blind reverting is taking place, and legitimate or otherwise good content has been summarily erased to the detriment of article building and the reader. I'm not going to edit the article for a while or until it cools off, whichever is the sooner. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 03:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, it seems to be stuck on the wrong version. ;-) --  Ohc  ¡digame! 04:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zanzibar606 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I undid revision, I don't understand your statement dougweller. If you look up dark islands, it is obvious they are talking about black holes when you read 15:6.6, It was not known the black holes are commonplace, and now it well known, very significant."
 * 2)  "Under the "original research" guideline... it says no such thing about the necessity of citing a peer-reviewed science paper. Anybody can clearly see the "dark islands" are black holes. The criticism of science section is cited to Gardner, a nonscientist."
 * 3)  "Warn me? Show me where in the O.R. guideline it states that I have to cite a scientific paper? This is a very benign entry, anyone who has read the UB knows that dark islands clearly describe black holes. It is UNREASONABLE to have to cite a sci. paper."
 * 4)  "This makes no sense. Are you guys telling me that just because something has a different name but describes the same phenomenon, I have to find a sci. paper to affirm it?"
 * 5)  "I removed all sci. criticisms citing Gardner & Sprunger...both were not scientists and they do not cite any scientific papers in their criticism. How does Gardner know the UB is consistent with the planetesimal theory? There is no sci. paper citation."
 * 6)  "If you allow Gardner criticisms which are not from scientific papers... then you must allow some of the numerous non-scientific paper sources that confirm science in the UB. To do otherwise would be disingenuous."


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


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


 * Comments:

Although slightly outside the 24 hours, editor is clearly edit-warring - reverted by 3 other editors, and not using the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 24 hour block. No other choice, really. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Modernist (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - removed image of - Persistence of Memory by Salvador Dalí, 1931
 * 2)  - reverted
 * 3)  - reverted  - who commented You were restricted to one such edit, no more.
 * 4)  - reverted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

There are many discussions concerning this editor deleting images from visual art pages. He was asked by his colleagues to only revert once...Modernist (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Werieth closed the discussion at WP:NFCR here as an "uninvolved editor" and since that discussion has weight of consensus, that decision should hold. If any other editor (well, besides those clearly involved) made the same closure, I would expect there wouldn't be any question about removal per the discussion consensus. But even though Werieth did not directly interact in that discussion, his past behavior brings into question whether he is "uninvolved". If it is considered that this was uninvolved, then Werieth has done nothing wrong. But I believe that it's hard to categorize this as such, Werieth having clear intent (even if it is intent I agree with). --M ASEM  (t) 23:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Masem here - if anyone else but Werieth - given his recent block and warning; I would not have made this report...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So, Werieth closed the discussion (in favour of his preferred outcome), and rather early I might add, and then proceeded to remove the images himself. When an editor such as myself, that was not aware of that "decision", such as it is, reverted that edit, he then edit warred, despite being on a 1RR restriction on image-related edits. I find his "carrying out NFCR action" excuse to be somewhat laughable, given his hasty close and enforcement. This is an editor that contributes nothing other than removing images. I have no opinion on his removals of non-visual art images at this time, but I would like to see a topic ban on visual art topics, as he has no knowledge of the field and has no capacity to work with other editors or follow a 1RR decision. freshacconci talk to me 23:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll just note that when Weieth closed the discussion, there had been no new comments for over two weeks. I'm not sure how to judge "uninvolved editor" here, but surely, having a lot of experience in image deletion discussions should not disqualify one from closing a discussion on NFCR. How should we judge "uninvolved" here? – Quadell (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just saw that NFCR recommends 4 weeks or clear consensus. It appears to have been closed a bit early, despite not getting any comments in a long time. – Quadell (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is probably some history that anyone involved in recent discussions between AFD and visual arts can assert that Werieth has clearly been shown to be strong enforcement of NFC there, but I can't just point you to any specific page, but even as one that agrees with Werieth's point about NFC issues, I have to side on those saying this was a involved closure and should not have been closed by Werieth and acted on by him as well. If it was an uninvolved admin that did the closer and Werieth simply reverting it to enforce it, that's one thing, but this is judge, jury, and executioner behavior here, which is improper. --M ASEM (t) 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually NFCR is 7 days, given that there was only 1 user claiming that the file is acceptable and several others giving sound policy based arguments against the files (where Modernist is the only one making an argument for the file which amounted to ILIKEIT). Given that it was a fairly clear consensus that the files where unacceptable the close was correct, I did not take any personal postion in that discussion. It was a fairly clear case of minimal usage and UUI 6 Werieth (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Active discussions should not be closed unless there is a clear consensus for a particular action, or more than 4 weeks have passed since the media was listed here. Generally, discussions should run for at least 7 days." So, no not "7 days", that would be 7 days minimum. And as it is clearly being established here, you do not have the ability to close properly, you do not work well with others, and you are involved because this is all you do, you delete images and talk about deleting images. Therefore, closing a discussion and then implementing that dubious decision is wholly inappropriate as you are intimately involved. freshacconci talk to me 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If Modernist wants to have the NFCR close reviewed that is a different matter, revert warring, leaving no valid arguments for the reverts and ignoring process is not the way to do it. Werieth (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The only edit summary that provides any kind of rationale for reverting is Key painting in 20th century; discussed in article; has own article which has nothing to do with the outcome of a NFCR. Werieth (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record - I said One of the most important Surrealist works of the 20th century - needed to be included... certainly not just ILIKEIT . As to this scenario - Werieth reverted the image - and ignored Freshacconcci's clear admonition; and acted outrageously as in Masem's words - judge, jury, and executioner; - deleting one of the most important Surrealist works in the history of painting...Modernist (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That would make an argument for Surrealism not History of painting, which is what this report is about. The jury is the users who participated in the discussion, not me. If you want to dispute the NFCR blindly re-adding the file is not the way to do that. Given that per the NFCR closure the usage is a violation of NFCC, WP:3RRNO §5 would apply in this case. Werieth (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - are you suggesting that we add the Dali to the Surrealism article?, good suggestion...Modernist (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I said that would be an argument for it, not that the argument is strong enough to do so. Werieth (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What justification can you make to edit war to display the file twice on 20th-century Western painting? Werieth (talk)
 * You were equally guilty of edit warring there - making 4 reverts at that article as well - perhaps we should lodge a second complaint about you. Considering the Dali painting was discussed and referenced in both articles including 20th-century Western painting and History of painting and frankly belongs in both articles your objection amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT...Modernist (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You have shown a complete failure to understand WP:NFCC policy, just because a work is discussed doesnt mean that we need to display it, often works are referenced and discussed across many many articles, and normally a link to the article on the work is sufficient. See WP:NFC §6 Werieth (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No justification for your 4 reverts in both articles. Read this The three-revert rule...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually after closing the NFCR and establishing that it is a NFCC violation WP:3RRNO §5 applies which means that this isnt a violation of 3RR rule. Werieth (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Werieth, the point is, given your current stance on NFC and past issues of enforcing NFC, you are technically uninvolved by realistically involved deeply that you shouldn't have closed the discussion and edit warred the removal. Even if I were uninvolved in that discussion (I was, but lets assume hypothetical), I would avoid closure of that with a ten-foot pole because of my own current rhetoric on NFC and visual arts, much less maintaining the removal via edit warring. There was no rush to close it early, and then when an uninvolved admin closed it as remove, you'd be perfectly free to revert removal justified by a third-party's decision. I'm totally on your side about the NFC issues with the image, but there's no way I can justify your behavior to get that. --M ASEM  (t) 00:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the NFCR close had been challenged it would be a different story, that has yet to happen, So far it has been Modernist screaming about how unfair and how we must have the file plastered everywhere, without basing it on any policy based arguments. If Modernist wants to request a review of the closure they are free to do so. That has yet to happen. Modernist however cannot bypass NFCR and just edit war the file back into articles. Werieth (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see 8 reverts from Werieth in 2 articles in a short period of time with no discussion. Looks like edit warring violations of WP:3RR to me and a lot of other editors...Modernist (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCR established that the files were in violation of WP:NFCC. Thus the removals are exempt from 3RR, please stop trying to cherry pick policies to get the files re-added to articles. Werieth (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PS I did cite the WP:NFCR multiple times as rationale for removal. Not sure how much more discussion you want. Werieth (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I didn't scream - I initially added one comment; and made one edit per article regarding your edit warring. As to your interpretation of WP:NFCR policy - note - I've been discussing these matters for 7 years; understand the policy and guidelines quite well and I do not agree with your and some of your colleagues misinterpretation of the foundations intentions regarding contemporary and modern art imagery...Modernist (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * , will you agree not to revert to re-remove images from articles if you were the one to close the discussion? To simply bring it up to another admin, preferably an uninvolved one, and let him/her decide what is the best course of action to take? – Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , will you agree not to revert to re-include images in article that have been closed at NFCR, even if you disagree with the ruling? (And if you think the ruling invalid, do you agree to instead have the NFCR close reviewed, rather than reverting against the decision of the closed discussion?) – Quadell (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will agree provided the Dali images are returned to the articles and the discussion is re-opened...Modernist (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to say "I agree not to revert to reinstate the image, provided the image is reinstated." If you reopen the discussion, then consensus will determine whether it should be reinstated or not. We all have to abide by policy and consensus. If policy was not followed, if consensus was misinterpreted, if the discussion close was out of line, then we can reopen it and determine collaboratively how to apply policy here. But what you can't do is continue to re-add images into articles in contravention of the results at NFCR, FFD, etc. So I'll ask again: do you agree to abide by the results of NFCR and FFD discussions, even if you disagree with them, and appeal the results through appropriate channels (instead of edit warring) if you think the close was inappropriate? – Quadell (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I generally always abide by those rulings - in this case - after Werieth's edit warring via somewhat outrageous judge, jury, executioner actions; and after Werieth had made 3 reverts to each article I defended the image with one revert to each article - then Werieth proceeded to four reverts to each article - doesn't the rules apply to him? Seemed like a blatant violation of WP:3RR to me...Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that is calling anyone who closed an NFCR, FfD, or AfD a judge, jury, executioner. However the case is I just closed the review per the consensus that was already there. Werieth (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Modernist. – Quadell (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Werieth ought to refrain from closing any of these discussions. He is involved whether he comments on a particular discussion or not, given his strong views. Someone closing a discussion has to be able to judge all positions, and policy, fairly. There is always going to be a perception that Werieth won't do that (whether it's an accurate perception or not). Also, Werieth did agree last month not to remove an image from an article more than once, where (in his words) "the removal is questionable or subjective." See my discussion with him here, for example. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My views are fairly balanced, given the discussion the consensus was that these uses where inappropriate, according to that the removals where neither subjective nor questionable. Regardless of how a discussion is closed you will rarely have 100% agreement, someone is almost always on the other side of how a discussion is closed. If you want to discuss my position (which did not come into play here, I was just running through and closing those discussions that where fairly clear to help with the backlog) with regards to non-free media I will gladly discuss them. Ill also note that I do remove files, but I have also uploaded ~250 myself. Werieth (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider myself much more reasonable on these discussions, but I dare not close any (save those that are clearly obvious or simple bookkeeping) given that most know my stance on NFC, as to simply avoid the controversy of the decision; I would reasonably expect the same of anyone else on that page, particularly when the consensus wasn't straight forward. I know that as written our policies allow for me to close such discussions if I didn't make a mention, but because of how some feel there's an NFC cabel going on with just a few editors, I avoid doing anything that upsets that, and I'd recommend the same rationale here. --M ASEM (t) 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Werieth, the thing is that perception matters as much as reality when it comes to being uninvolved enough to close contentious discussions (and it seems that these image closures are always contentious when it comes to art). Also, you had been involved in disputes over art images, disputes with Modernist in particular, and over History of painting specifically, so those factors alone made you too involved to close this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's not be too hasty to judge Werieth as an outright deletionist. After all, here he is twice restoring a non-free image to an article as soon as it's removed, despite his agreed 1RR restriction and despite consensus at NFCR that it fails WP:NFCC.
 * What's the difference? Oh yes, Werieth uploaded this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Admin comment: This is a particularly tricky 3RR case. It's clear that Werieth reverted more than normally warranted. On the other hand, he was enforcing a NFCR ruling, which is usually immune to 3RR. (He certainly believed it was.) But on the first hand again, he made that close himself in a manner that just about every uninvolved commenter has deemed suspect or at least unwise. I would normally give this a pass, but he has failed to acknowledge that there was anything at all wrong with his behavior, and has completely ignored constructive suggestions on how to resolve the conflict. I'm not at all sure the best way to handle this, so I'm not closing it myself. We don't want people in general to refrain from enforcing NFCR decisions, even if they themselves made those rulings, so I don't want to create a chilling effect... but I'm also aware that giving sanction to Werieth's actions would be bad for Wikipedia. (If nothing else, it would cause a lot of editors to lose faith in the fairness of the NFCR process.) Hopefully an admin with more 3RR experience than myself will be willing to make the call. – Quadell (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-admin comment. The fact is, that it's not been established that Werieth has done anything wrong. Some have suggested, after the event, that Werieth was too involved to have closed this particular NFCR; the correctness of this suggestion can only be determined, by having the NFCR reopened, then reclosed by a different editor and yeilding a different result. Whilst Werieth has not commented on Quadell's suggestion, I personally don't think it desirable to impose bespoke behavioural rules; much better to improve/clarify the general rules. One possible change to the process is to impose a cooling period (of say seven days) after NFCR closures before acting on them. Aquegg (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:AngieWattsFan reported by User:Josh3580 (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 589083560 by Josh3580 (talk)"
 * 2)  "There is a very good reason, please read the Talk page before reverting what I have written. I cannot entertain this because these are untruths written on Wikipedia."
 * 3)  "I did when I realised the nonsense on the article. Utter nonsense and I won't entertain it a second longer. Have you watched the show?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Message re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
 * 2)   "Level 2 warning re. List of soap opera villains (HG)"
 * 3)   "tb, 3rr"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* EastEnders villains. */ Responded"
 * 2)   "Replied"


