Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive233

User:La Avatar Korra reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked; Davidmichaelscott warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the user Davidmichaelscott should the respective consensus, is making changes on the article. see the history"
 * 2)  "should be left in the previous version"
 * 3)  "clean"
 * 4)  "undid."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has violated WP:3rr here and is also close to violating it at Ariana Grande discography. This user frequently edit wars on both of these articles.  STATic  message me!  00:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The user Davidmichaelscott is already looking consensus on discudion page. I'm no changes, we discuss the user to make consensus and that's what is done. not if you have something personal with me or the article, but must seek dialogue with me with your words, not just automated messages erroneous. you are the one who make me ill interpret my problems and issues. Thanks. Attentively. Connie (A.K) (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ps: sorry for my english, sorry.


 * WP:3rr is very clear and you have been notified numerous times about it, yet you ignore the obvious rule we have.  STATic  message me!  01:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry I do not speak much English and I can not explain better. I just want to say that static has been misinterpreting my edits, is the only one that does that to me, he does not seek dialogue. Static at almost every opportunity violated that rule. In this case, I was reversing editions of other user that made without consensus, and to reach consensus, leave in the previous version. In the discussion of the article is consensus. Static, please understand that I have been reversing the earlier editions of the user who made no consensus. Sorry for my english, thanks. Connie (A.K) (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . I am also warning that future violations of WP:3RR will lead to a block. I'm not blocking you this time because my reading is that your edits were in good faith and you were not warned. In addition, you do not have anything like Connie's disruptive history.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding, sorry for any trouble caused. DavidMichaelScott– talk 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Arms Jones reported by User:Werieth (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 590511557 by Flax5 (talk) However you see it, your solution gives the following Doctors the wrong numbers."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 590513486 by Zythe (talk) exactly, so don't try to give him a number"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 590541194 by Ebyabe (talk) I have already made my point on the talk page, but since you don't want to hear about that I don't take your edit seriously. So I revert it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 590561417 by Rubiscous (talk) The War Doctor is still not = the Ninth Doctor. I'm just setting the numbering straight."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 590568061 by Takuy (talk) Still no reason for the wrong numbering without saying anything about it on the talk page first."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeated reverts of several users Werieth (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I added a 3RR warning to the user's talk page about seven minutes after the most recent revert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made my position clear on the talk page of that page. None of the others are interested in discussing. User:Ebyabe even deleted my friendly note to him that I actually had used the talk page - which is the reason I reverted his revert of my revision to the page. User:Werieth is only reporting this because he doesn't like my opinion in another matter. Arms Jones (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A single post to the talk page does not exempt you from following WP:3RR (a list of acceptable exemptions is listed). You are unquestionably edit warring. You need to get consensus on the talk page prior to restoring your edit (there is no timeline, give it a few days, even a week or more to see what consensus develops). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have made two posts on the talk page. Others have urged me to use the talk page without doing it themselves. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the issues and previous case where I had to take this user to ANI about edit warring over non-free media, I was just keeping an eye on them for a few days to ensure that no further NFCC issues cropped up, and I stumbled upon this edit war. Reporting it has nothing to do with NFCR. its just a case of 5RR. Werieth (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure it is. You still don't know the nature of non-free media. Arms Jones (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you have it backwards, Ive got probably 25k edits in regards to non-free media enforcement. If you take a look at the discussion at NFCR there is a significant consensus that usage of non-free media in that gallery is unacceptable. You have made a point of not listening to what others say, and making mis-quotes about what others say. So again what defense do you have for edit warring twice in a few days time span? Werieth (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Two different situations which can't be compared. Your history of enforcement doesn't make you an expert. You still don't get the nature of legal protection for coats of arms and started to revert things there without any discussion, while I had already made my point on the talk page just before my revisions and I had to take the matter to another discussion because you just didn't care to; the discussion is far from over so you can't say there's any consensus for any solution yet and the matter of free or non-free images is not the main point in that discussion. Here, I tried to talk from the start but noone took part in the discussion until this situation came up, even if some of the others had urged me to talk, they didn't see I had already started a discussion (one person obviously didn't even want to see that). Arms Jones (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. The user made five reverts (all marked as 'Undid' in the history) within 24 hours at Doctor (Doctor Who). As User:Barek has explained above, none of the exceptions to WP:3RR apply to these reverts. User would have been blocked but for the fact that he did not receive a timely 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
Page:


 * Also

User being reported:

Contested deletion of sourced article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) user generated / non notable
 * 2) there are alternatives to deletion
 * 3) no summary - PROD as " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"
 * 4) (since ANEW) Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit

Two blankings and redirections, one prod for " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind"

This is a minor article, but part of the overall story for Donald Campbell. Donald Campbell isn't well-known on Wikipedia and has already been repeatedly blanked from Land Speed Record, but in the UK he's still very well known. Mr Whoppit was his teddy bear mascot, Robin (magazine) was the comic in which it first appeared.