 * Comments:

User has previously been blocked for edit warring. 4th revert has not occurred, but the User does not appear to be interested in WP:Consensus, considering the prior history. User is continuing to edit war, and is personally attacking myself on my |talk page, as well as another user in this diff. I have encouraged discussion, but the user is not interested, and only wishes to war and name call.  Josh3580 talk/hist 05:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This user is annoyed. They were blocked for their edit wars previously. Now they are gaming the system and belittle anyone who opposes. Plus they acted against consensus on a well discussed list in which a sizable amount of opinions are heard. This individual has displaced neglect and displace for anyone else's view, a direct violation of a collaborative project. Besides their snide use of personal attacks. They speak for themselves. Baiting everyone. As they always do. Drama bomb classic case etc etc. Rain  the 1  05:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:86.13.182.103 reported by User:Begoon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "this wouldn't be necessary if you weren't on another personal little powertrip."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 589148723 by Mr. Arrogant. Do please block the IP address you predictable little man."
 * 3)  "TransNeptune - a software company, mental_floss - an American magazine, both TV Tropes and Neatorama are well known, but as you're so pedantic I will remove it, 2 valid sources are sufficient. Nothing personal, you're an a*****e."
 * 4)  "I find it astonishing that you are all so readily prepared to remove an entire section for the sake of half a sentence that you don't agree with."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 589137940 by Begoon (talk) Nothing personal though, right? PMSL"
 * 1)  "I find it astonishing that you are all so readily prepared to remove an entire section for the sake of half a sentence that you don't agree with."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 589137940 by Begoon (talk) Nothing personal though, right? PMSL"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "advice"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alma mater. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* January 2014 */ +"


 * Comments:

This is obviously

see my user talk page history and the ip talk page/history for history

Also reverted at article by, , and user seems now to just be in a "revert because I iz bein abused and suppressed" loop. Getting boring. Begoon &thinsp; talk 16:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

User:A.raxhid reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing blp prod templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Removing blpprod templates on Arianna Bergamaschi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I have not checked, but it is possible that I also violated the 3RR. Seeing as this article is new and not highly notable, I believe the boundaries of the 3RR can be pushed a little. Also, I believe most of the content addition I reverted was unsourced and/or poorly sourced (see exemption 7 of the 3RR if you are not familiar with it). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User:A.raxhid and user User:MrScorch6200 are warned for edit warring. The subject's website is a reliable source so they are able to remove the BLPPROD tag. If you wish feel free to take it to AfD. However any revert from either of you will result in a block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Taylor Trescott (Result: User:Rusted AutoParts blocked 6 months )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "And who makes that decision? Walker's death was one of the most talked about this year."
 * 2)  "Boldly reverting. This isn't a matter of consensus, it's a matter of news. Walker's death was one of the years most talked about. This seems more like a personal preference. If you'd like, go to the talk page, but Walker definitely qualifies to be here"
 * 3)  "/* Deaths */ removing photos are it's clear they are nepotistically selected. Consensus on these before added back. And Derby, I advise you read WP:OWN"
 * 4)  "Seems you do too. I can't replace images without consensus, you can't readd images without consensus. Fairs fair."
 * 5)  "Cut it out, these are under discussion at the talk page. It's very weird what names are representing the year."
 * 6)  "/* Deaths */ hiding pictures until consensus reached. Since you refuse to do as asked, I have to find alternatives. Their integrity is compromised, so they're gone for now. Any further reverting is just plain ridiculous"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Note was left at user's talk; continues reverting.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 05:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The definition of edit warring strictly lies in the reversal of the same edit three times. I reverted his change of Walker's photo twice. His reversal of me removing the pics twice. Your reversal once. Then I hid them as he wouldn't comply with my request to keep them off until a consensus was reached. It's what we did with The Wolf of Wall Street when the genre was compromised. May I point out he has yet to respond to my talk page post? I did go to the talk page and begin the discussion, these two have yet to. I'd like to know why is that because right now their conduct screamed "my way or the highway". Rusted AutoParts 05:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, I know. I'm way too headstrong when it comes to arguing. I get hotheaded and lose sight of the issue. But I'm telling you, the goal for me wasn't to fight over it. When I look at it, it's really minor. But at the same time, it gets under my skin when someone defies a request, like taking their issue to the talk page where I started a discussion, and continue to reverse back to the way they want it when they know of the discussion and simply choose not to engage in a conversation about it. It always seems there's a double standard in that way where content that is disputed gets removed, and somehow content stays when it is disputed. I don't understand why that happens, but it sets me off. It's hard to talk when your opponent won't talk. And it sucks more that they have to be an opponent. I'm just trying to edit in a way where future readers can either understand it without having to scroll through Shakespearian type writing style, or in this case, high lit the highlights of a year. If reversal of several different edits is 3RR, I apologize. I truthfully didnt know that applied. I thought it only applied to reverting the same edit three times, I swear to god. Again, it's not my goal, objective, mission, whatever to war about content, it's a simple matter of getting upset, something I am desperately trying to work on. I don't want to be blocked because it would deprive me of my opportunity to maturely debate the issue. Maturely understand why they are against it, understand their stance and part ways as collaborators, not rivals. What I do wish is for Derby and Taylor to take to 2013's talk page and reply to my post. Rusted AutoParts</i> 06:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Rusted AutoParts blocked once again, for 6 months this time. Perhaps 6 months maturation will improve his ability to "maturely debate the issue".&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:79.182.111.44, User:79.182.49.102 being reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: Semi)

 * Page:


 * User being reported: ,

diff

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

diff

Comments:

This user is not just engaging in an edit war, but he is now harassing me by following any page I edit to start trouble. He is angry because I discovered numerous WP violations in his editing of the Inland taipan page. The thing is, the diff up there of what the article originally contained was done by User:Jmh649, who is a physician and an administrator here on Wikipedia. But this IP user is taking his anger out on me. My mission when I sign on WP was to expand and improve any venomous species article I can and eventually upgrade them to GA status, so I started with the Black mamba, which after a rigorous review attained GA status. I have given this IP user numerous warnings on all the different IP's he uses to no avail. An admin protectted the Inland taipan page, so now he is angry with me and is on a mission to harass me. I hold two degrees on the subject matter and he seems to be a silly amateur who has the attitude of "my snake is deadlier than yours" as you can see in his edit summaries. I finished with the black mamba article, so now I have nominated the Many-banded krait page for GA status, but it needs a lot of work. I have over 140 technical books and field guides on venomous snake species and access to full texts in online journals. Something has to be done with this user who keeps using different IP's and is now harassing me only because I discovered his policy violations. Here is a short list of copyright vios I discovered on the Inland taipan page (there are many more):


 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicate detector
 * Duplicator detector
 * Duplicate detector

He, in my humble opinion, has zero value on Wikipedia. He clearly doesn't care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, he's interested in his own POV and will not agree to consensus. This has been a long standing issue with him over the numerous IP's he uses. He is engaging in an edit war (I am not going to do anything about his latest revert) even though I have rollback option. I am going to leave it to you guys. His other IP's, which have all received warnings are: User talk:79.177.163.151, User talk:79.182.111.44, User talk:79.182.49.102, User talk:79.180.177.93, User talk:79.179.166.212. --DendroNaja (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the link to the page and two IPs as the top. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't really want to send this off somewhere else, but in terms of recent edit warring there is nothing actionable. Have a look through Dispute resolution and see if there is anything there which will help. Otherwise this might need to go to ANI, probably ending with either the user starting to talk or getting blocked. But from an AN3 point of view there is . Though I'd appreciate it if other admins could take a look as well in case I've missed something. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * With the permission of User:Callanecc, and per a discussion on his talk page, I'm semiprotecting Snakebite for three months. In this case the copyright violations by the 79.* IP-hopper lose him any credibility as a good-faith contributor. Edit warring from a fluctuating IP also violates WP:SOCK. There has also been an ANI report which led to an admin [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inland_taipan&diff=589215354&oldid=589067273 removing the copyright violations] from Inland taipan. EdJohnston (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:MarianoRivero reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked and semi protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 2)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 3)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 4)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 5)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 6)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 7)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 8)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 9)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 10)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 11)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 12)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 13)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 14)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 15)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 16)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 17)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 18)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 19)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 20)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 21)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 22)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 23)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 24)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 25)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 26)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 27)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 28)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 29)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 30)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 31)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 32)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 33)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 34)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 35)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 36)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 37)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 38)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 39)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 40)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 41)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 42)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 43)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 44)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 45)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 46)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 47)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 48)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 49)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 50)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 51)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 52)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 53)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 54)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 55)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 56)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 57)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 58)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 59)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 60)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 61)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 62)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 63)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 64)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 65)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 66)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 67)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 68)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 69)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 1)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 2)  "/* Box office grosses */"
 * 3)  "/* Box office grosses */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013 Metro Manila Film Festival. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

In excess of 60 edits, including one after 3RR warning. Have also given User:112.207.248.114 a warning for exceeding 3RR ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  10:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * by and  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 5 January 2014 (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)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: After being blocked for 1 week, User Shervinsky comes back to Wiki and continue edit warring and his POV-pushing in the article. The reported user did not provide any explanation concerning his edits at talk page.


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * and subject to 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User:192.69.217.195 reported by User:Vzaak (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

[For context only] 192.69.217.195 is restoring unsourced crazy stuff added by this banned user, who has vandalized other articles with the same unsourced craziness, e.g.. vzaak 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one year. The problem of socks making unsourced changes and edit warring at Terence McKenna has been going on for more than a year. See [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive196#User:Final3211_reported_by_User:Semitransgenic_.28Result:_72h.29 this 3RR report] from September 2012. For more background see Sockpuppet investigations/8i347g8gl/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

User: Anthony Weights reported by User:Oxford24 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=589259869&oldid=589259194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=589120588&oldid=589111637]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=588974169&oldid=588972209]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=588954935&oldid=588931100]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=588647376&oldid=588583254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Time_of_the_Doctor&diff=589128739&oldid=589128335]

Comments:

Anthony Weights, 176.27.228.253, and whatever other new user accounts he’s using (same language, same additions every time) is trolling Broadcast and Reception on this article repeatedly and ignoring the talk page. Several new puppet accounts have been used solely to add the same negative fan reviews and make the reaction “mixed”. As discussed in the talk section and edit comments, it’s not appropriate to include any source one chooses in the Reception section. It should be limited to professional writers at established entertainment/news websites and magazines, under the reliable sources guidelines. If we include every fan who posted an opinion, the Review/Reception section would be 80 paragraphs long and every movie and episode of anything would have a “mixed reaction” It is implied this is reaction from professional critics. Man of Steel, with a 55% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, has a mixed reaction. Several users have talked about this in edit comments and talk. Anthony Weights, and has been warned already about edit warring on this page on January 4, but continues to make the same edits again and again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Weights

Nearly all professional, legitimate feedback has been positive, if you do an internet search. He is including fan sites where anyone can post (quoting Hypable is equivalent to quoting youtube comments), a student newspaper writer (with only one other article, in fact), an opinion blog from The Telegraph after the official review has been quoted, repeatedly saying the reviews were mixed, trying to single out criticism in reviews that are 90% positive. He even moved the 86% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, which are only professional reviewers, from the beginning where it usually goes to the bottom of a random paragraph. This person has a personal hatred for the episode and contrary to all discussion will not stop tainting the article that way. As soon as semi-protection expired a new user, 176.27.228.253, made the same edits he’s been making over and over. The 274 word opinion post from James Delingpole trashing the show, that he repeatedly tries to include (see edit history), is listed under http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk, where there are dozens of bloggers; whereas the official review from The Telegraph by Tim Martin is listed under Culture/TV and Radio -- as it is in any major news source such as The Guardian. He has shortened, moved or edited mine and other editors’ text to reflect a negative reaction. If you look at the talk page and edit history, this behavior has been going on for a while, with the general feeling from users that the negative reviews are from questionable sources. Note: other users than myself have tried to fight his edits, in the history. Oxford24 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. While Anthony Weights repeatedly adds a negative slant to the article, he never participates on talk. If he continues to revert without waiting for consensus he may be blocked. Another admin has restored semiprotection to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:IndianBio reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Readd sales for UK which is certified gold, an url behind a subscription wall does not mean that the indicated sales are untrue, a Google search shows this"
 * 2)  "You are really getting on everyone's nerves you know, even after Homeostatis explained you countless times"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Stop the edit warring, dont stir shit for unnecessary reasons. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by STATicVapor (talk): Use your eyes, there is no certification listed, just the sales. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted to revision 589153932 by IndianBio (talk): ???? (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has effectively violated WP:3rr in two similar conflicts related to the certification table in the Artpop article. Refuses to abide by WP:BRD when multiple editors disagree with their edits.  STATic  message me!  19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User hasn't reverted since being reminded about 3RR on their talk page. If they do it again feel free to report them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * StaticVapor thanks for bringing this up, I admit this has been against my better judgement and apologies to the community for my rash behavior. Will be extremely careful from now on and it won't happen again. —<font size="2" face="Courier New" color="#6F00FF"> Indian: <font color="#FF033E">BIO  · [ <font face="Tempus Sans ITC" color="#1C1CF0">ChitChat ] 06:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Check the diffs, last two reverts occurred after the 3RR warning that was immediately removed upon receiving and the second warning that was given by User: C.Fred.  STATic  message me!  07:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * True didn't see that, given their comment above doesn't look like a block will prevent anything now. IndianBio you should also be apologising to STATicVapor for your edit summary comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The Californias
Page:

Looks like we have an edit war to blank/rd the article because there are evidently some historical inaccuracies in it. — kwami (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since 3RR does not apply to vandalism, and this appears to be vandalism, I'm going to continue to restore the article, but someone please protect. I don't want to get caught out because it turned out to be an idiot rather than a vandal.  — kwami (talk) 10:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Lap dance
Page:

Could this page be locked, please? In hopes that discussion could be undertaken without the continual warring? Thanks. --<font color="#111111">‖ Ebyabe talk - Border Town  ‖ 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:68.201.99.145 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * The editor is talking but could care less about edit-waring as seen here and insulting people as see with the edit summary ... Stop your racist actions by deleting notable Mexicans. To me this is racist and unacceptable

Comments:

Note User:184.9.91.82 has also reverted lots. Need these people to talk over editing at all -- Moxy (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither has edited since the warning for edit warring, if they continue please feel free to re-report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what to do at this point the editor in-question is no longer talking and is calling people racist. Not sure at this point we will have the capability to work things out. I am mainly concerned with the guess work on who is Mexican American... we sure that people like Chris Weitz, Linda Ronstadt and Lynda Carter are Mexican Americans.  -- Moxy (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Both IPs blocked 48 hours to encourage discussion. -- John Reaves 19:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jakandsig reported by User:Indrian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User has been edit warring across multiple pages including Atari 7800, Atari 2600, Sega Dreamcast, Phillips CD-i, and ColecoVision. User has violated 3RR rule on several of those pages, engages in personal attacks in the edit summaries,[ and has ignored requests from multiple editors to take the dispute to the talk pages of the respective articles. User reverted several of the articles again after I left a 3RR warning on his talk page. Indrian (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

User has not been ignoring, people are editing without reading sources, and Indiran and friend have decided not to attempt to talk as user HAS been on the talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakandsig (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not an Admin: I'm not going to suggest that any parties in this discussion so far have behaved as well as they might have, but frankly you should have started the Talk page discussion long before you violated 3RR so extensively. That said, I'd suggest that no action be taken against you if you're willing to acknowledge you understand that you violated policy and will commit to exercising more restraint in the future. As for pointing fingers at the other editors in this discussion, if you feel they have violated policy you should initiate separate discussions, not mingle the issues under this filing. DonIago (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, after I posted this notice here (and gave appropriate notice on the user's talk page), he reverted you on the ColecoVision article again with the statement "I am already at the talk page, no one wants to talk our read accurate sources." He has not shown any sign of repenting, and his move to the talk page has only been to repost the removed material from the articles without any commentary.  Editor appears unlikely to repent. Indrian (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that, and I certainly wouldn't call it a step in the right direction. Giving people less than an hour to respond to a Talk page discussion isn't kosher, especially when you know it's become controversial. I hope if/when the editor returns they'll show a bit more interest in working toward consensus. DonIago (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: It appears that Jakandsig has been blocked by Toddst1 for disruptive editing in a move unrelated to my posting here. Therefore, further action may not be necessary at this time. Indrian (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User Jakandsig may have a sockpuppet account: 2A01:7A0:10:149:154:159:248:1 66.18.219.221 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I notified the admin that blocked him. Indrian (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours by User:Toddst1. The 2A01* IP is also blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:108.41.173.242 reported by User:Lexein (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: - source of later reverts
 * User being reported: - source of the original revert

(No specific article version, just a revert to a version of the infobox parameter which was more than a year old)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS." - 112.198.90.248 reversion of over a year old standing URL=HTTPS
 * 2)  "Undid revision 589188111 by Lexein (talk) Personal opinions do not matter. Reverted to consensus."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 589462076 by Lexein (talk) This is just gainsaying on your part. There was no change in consensus and you ended the discussion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit warring. See WP:BRD."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ ce, link. It's been https: at least a year, now"
 * 3)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ consensus can change"
 * 4)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
 * 5)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
 * 6)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"
 * 7)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r to nothing"
 * 8)   "/* https vs http in infobox, 2014 */ r"


 * Comments:

Although this isn't 3RR yet, it is about ongoing edit warring in the midst of a BRD discussion. The IP editor reverted a long-standing (over a year) HTTPS link in the infobox with the edit summary (The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS.) I reverted that based on BRD and opened discussion on Talk, based on how consensus works and can change, even without discussion. The IP doggedly employs legalistic arguments not based in WP policy, guideline or essay, employs rhetorical questions, inverted logic and bold misinterpretation of the history of the article and discussion, WP:CONSENSUS, and even WP:BRD to bolster the notion that HTTPS "shouldn't" be in the infobox. If I'm wrong here, so be it, but I'm certainly not seeing that at the moment. If this report is too screwed up, I'll retract it if requested. Lexein (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The statement that I made a revert with the comment "The Pirate Bay is not secure, and so I use HTTP instead of HTTPS" is an utterly false accusation. One of several recently made by Lexein. I have no idea who made that edit. In fact, looking at the history of the actual editor, I am in complete disagreement with his motives. Consensus was reached on this subject after long discussion. It is Lexein that is attempting to make a change to the status quo, as he admitted in his first statement in the thread. He has declared that consensus has changed and that discussion is not mandatory. He has ignored all of my arguments, and resorted to declarations, characterizations, accusations, and now his attempt to ban me for a violation I did not make. In fact, he reverted three times and I reverted twice to bring text back to the status quo, and yet he puts an ew template on my talk page and this false accusation here. Please review all of the thread, not his excerpts alone. Regards, 108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You made the edit as another IP, and defended it as if you made the edit, so it is completely logical to assume you made the edit. --Lexein (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lexein now accuses me of lying, the sixth accusation he has made against me. I did not make that edit. I have no idea who made that edit. Don't I have the right to make an argument in favor of a position without constant personal attacks and false accusations? Is it not possible to have an honest debate, without repeated assumptions of bad character and bad faith? Is it the style here to make accusations, insults and threats when you can't succeed in convincing someone with logic? Now I have to defend myself against these false accusations. This is really quite sad. No wonder WP is losing editors. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I don't want to get into a content discussion here, but there was substantial discussion some time ago that confirmed that outgoing links from Wikipedia should not be https:// but always http://  ... there were a myriad of reasons, all valid  ES  &#38;L  18:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the 41 other https links on that page to the same site should be corrected.108.41.173.242 (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but there has been much discussion and change in the last few months to shift to HTTPS in infoboxes for articles about sites and services which default to, recommend, or protocol-switch to, HTTPS: see EFF, Wayback Machine and others. The Pirate Bay recommends HTTPS, so it is not unreasonable to use the HTTPS URL in that infobox. --Lexein (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that this is completely irrelevant to the ew page, why would you take the recommendation of convicted criminals on links to their court-resolved illegal site? Would you take this advice from convicted criminals on other pages? Let us get back to the subject of your false accusations. You made three reverts. I made two, only after you stated that you would no longer discuss the subject. You then threatened to banish me from WP and filed a false complaint toward that end, declaring that I was using a sock. This is a damnable lie.108.41.173.242 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Lexein's claim that it was https for over a year is not close. I just looked at the history. It was changed to https on Dec 19th, 18 days before someone reverted it to the status quo agreed upon in a previous long discussion.108.41.173.242 (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * More than close. Consistently. My spot check shows HTTPS in the infobox use over an extremely long period of time, with incidental change to HTTP while domains were changing rapidly. In any case, this does not invalidate my case that BRD was not being respected by the IP editor, who persisted in trying to revert during discussion. --Lexein (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have avoided the word “lie” in an attempt to assume good faith. But, this is beyond absurd and now that he has made false accusations against me, yet again, let us speak frankly. This claim that I persisted in trying to revert during discussion is an outright lie that anyone can see by looking at the history. I made ZERO attempts to revert back to the consensus until Lexein said that he would no longer engage in discussion. I let his bad edit stand, despite the fact that it was against consensus. At the point that he stated his disengagement from discussion, reversion to the status quo was an obvious move. During discussion, he insisted that WP does not require discussion, and that he determined on his own that agreed upon consensus had somehow changed. He then disengaged and threatened to banish me from WP. Then, he posted false accusations against me on this page. This is not my concept of consensus. 108.41.173.242 (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. At this time there is no 3RR. But both sides are on thin ice if they revert again prior to getting a talk page consensus about https. If there is an actual consensus about https it should be possible to document it, with links. Otherwise new steps of WP:DR may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:EllenCT reported by User:mattnad (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User EllenCT has been pushing content onto various articles but being careful to technically avoid 3RR, but edit warring all the same. In the diffs below, she has repeated the same pattern, with a bit of gap from the first to the second, third and fourth. But this is a pattern of an edit warrior.

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Two discussion show the threads of different editors attempting to reason with EllenCT.
 * 1) Talk:Tax_policy_and_economic_inequality_in_the_United_States
 * 2) Talk:Tax_policy_and_economic_inequality_in_the_United_States In this second section, the Editor is particularly dismissive of other editor opinions.  There had been an RFC regarding a graph that EllenCT has been adding.  The findings of the RFC were that the graph was WP:SYN but EllenCT is dismissive of that here  as "systematic biases".

Comments:

I know it's my job to highlight the broader patterns, but I will just say that EllenCT has become very difficult to work with on several articles. There does not seem to be a way to reach this person and I'm hoping a short block might send a wake-up call.Mattnad (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there is already discussion on the talk page, protection should force parties there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Mattnad (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User: Walter Görlitz reported by User:GameLegend (Result: Closed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [589558086]
 * 2) [589557417]
 * 3) [589551864]
 * 4) [589551370]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=589552040&oldid=589551816

Comments:

User refuses any attempt to communicate and has now gone as far as deleting my comments in the discussion on the talk-page. GameLegend (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's got something to do with an edit conflict, but yes User:Walter Görlitz please do not remove talk page comments related to a dispute you are currently involved with it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:67.247.54.159 reported by User:Ugog Nizdast (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid Vandalism 589635768 by Fdewaele (talk)"
 * 2)  "STOP VANDALIZING 589636631 by Fdewaele (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 589637240 by Fdewaele (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid Vandalism 589638237 by Fdewaele (talk)"


 * Multiple warnings on User talk:67.247.54.159.


 * Comments:

On behalf of User:Fdewaele.

In the past 24 hours, IP follows similar pattern of mass reverts on other pages like Herman Van Rompuy, Pedro de Gante, Symbols of Europe, Treaty of Lisbon and other pages within this topic range. Warned earlier today by different users and now focuses solely on reverting User:Fdewaele. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 month for vandalism. It appears that a mass rollback of this IP's edits may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.195.84 reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: Coltsfan blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


 * The IP editor in question has been edit warring on two articles, but has received no warnings about edit warring. There is no point whatever in making a report here on an editor who, as far as we know, may be totally unaware of the edit warring policy. The editor has recieved several warnings about edits that "did not appear constructive", but no attempt has been made to explain what was considered unconstructive about them. Coltsfan, on the other hand, has been taking part in the same edit wars, and clearly is aware of the edit warring policy, as this report proves, so he/she will eb blocked for 24 hours. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the consensus you speak ofdoes not exist - consensus is against renaming articles, not using certain names in season articles"
 * 2)  "make sure your rationale for editing actually lines up with the argument on the talk page - and you are far, far too quick to bring up WP:OWN when you dislike an edit"
 * 3)  "talk page discussions oppose renaming individual articles - references provided use these names"
 * 1)  "talk page discussions oppose renaming individual articles - references provided use these names"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Talk:2014_Formula_One_season

These edits came about when I was attempting to deal with a particularly aggressive editor. Although he did have a consensus for a related issue on the talk page, he did not have the specific consensus that he claimed to. Over the course of that discussion, several issues came up that were worth discussing, but the user in question refused to address them and instead treated the consensus as a vote.
 * Comments:

In addition to this, he accused me of breaking WP:OWN the moment I made an edit he disagreed with, refused to address his own behaviour when approached on his talk page, and has attempted to characterise any edits he does not like as "fanciful lunacy", despite having cautioned against what he called "hysterical reactions".

Truth be told, I did wonder if this editor was a sock of notorious puppeteer DeFacto - the brute-force approach to editing and the attempts to discredit editors he disagrees with by throwing policies at them were some of his favourite tactics, and I even considered going to SPI with it, but DeFacto has shown such a wide range of disruptive behaviours in the past that any difficult editor could be suspected of being a sock.

If I was edit-warring on the page, it was unintentional. At the time, I was certain the other editor was a DeFacto sock (though I am less certain now), and past experience has taught me that when DeFacto reappears, the only way to resolve the issue is to get him off the article and onto the talk page, because if he is left alone on the article, he will dig in and constantly restore old versions of the page, refusing to allow any editing unless he approves of it first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Monterrosa reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Voice acting is behind the scenes and acting is performing on screen THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE SO STOP DOING THAT, also he's hosted 3 Comedy Central Roast, Saturday Night Live, The Oscars and various other events so yes he is a host just"
 * 2)  "Yes it is a reliable source."
 * 3)  "I have no idea why you would that since clearly is a comedian and hosted several television programs for quite a while now. And also acting and voice acting are not the same thing."
 * 1)  "Yes it is a reliable source."
 * 2)  "I have no idea why you would that since clearly is a comedian and hosted several television programs for quite a while now. And also acting and voice acting are not the same thing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warnings for edit warring and disruptive editting can be found on user's talk page. User refuses to discuss with other when edits are reverted as required by WP:BRD. They have been edit warring over various BLPs over the past few days, not just this article and it has become quite a nuisance.  STATic  message me!  02:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To be specific, the user has also done this on Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and Neil Patrick Harris articles.


 * And since I started this report, another revert on the page in question.  STATic  message me!  05:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . I've blocked as well as it appears they have continued to edit war after being warned not to do so.  Tiptoety  talk 05:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Moe123usajr reported by User:Corkythehornetfan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:This user keeps putting Natalie Morales joining the TODAY show in 2003, when actually her biography, on the website, states she joined in 2006. I along other users have tried telling the user that she had joined in 2006. On his talk page, I tried warning him several times. 1: and 2:. He also couldn't provide a source for Morales joining in '03. He obviously just isn't getting the point.


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User: Jonesy702 reported by User:ТимофейЛееСуда (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported: & myself:

Previous version reverted to: See timelines below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles characters diffs: Original removal: Add back first image:

Add back second image:

Revert both images:

Revert again:

And again:

File:Ellison, James.jpg diffs:

Original tag for deletion:

Tag removal:

Again:

One more time:

Again again:

Final removal:

File:Reese, Derek.jpg diffs:

Add deletion tag:

First removal:

Again:

Another time:

One more time:

Again again:

Final removal:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jonesy702 & User talk:ТимофейЛееСуда

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Only attempts of communication on my part are through edit summaries.

Comments:

There was a discussion about two files uploaded by this user on WP:NFCR now archived at and the one above it that I closed in November as consensus saying that the two images obviously failed WP:NFCC. I then removed both images from the article, (List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles characters) per consensus on 27 November. The user added the files back below on 6 January 21:01, then I reverted, then he added them back on 23:22 same day, then I reverted. Now he's added them back 7 January 17:10 (diffs above). He has also repeatedly removed and subsequently reverted deletion tags since then on the two individual images: File:Reese, Derek.jpg & File:Ellison, James.jpg (diffs above). The user has violated WP:3RR, has gone against WP:consensus without any discussion, and obviously has no grasp of WP:NFCC as most of his uploads have been deleted as failing. This is a persistent issue that I have patiently tried to let go, but its spanned two months total now, and something should be done. At this time I have (to the direct letter of the law) participated in edit warring as well, so I am subject to the same punishment as this user is. My hope is that this issue is resolved and an administrator will remove the images and properly delete them for the final time. -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 20:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I found enough evidence of disruptive editing, including edit warring in articles, files, probable copyright violations, and improper removals of tags from files, to block the editor who appears to be clueless and stubborn, at least in this regard. I chose not to block User:ТимофейЛееСуда, partly based on WP:3RRNO#5, and partly based on attempting to preserve the integrity of the article and prevent disruption on the file pages. I do not intend to delete the files, though. I suggest pointing to this report in the two newly-opened discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about the FFD discussions? Those are from November 17th. -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 01:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I saw the edit war on the files, which was current. Then, I went to the deletion discussion and saw the open deletion entries and mistakenly assumed they were current (you had already closed the earlier ones, which figured into my assumption). Why have they remained open for so long, or am I missing something else here (I'm not an expert on the intricacies of file deletion discussions and WP:NFCC, which I think is an incredible quagmire)?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They have remained open so long because we have very, very few admins who are willing to make deletions or close discussions at WP:FFD, WP:PUF and WP:NFCR, and only 2-3 who delete CSD DI files. -- <font color="#336699">Тимофей <font color="#335599">Лее <font color="#333399">Суда . 15:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 589286112 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) overwhelming consensus for (Name) Grand Prix if a consensus has been established supporting Grand Prix of (name) please show it."
 * 2)  "finished updating to reflect consensus and removed race over linking in main body of text the discussion are very overwhelming and one person does not WP:OWN an article"
 * 3)  "/* Season calendar */ removed over-linking and updated to reflect the outcome of talk page discussions."

User_talk:Sport_and_politics
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Talk:2014_Formula_One_season
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a nonsense complaint of no such edit warring. This strikes of a malicious complaint and not a complaint in the best interests of Wikipedia. There are three editors involved and a lengthy discussion which resulted in the consensus being edited to. by myself, not reverted to in the first instance. There are a total of only two out and out reversions by myeslf on that page and Prisonermonkeys has done the following reversions.
 * Comments:

   It took over 48 to actually report and does not go anywhere near any other user. I am highly suspicious of the motives of this report. The edit summary also demonstrates a genuie belief in a consensus having been established by discussion, Claiming a version to be reverted to in one 3 Months old is pretty far fetched. This is a complaint which should never have been bought due to its highly selective nature in only singing out one user. The user bringing the complaint should them self be reported for making such a complaint. Finally the above criteria for no violation states the following :"there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria." and clearly no violation whatsoever has occurred as only three links have been provided and only two are reverts. I trust this kind of nonsense and spurious complaint will be thrown out in future and editors making such spurious and nuisance complaints will be warned appropriately. Sport and politics (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a very valid complaint - WP:EW does not require you to cross WP:3RR. Your insistence that he's a nuisance is noted, as wrong as it is.  Move on - this was closed as stale, don't make yourself look worse :-)   ES  &#38;L  16:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Adepane reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action; removing spam twice is not edit warring. )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "we are online daily news paper at Medan & North Sumatera, our office check here http://www.kini.co/kontak and our staff check here: http://www.kini.co/redaksi"
 * 2)  "/* External links */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 589811723 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Medan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Doesn't seem to know no care about 3RR; left a gentle message re. the original advertising on TP. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  20:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still revert for 3, not more.

WP:3RR The three-revert rule states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours.

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi left a contumely, do not know what its purpose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adepane (talk • contribs) 20:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes: the User admits to inserting the same piece of (BTW, unsourced)advertising three times. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  20:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes: 3 Times, but not more, BTW, on the first time and the second, you didn't the warning about unsourced, maybe that's make the mistake. I'm officially not want to make advertise. and for the third, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi directly provide Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If the page want to back changes, do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adepane (talk • contribs) 20:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No action necessary Removing spam twice is not edit warring. If Adepane persists in adding spam links, he will be blocked. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:StringBandDivisionThesis reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previously warned and blocked |here.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (Edit warring block.)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , , ,

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

Comments:

Since his previous block, SBD has returned to repeatedly revert to his preferred version without comment.


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems to be a curious topic to get so het up over. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  12:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Master Troll Rocks reported by User:DVdm (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: "King is simpler than magnate"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "stop changing it back king sounds better :p"
 * 2) "kings sounds better plus he was known as the pineapple king, read the article!"
 * 3) "I'm not done ;D"
 * 4) "u mad? ps nice msg"

Was blocked for this on 19 December 2013 by user. After block expired:


 * 1) "(I'mmmmmmmmmm back!!!!!!! :3)"
 * 2) "(HE IS THE PINEAPPLE KING)"

Was blocked on 23 December by user. After block expired:


 * 1) "(It says hes called the pineapple king)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not warned anymore

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts anymore

Comments:

Was briefly discussed here.

DVdm (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Favonian (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Shallowmead077 & User:Richard BB reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya (Result: No action, and a boomerang spotted in the distance)
Page:

User being reported:  &

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I have opened discussion on the article's talk pages considering the changes. I have also advised both users to participate the discussion there before reverting every single change made. However, the users have not involved themselves in the discussion, yet they still revert all the changes made automatically.

It is also said at the Wikipage conserning reverting :

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned. Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

(...)

''It is better to seek help in addressing the issue than to engage in edit warring over it. When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues. Other alternative approaches recommended within the community are suggested below. If, despite trying, one or more users fail to cease edit warring, refuse to work collaboratively or heed the information given to them, or do not move on to appropriate dispute resolution, then a request for administrative involvement via a report at the Edit war/3RR noticeboard is the norm"''"

As I told earlier, I have given my best shot in order to engage them with discussion at the talk pages. Unfortunately, my requests have been ignored and changes kept being reverted one time after another. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please carefully read WP:3RR before filing any more reports here. You were reverted once by RichardBB and twice by Shallowmead, and as such this is not actionable. Please work with other editors on the talk page.   The material you keep removing seems to be well-sourced. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Jayaguru, it says quite clearly at the top of this page that you must inform any user if you are reporting them, and I have received no such report. I discovered this by sheer chance. Secondly, it is you who are edit warring. I feel that this is going to be a serious case of WP:BOOMERANG. You are refusing to wait until consensus is reached, and instead you are trying to force your view into the articles (all the while mislabeling any source you disagree with as unreliable, despite the fact that most clearly are not). I don't know how many times I have to point you in the direction of WP:BRD. It's very clear: if your edits are disputed, then we revert to the status quo until consensus is reached. So far the only one who has broken 3RR is you. —  Richard  BB  21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:FunkMonk (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:


 * All Syrian civil war articles are sanctioned by the 1 revert rule. Sayersll reverted more than once, though he knows full well it is not allowed. Furthermore, he wrote "idiot" in the edit summary. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You obviously got a liking for that article but your edit summary asserting that  my 'sectarian' descriptor word was not supported by the ref, was idiotic and pov pushing imo so I reverted to what the ref said.'beneath a veneer of  rhetoric there is sectarian etc'  - you said its not in the ref - but it was. I didn't think of it as a Syrian civil war article exactly - you told me before it was part of a movement from the 1970s-or something. Sayerslle (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reasoning is irrelevant, the fact is you reverted two times when only one is allowed, which you know already. This organisation only came into being because of this war. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:71.225.249.163 reported by User:LiquidIce (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Continues to remove speedy deletion tag from Alexander Shabalow despite repeated warnings. Operates under this IP as well as the username Proyidoha. LiquidIce (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Article, which was created by Proyidoha, has been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Monterrosa reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Monterorrosa block; Winkelvi warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590001944 by Winkelvi (talk)Have you even the episode?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 590003561 by Winkelvi (talk)But he didn't voiced himself he appeared as himself."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590003561 by Winkelvi (talk)But he didn't voiced himself he appeared as himself."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jimmy Fallon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has been edit warring at this article for days as Monterrosa as well as mobile IP User:2605:E000:96C0:AF00:9C9F:3174:F6FA:175E. Has been warned more than once to stop at this article as well as others. Has a history of edit warring and subsequent blocks. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 00:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User also currently involved in 3RR at Seth MacFarlane: diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7. All in the last 70 minutes. This user was just 48 hours ago blocked for edit warring on the MacFarlane page. BusterD (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still reverting at Jimmy Fallon. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And Rachael MacFarlane with diffs 1, 2, 3, 4 plus many more whiole logged out. ''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  02:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Monterrosa is a tedious editor who will never contribute to the project using applicable policy.''' Flat Out  let's discuss it  01:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (Monterrosa).
 * ., you need to be more careful. You violated WP:3RR at Jimmy Fallon.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:DidoLedo reported by User:Antiuser (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sultan Aji Muhamad Sulaiman Airport. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Sultan Aji Muhamad Sulaiman Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly changing the name of the airport despite warnings. X X X antiuser eh? 03:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:68.101.69.1 reported by User:Jeff3000 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 00:12, January 10, 2014 UTC
 * 2) 01:19, January 10, 2014 UTC
 * 3) 03:19, January 10, 2014 UTC
 * 4) 03:34, January 10, 2014 UTC
 * 5) 03:41, January 10, 2014 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:36, January 10, 2014‎ UTC and 03:37, January 10, 2014‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor has also engaged in some personal attacks. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Asifiqbal80 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2 January

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring warning

Comments:

Asifiqbal180 edit warring with LanguageXpert 's socks. I asked for semi protection of the page but it was declined yesterday. And this is an edit warring report. -- S M S   Talk 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In reply to EdJohnston 's question: The sock I referred above is actually the user using the dynamic IP range 39.32.x.x who is actually a sock of LanguageXpert. As you might see this IP along with registered socks (Macedonish, Edwarddz, Bbb02) have been reverting to their preferred version. The dispute here is about the second largest ethnic group in the city that whether it is Punjabi or Pathan. I have seen LanguageXpert socks at more than dozen articles in recent months and its always Punjabi vs some other ethnic group dispute so I am a little burnt out and don't look into the content issue on each article much thoroughly. About this report I think a much clearer warning would suffice now that it is semi-protected. -- S M S   Talk 15:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure whether it is appropriate to mention here but something needs to be done about LanguageXpert's socking and disruption along with User:Bhural (SPI). Both are edit warring now for some months on Saraiki language related articles. A number of them were semi-protected but to no avail. -- S M S   Talk 15:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Asifiqbal80 is warned. Continued reverting without getting any support on the talk page may lead to a block. Consider asking User:ElHef for advice, since he is the only person to comment so far at Talk:Karachi about your idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

User:The Stick Man reported by User:HappyLogolover2011 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: legitimate file replacements

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Reverted file back to the old revision when replaced for a better revision:
 * 2) Same thing the 2nd time:
 * 3) The third time he does it just to give me a headache and because he likes it that way, but there's no reason to revert just because he loves the old image that way:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user keeps reverting the image after I uploaded a new image in a widescreen quality, but he keeps reverting it because he likes it that way. There are reasons to replace an old image that has been here for years and needs a new better quality image. He keeps doing this just to make me violate the edit war policy while trying to avoid it as best as possible. If he would stop trying to give me a bad day by doing this, I would be able to contribute without any issues like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyLogolover2011 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am not reverting it because I "like it that way". I have given my reasons on my talk page (the closest thing there is to an attempt at a resolution between us, which HappyLogo never addressed before this) and in edit summaries (which HappyLogo also has yet to address). Before I realized that he had done this, I was in the process of going to him directly a second time to discuss. I'm not trying to force him into breaking edit war policies, especially since that would result in me breaking edit warring policies, too, something I would be unlikely to do given my two close calls I've already had (which can be seen on my talk page, as I have not deleted stuff on those incidents). HappyLogo has already been in trouble for trying to upload pictures, and his rationale for keeping his versions are shaky at best. I've welcomed him to begin a discussion on article/file talk pages, which he never did. (I guess I should have done it instead of twiddling my thumbs and waiting for him, but it's too late now.)
 * As mentioned before, I have already made attempts to discuss with him, which HappyLogo did not take advantage of. In fact, back in September, he tried to ask another admin to delete an old version to stop me from reverting him again instead of bringing up the issue with me. I get the feeling that he has deliberately avoided discussion with me, something that is usually done before making accusations in ANI.
 * That's all I have to say. I get that HappyLogo means well, and that I have not handled the situation as best as I could have. But I hope what I have said helps the admin dealing with this make the correct decision. <font color="0000DD">TheStickMan <font color="0000DD">[✆Talk] 06:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've created a discussion about the image on the article's talk page, to help facilitate discussion on these issues. It is somewhat silly that HappyLogo filed this considering he seems to be reverting just as much as Stick Man. If action were to be taken, it would only rightfully be towards both of them. That being said, I'd prefer neither be sanctioned, and instead we just discuss it out on the talk page like we supposed to. Doling out blocks to both is only going to get both sides more riled up, not help solve this. Sergecross73  msg me   15:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine/understand if I do end up getting blocked. Obviously I don't want it to come down to that point, but if you guys must, then I'll take it. <font color="0000DD">TheStickMan <font color="0000DD">[✆Talk] 15:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you broke WP:3RR, it'd be hard to argue not to have you blocked, its pretty cut and clear...but that doesn't appear to be the case, you stopped before breaking 3RR. And he seems to have reverted an equal amount of times, so its kind of frowned up that he be the one that reported you. He also skipped the "discuss on talk page" step as well, as evidenced in his initial report. That's why I'm saying this wasn't a great report, and instead, lets just work this out rather than blocks. Sergecross73   msg me   16:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:1241edit reported by User:Minimac (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 589765499 by HistoryofIran (talk)"
 * 3)  "Tar is an Iranian music instrument  "
 * 4)  "Tar is an Iranian music instrument  "
 * 5)  "Please look at my message about that. Thanks"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Not involved in this, but in a short period of time he's done five reverts on the same article. This might not be 3RR, but the fact that he reverted again after being warned gives me no choice but to report this matter. <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">© <font color="#0645AD"> (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:1241edit has also done three reverts on List of Persian poets and authors (original deletion here (15:43, 9 Jan 2014), first revert here (02:05, 10 Jan), here (15:33, 10 Jan) and here (19:37, 10 Jan) without giving a valid reason for deleting content. I didn't think it necessary to report it until I saw Minimac's report. In the Tar/lute article it is a sort-of content dispute (i.e. there is a legitimate question to be asked about the origins of the instrument) but several editors disagree with 1241edit's assertion that the word "Persian" needs to be in bold font even though it isn't the subject of the article and that all reference to other countries/cultures should be removed. 1241edit seems intent on the same removal of other countries/cultures on the list of poets/authors. Green Giant (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

– Two weeks for disruptive editing and nationalist edit warring. See him [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghazal&diff=prev&oldid=587496946 warring against ClueBot] at Ghazal to enforce deletion of some material. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:93.86.34.205 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590249052 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) No we are not at the same level... i dont deleting sourced material."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 590248282 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Poor man deleting sourced material, just because he dont like Serbs... i feel bad for you."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 590248063 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 590247293 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Thanks."
 * 5)  "I live in my country and i dont need to speak good english, and you escaped like a dog from your belowed Bosnia.."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 590245841 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Yes i am,"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 590245381 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) There is no such thing as Bosnian language..."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 590244821 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 590244335 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) There are pictures and names of killed people.. Jesu li to sve Srbi izmislili bolesnice."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 590243598 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) This is not talk page."
 * 11)  "Undid revision 590242332 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Bla,bla,bla bla... there is an article about this on 2 wiki... so please dont spread your lies here."
 * 12)  "Undid revision 590240738 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) Why are you deleting sources?"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 590225989 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk) This is Republika Srpska"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 590226053 by DemirBajraktarevic (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 590221419 by DemirBajraktarevic You are talking about unsourced material.. every your bullshit lies are unsourced."
 * 16)  "This is Republika Srpska... here we dont have "Bosnian" language"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590221419 by DemirBajraktarevic You are talking about unsourced material.. every your bullshit lies are unsourced."
 * 2)  "This is Republika Srpska... here we dont have "Bosnian" language"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning about  Edit warring"


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


 * Comments:

This edit war has broken 3RR by a factor of 4! Marek . 69  talk 18:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked, see other report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "well in that case I feel bad for you too... you're reverting me as well. I guess you and I are on the same level - the lowest of the low. I "feel bad" for us :)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 590248205 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 590247560 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 590247172 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) You are a very immature man"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 590246391 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) Are you sure it's bad that you're feeling? I think it's MAD and INADEQUATE (go translate... I can tell your English is not so good)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 590246068 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) ... and you're admission cancels out your argument as INVALID AND CLOUDED BY PREJUDICE"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 590245664 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)... and that sentence proves you're a nationalist Serb."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 590245156 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) I speak Bosnian though maybe you could write in Bosnian what you want me to know"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 590244556 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) I don't speak Serbian so I didn't understand what you wrote there at the end, nor do I wish to know. Provide reliable SOURCES (plural)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 590243765 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) then take your argument to the talk page instead of reverting edits and adding unsourced material"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 590242899 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) it stays if you can provide a few RELIABLE sources. what you posted was a link to the ramblings of a delusional Serb man"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 590242130 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) first of all: you added A SOURCE (not plural) and that website is hardly reliable"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 590239310 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 590225258 by 93.86.34.205 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 590224884 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) "Bullshit" is not a professional term. I can't take your argument seriously when you behave like a child"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590224884 by 93.86.34.205 (talk) "Bullshit" is not a professional term. I can't take your argument seriously when you behave like a child"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning about  Edit warring"


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


 * Comments:

This edit war has broken 3RR by a factor of 4! Marek . 69  talk 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:DemirBajraktarevic reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: Blocked, see other report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Plus 9 more identical reverts in just the last half an hour (and he keeps going on)... Please see revision history.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has been warned about edit warring on the article, diff but he ignores it. He is a well established user who is thinking that no one will bother to make the report, so he seems to be having fun by reverting and keeping a dialogue with some IP and other users on the edit summaries. Yesterday I left him a message at his talk page where I said that he should thank me for not having reported him until now, because he has made over 50 reverts at that same article for the last 10-15 days. Also, yesterday he has been reverting a consensus edit in a number of other articles. Oh, while making this report he has just receved another warrning for edt-warring on another article: diff FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your belief that I am "having fun" reverting Serb nationalist POV edits is ridiculous. The individual that I was edit warring with on the Lepa Brena and Dubica articles is an IP editor who proudly admitted to being a Serb nationalist in one edit --DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are feeding the trolls then. But anyway, you have been reverting other established users and me as well, before. You need to learn that edit-warring is not acceptable at Wikipedia and you need to taje the warnings seriously. You broke the 3RR rule duzens of times for the last couple of weeks. Sorry. I even told you yesterday on how I didn´t bothered to report you, but coming here today and seing over 15 reverts in one hour in just one article, plus reverts on other articles, you just leave no option. FkpCascais (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You made 20 reverts (20!!!) in one article in less then 4 hours! diff. Oh, and in the same time you made 15 reverts at another article diff. Come on... FkpCascais (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Was it only 20? It felt like a lot more--DemirBajraktarevic (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:185.35.164.107 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "fixing errors and citations"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision Antiochus the Great"
 * 3)  "There's already talk on this subject. The revert that was done, was done without talk prior, so I reverted back."
 * 4)  "NeiN, there was 15 edits done from Jan 1 to 4, there was no talk on those edits. I placed discussions on talk. I asked the edits before Jan 1 be discussed first. Editing was done in bad faith on Jan 1st and I am protecting the article"


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


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


 * Comments:

See and   Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I placed a dicussion on talk here I reverted because there was no discussion[] since January 1, it was only on population. One editor moved content out and never used talk, sources were deleted and taken out without making a discussion about that content removed. Sources were removed without talk, that should be discussed first.--185.35.164.107 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP is exhibiting the same unconstructive behavior as User talk:62.73.7.84. The IP was using proxies (according to the administrator Acroterion) and has a history of editing under various different IP addresses. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Copied from your talk page: "Given there was no objection to the Jan 1 edit until now, it's up to you to further discuss on the talk page why your reversion improves the article and wait for other editors to weigh in." Will you do this instead of changing to your preferred version of the article a sixth time? -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really there is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?

If you look on talk now, who replied? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Potential_superpowers which I reverted the article one hour ago, why aren't people replying this to but they revert back? Look on the talk history and see here There was no discussion from Jan 1 to Jan 11? Why but when I revert back, one editor comes in to revert back the same editor that changed it without using talk? Why? Who's stepping in when that changed the content? What am I doing wrong and makes them have power over the article? --185.35.164.107 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From User_talk:Josh3580:
 * So let me get this straight. You have a problem with a previous user making changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS, and your solution is to make changes without gaining WP:CONSENSUS? Give the discussion on the talk page some time. Putting a note in the talk page is not the same as gainingconsensus. — Josh3580 talk/hist 21:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * When one editor notifies the other, look the article was changed and then goes back without single discussion. Talk doesn't doesn't get the attention at all, what do you do? You can't advertise on Wikipedia, so what do you do to get people to talk? Second if the editors handing out in part of a team to edit the same without discussion what do you do there is still no discussion?


 * If you look, there was two editors, one changed this much with here. Why isn't this person being questioned? There was no discussion what that person did? I placed a discussion on talk, I am doing the right thing by questioning and asking to use talk first. I think this article is being bullied by one editor and that isn't fair. I understand you see I reverted but please look what I am saying as well. One editor that changed this content here spends about 6 to 8 hour a day on Wikipedia, that's his right but when I look at the history on this editor, they are also making article changes without using talk. There is a lot of discussion on this article and really there is not a whole of people using talk like they should but my opinion I think one editor is taking this article to another level without using talk. How do you defend that? How do you use talk when one doesn't and edits without talk?--185.35.164.107 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Adding "I felt there no proof on the article was done in good faith as good sources were removed without using talk...." and then breaking WP:3RR right after is not exactly working collaboratively. I still don't know why you think your version is better. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ., I don't see the connection between this IP and .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, it is my (strong) suspicion that they are one and the same, based on behavior and exact same area of interest. I'll briefly explain the background to the situation.


 * The IP initially started editing as User talk:27.121.111.201, being disruptive and pushing for nationalist Russian POV on the Superpower article. An administrator (Acroterion) got involved -after a brief edit war- and warned the IP against his disruptive behavior, harassment and personal attacks towards me. The IP soon went silent.


 * Not long afterwards (~12 hours), another IP User talk:62.73.7.84 started stalking, harassing and reverting my edits on other articles. The Administrator Acroterion swiftly got involved and suspected that the IPs 27.121.111.201 and 62.73.7.84 were in-fact the same people (but using proxies). After continued disruptive behavior from the IP, Acroterion blocked the IP for the following reason: "I have blocked this IP, as review indicates that this IP has been used to edit-war to insert a nationalist Russian POV and to stalk the edits of another user who has been harassed in a similar fashion in recent days."


 * The latest IP, User talk:185.35.164.107, showed up as soon as the page protection at the Potential superpowers article expired, and started edit-warring for the exact same nationalist Russian POV as the earlier IP. The IP 185.35.164.107 also exhibits a similar language/writing style.


 * In summary,(The duck test) the same disruptive behavior, edit-warring for the same nationalist Russian POV material and the same language/writing style. Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I will note that if it's the same person, they've become a little more cautious and while they exhibit a similar POV, they aren't obviously related and have avoided stalking your edits. That's why I specifically cautioned you not to see sockpuppets under every IP, and to avoid being drawn into revert wars.   Acroterion   (talk)   23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User:RupalDel reported by User:Drmies (Result: Disruptive sock indefblocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

This concerns a section that is poorly written and improperly verified; RupalDel seems to think that a two-thousand year old text (the Natya Shastra) is a proper reference to use on the more recent development of this dance--see this edit summary. Discussion is found on my talk page and the user's talk page, though "discussion" is a bit of a misnomer. Editor seems to suggest I don't know my classical Indian dance, that I don't have an art form to be proud of, and that my "subpressing" (yeah) their unverified and grammatically challenged text was a "cowardly act". For the record, part of this is also a YouTube link to some dance performance, which RupalDel apparently thinks of as a "citation". A different editor, has just come by to restore some other ridiculously poorly verified content (that something is a "recognized classical dance" is here verified by a scholarship form--no joke). Interesting: note that the text that RupalDel restores here (originally added by an IP) is pretty much exactly the same as the text added by Rogblr to Indian classical dance, here. Noteworthy also is that the two editors have the exact same poor syntax in English, and both like to lard their edit summaries with double exclamation points--here is Rogblr (cussing at Spiffy, of all people) and here is RupalDel cussing at me. To cut a long story short: besides edit warring and 3RR, we have some personal insults, incompetence in terms of language and reliably sourcing, and socking. Drmies (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:


 * RupaIDel indefinitely blocked as an obvious and disruptive sock of User:Rogblr. Oh, and edit warring, no doubt. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Hey,, Bishonen is taking over your board. What are you going to do about it? Drmies (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * She's always been a pushy sort. It's nice to see her alive and blocking kicking. It's like riding a bicycle; you never really forget how to wield those tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User:109.148.147.177 reported by User:David Biddulph (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The 4 reverts in the past 24 hours follow 3 reverts on 10 January 2014. The IP continues to refer to other users' edits as vandalism, despite having been told by a number of editors that this is not the case. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User:LiberalMindset reported by User:Zero Serenity (Result: Declined)
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: Talk:Daily_Kos

Comments:

I've been trying to explain that a source from 2004 is not current while the owner's about page is. Daily Kos is not a democratic (as in the party) party site, but is rather a progressive mindset. After the most recent talk page allegations I suspect LM's edits are not in good faith. Zero Serenity (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I see any "blame" being shared fairly equally between the two of you. Both of you have reverted three times. Thus far, neither of you has violated WP:3RR. This is a content dispute and should remain on the talk page or in dispute resolution. Given your admitted bias, I don't see why an outside editor would suspect LM any more than they might suspect you of bad faith. Just focus on the content and drop the rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Over the Orwell reported by User:Blackberry Sorbet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

Over the Orwell originally drew attention to themselves as a possible WP:SPA targetting the page of his/her local Member of parliament, Ben Gummer. They have ignored invitations to discuss their tendentious editing of this particular BLP. Recently they added material about how this MP voted on a single issue. They then decided to select an apparently arbitrary number of coalition MP's (not all 296 MPs who voted in this way) and added the same material. This was without any context, was undue, and was without discussion or content about voting on any other issues. They have been asked to discuss their editing, editors have gone out of their way to accommodate them, and they have been warned about edit warring. The user is a net negative to the project, is disruptive, is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Joetri10 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Declined/locked)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: for Prisonermonkeys,  for Joetri10

Diffs of the users' reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2014_Formula_One_season

Comments:

Bitter edit war between two users. Prisonermonkeys has already displayed similar behavior in the past. Tvx1 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . This matter was brought to ANI, and I locked the article. This report should not have been filed. We're done here for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you think that the reported behavior is completely acceptable? The page has already been put under full protection less than a month ago as an measurement against edit warring resulting from a content dispute involving the same groups (I hate to admit that I myself was involved in the content dispute) of users as in the current content dispute. This proves that the attitudes fueling them are not temporary. I have refrained to take sides this time. I have initially given my opinion which content I prefer but have not involved myself in the bitter dispute. I have unsuccessfully tried to resolute the dispute on the Talk page by searching a compromise. Now it has descended into pure edit warring. Furthermore, if you take the time to take a look at Prisonermonkeys' talk page you will notice that the user has been reported for edit warring on 4 occasions within the last 7 months. All of this made me decide to report both users. Tvx1 (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that user Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in an other, related (minor) edit war on Template:Formula One teams. You can see this on the template's history . The users made no attempt at all to resolve the dispute on the template's talk page. Tvx1 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:14.198.220.253 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: " I doubt Feynman himself shares this speculative POV, removed"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "it is not just doubt, It is so doubtful that is not worthwhile quoting." (upon my invitation "Better take your doubts to the talk page")
 * 2) "If an edit is legitimate, then talk it to talk page? I will confess if you can turn BRD into policy." (upon my "Then take it to the article talk page. See wp:BRD")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Invitiations to go to article talk page in edit summaries

Comments:

Technically not 3RR, but behavior clearly indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

DVdm (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, one quote is missing, during the discussion I didn't tell you that I refuse to talk, instead I (implicitly) ask you to present your dismay.
 * So, your "but behavior clearly indicates.." indicates that you feel that I refuse to talk, well, then make me do it, so you can prove. I want to report you too if you waste administrator time and harass good-faith editor. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I also feel like you refuse to talk, and I base that on the fact that you have not taken the issue up on the talk page, which is what "talk" means, narrowly defined, on Wikipedia. I'm not going to revert your most recent edit, though there also you're edit warring; I don't disagree with a kind of introduction, really a kind of disclaimer, since as far as I'm concerned there shouldn't be a quote box there, but you are undoubtedly warring and editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: given that the above IP has continued to edit-war over the article, and has demonstrated similar behaviour in multiple other places, I have started a thread at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk)  18:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Floquenbeam. The same IP editor has also been discussed at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 month by User:Floquenbeam. The same IP editor has also been discussed at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Kaj Taj Mahal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Darkness Shines is adding the template inappropriately,  in violation of Edit requests. I removed it, and he put it back.

Later, the template was removed by someone else here. He is already prohibited from reverting edits to articles that pertain to climate change, perhaps the sanction should be extended to talkpages as well.

Also see here where he is warned against edit warring on talkpages.

Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * KTM has removed that template twice, and has only filed this non edit warring report because I told him if he removed it again in violation of TPG I would report him. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it twice, and then someone else removed it, because it was an inappropriate use of the template. I filed this because when I tell you the template use is inappropriate, you won't listen. Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * – The discussion on the talk page should continue. The James Delingpole article remains under full protection per another admin. The behavior of DS is only restricted on articles, not talk pages. DS did not break 3RR on the talk page though he isn't doing himself any favors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:109.78.219.165 & User:Rms125a@hotmail.com reported by User:Tyrsóg (Result: Semi)
Page: User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User talk:109.78.219.165
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I have been observing the situation on the article and have stayed out of the edit war but both the IP and the above user have been edit-warring and the incivility has escalated between them. The 3RR between them has been breached by both. I think it is disingenuous on the above user's part to imply that it was only the IP that was edit warring. I have also reverted both their edits to a stable version of the article until the dispute has been appropriately resolved. A dispute resolution has been put into place. ÓCorcráin (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not deny having likely violated 3RR (read ignored self-reporting) but in response to the actions by the unregistered IP, whom I regard as a vandal. I not only self-reported, I opened a dispute resolution as no one else seemed likely to do so. I will serve any 3RR block which may be handed down. Quis separabit?  20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please see my response to User:NeilN's query on the O'Toole talkpage, "Please explain how the edits are vandalism", to which I replied: "I regard them as vandalism as they are unrelenting, intransigent demands, largely by unregistered and anonymous IPs which ignore all explanations, assertions and edit summaries with which they are not in complete agreement. IP demands are for text (in lede or lead) to be phrased exactly as they want it, rejecting all attempts at compromise (i.e. "British and Irish", "Irish-British", "British actor of Irish descent", "British actor of Irish and Scottish descent who later acquired Irish citizenship", et al). Quis separabit? 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)" Quis separabit?  21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What is not vandalism. Looking at you contributions I see you have been an editor here for years with a block log to match, you of all people should not be edit-warring. I really find it difficult to believe that you do not understand what constitutes vandalism and what is subjected to the 3RR. Also next time, please file a proper report and don't think just because you happened to be the first one to file for dispute resolution (before reverting the article in question to your preferred version) means that exempts you, you are not some innocent bystander here. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the vile comment by ÓCorcráin, "You should be used to serving blocks by now ... your block list is mile long" (since changed to "you have been an editor here for years with a block log to match") shows that this user is unprofessional and biased, and lacks good faith. ÓCorcráin was making almost the precise same edits as User talk:109.78.219.165 when ÓCorcráin was actively editing the O'Toole page himself/herself, which I guess is why he/she is actively monitoring the page, thus hardly "[an] innocent bystander" himself/herself either.  Quis separabit?  21:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually no, they are not "precisely the same edits". First point being that I compromised and backed off from the whole issue of nationality and seeing what happened now, I was right to do so. Second point, I distinctly remember how incivil you were to me and others on the talk page, I see that you still are with your accusations, and the only reason that I mention your block list is because you have exhibited the same repeated pattern of disruptive behavior before. I will not be commenting anymore but I suggest that you log off and watch some TV, have a cup of tea and cool down. ÓCorcráin (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. There seem to be five or more reverts by a throwaway IP on the nationality issue. In my opinion, warring over nationality (for a person who may have been born in Ireland in 1932) could fall under the WP:TROUBLES case and we may consider taking out that big hammer soon. Meanwhile, Rms125a@hotmail.com has opened a WP:DRN which seems like a good idea. It would be unfortunate to put full protection on an article of a recently-deceased person because we might miss out on some good contributions. Leaving the nationality field blank (until high quality sources are found) seems an excellent idea and it has been tried elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Florian Blaschke reported by User:Feysalafghan (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&action=history Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran&action=history

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: i don't have experience with this edit war report so sorry for that, but this user is edit warring i talked to him to do comments and talk to him in his talk page but he isn't acting like an adult. please stop him and is also reverting things on his talk page where i talked to him, take a look


 * Funny enough, it's User:Feysalafghan himself who has broken WP:3RR: I reverted 3 times, he reverted 4 times within the 24-hour period. Oops ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ofcourse because you are constantly reverting my edits i just deleted a sentence which hadn't proof or references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . Feysalafghan violated 3RR. Florian Blaschke edit-warred. Apparently, Florian thinks that reverting three times is acceptable. Additionally, their edit summaries were unjustifiably attacking and provocative: "No. The sentence is correct. Stop this vandalism, or I'll report you." One of the edit summaries ("I didn't insert the sentence. You deleted it, and you need to justify that.") inherently made no sense. Florian did insert "the sentence", at least as far as I can tell, and, normally, a revert of that addition would trigger WP:BRD. Finally, Feysalafghan is a new editor, although not an angel based on their history, whereas Florian is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (and bunch of other edits that are continous
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: + yesterday I said on other pages that he should discuss the removals first. Also per BRD he needs to discuss, not re-assert his being bold as in the 2nd link above.

Comments:


 * The article is under 1RR sanctions per the talk page, and it says there to report incidents here. So I followed the protocol per "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.".Lihaas (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment : It was up to the understanding. One guy around there promotes the palestinian quotes, while User:Ohconfucius tried to stop it. Hope we don't have to go further, and solve this on talk page instead. I don't see any backup from the original edit warrior anyway. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The point of this was the warring, the recverts beyond 1RR which clearly happened.Lihaas (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * - User notified of 1RR sanctions. Tiptoety  talk 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no violation. The diff above claiming to be an attempt to discuss is nothing of the sort. It is a revert with the summary "rvt undiscussed removals". It seems that the objection is to me making edits, or most likely, "removal of sourced text" without first discussing with them. I removed blatant quotefarms to the objection of Lihaas. I have stuck to the 1RR: there is no second revert. Lihaas reverts what I wrote, but does not discuss. It is I who goes to the talk page first. Lihaas reverts me and within 20 minutes comes to report me at AN3. I revert them (for the first and only time) and go to the talk page. Lihaas should be reminded to abide by WP's policies and guidelines, and not insist on adding (or preventing removal) of unencyclopaedic material. In particular, that they should observe violate WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. I also believe they should avoid recentisms and overuse of quotations. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You had 2 reverts in less than 24 hours. I did no t do that. Per 1RR rules you can be blocked withoutwarning. Please be aware of the notice on the talk page.Lihaas (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)