Red Pen is a self-confessed arch-deletionist. See the many other articles that have encountered his editing, or his bright-red editing history. Unusually, he rarely deletes articles outright, but prefers to delete them piecemeal. In this case though, he's attacking a sourced article, twice blanking it with a redirect (and of course no, he didn't attempt to merge any of this content into another article, just blanked it) and then prodding it - almost instantaneously. The prod is on a basis that is simply lying (and very obviously so), " all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". There are 9 references cited, some of which are stronger than others, but two are utterly robust: David Tremayne's biog of Campbell Donald Campbell: The Man Behind the Mask, generally considered as a canonical text by an author WP:Notable enough for their own article and also the Daily Telegraph, which describes a family feud and included Whoppit's part in that. Campbell's widow, Tonia Bern-Campbell also discusses Whoppit in her autobiog My Speed King, but no doubt Red Pen will describe that as "COI" on some dubious grounds.

The coverage of Whoppit was removed from the Robin article twice no edit summary. This was not a GF cleanup of that article, as most of it consists (and still does) of a list of redlinks with no sourcing whatsoever. However Red Pen didn't go for any of that, they just went for the Campbell content, which was linked to the sourced article.

There is no credible ground for blanking this article, especially not without any attempt at discussion. This is a regular style of editing by this editor, an editor with a broadly corrosive influence on WP editing for others. If an editor wishes to delete an article, we do of course have AfD - a route that Red Pen has been invited to consider for this article, but they appear unwilling to expose themself to the consensus of others.

This is not about a contested deletion of one article - we have AfD and its many eyeballs for that. This is about a regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour by Red Pen.
 * . This is not the right place to bring up a pattern of behavior unless it involves a recent violation of WP:3RR or clear edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Synsepalum2013 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An unfortunate case of a new contributor who seems not to understand Wikipedia policy, and an article which frankly should never have got past AfC (deletion looks a near certainty ). While technically we aren't at 3RR yet, the contributor seems intent on adding claims from individuals concerning a supposed conspiracy involving supposed 'torture' via a (hypothetical) device for transmitting sound to their heads via microwaves. The material, or material much like it, has repeatedly been removed by other contributors, it has been explained that such claims are afforded no credibility by the sources cited - though the specific claims made in the latest edits appear not to be directly supported at all in at least one of the sources cited. While I'm reluctant to ask for a block for a new contributor who would never have been put in such a position if the AfC process had worked properly in the first place (the article, when approved, was a dreadful mess of WP:OR/synthesis ), I suspect that without such a block, the contributor is going to carry on adding dubiously-sourced claims of conspiracies until the article is finally given the boot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:50.138.249.164 reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: Warned)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Repeated reverts without using an edit summary or participating in talk page discussion to rally a consensus for user's edit. IP disruptively undoing reverts by multiple trusted editors.

-- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I have left a formal warning on the IP's talk page that if they revert again, they may be blocked without notice. For other administrators, the block should be of sufficient length to take into account the IP's sporadic appearances at Wikipedia. I understand the disruption. Every time the IP has edited, even though it may have been days since their last edit, they have done nothing but revert in that article. That said, they have not been warned recently (last time was in December), and it's possible that they were unaware of the talk page discussion. It's generally better to alert an editor, particularly if they're new, that a discussion is taking place.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Mixture)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

Repeated blanking of a substantial section of an Indian film review because Red Pen would appear to not like the quality of the review sites cited as sources.

Whether this edit is right or wrong, we have a policy against edit-warring because edit-warring is of itself disruptive. We relax this in some copyvio or BLP cases, but we do not relax it over minor content disputes. This editing (on an article I admit I have zero interest in) is just the latest example of Red Pen's arrogant editing style: he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored. I see no attempts at discussion on the article talk: or any obvious user pages.

No doubt this is not bright-line 3RR owing to careful timing between reverts. Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details. However WP:EW is quite specific: edit-warring is edit-warring and it's not necessary to breach 3RR for it to be so.

Do we still care about tendentious edit-warring?
 * Multiple attempts at opening communication at both the user page  and his ip page  resulted in  and  Andy's petty revenge for me nominating his Articles for deletion/Mr Whoppit are a bit sad and juvenile, but not unexpected.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Per the suggestion from EdJohnston I will not edit the article for a week.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit I discovered this article of yours when looking at your edit history re: another article, where you're trying to delete an article with a dozen sources for failing WP:GNG. However six repeats is six repeats, whatever else you're up to. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of Andy wikihounding and harassing users he is in a disagreement with. Werieth (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * isn't impressive either, with 5 large repeated blankings over recent days. We are not supposed to work by simple edit-warring and repeating the same deletion over and over. Even if we're Red Pen. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I saw this report late last night right before going to bed and took no action because I was tired. I strongly suspected that there was sock puppetry involved and probably would have blocked based on WP:DUCK. However, filed a report at SPI, and a CU has confirmed the socking. Therefore, User:Muthalathu, the master, has been blocked for a month, User:MattAtMallu, the puppet, has been indeffed, and  has been blocked for a month. I can't speak as to whether there are other users besides TRPoD, but 's filing of this report against TRPoD was made in bad faith, particularly after the first report he filed earlier. As I stated in that report, either take the issues he has with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. Continuing to harass him may result in a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 - this has nothing to do with the earlier report, but whether you believe me or not, I can still count to 6. Red Pen is edit-warring. He is doing this whether I report it (at your earlier request in your closing comments before), someone else reports it, or no-one reports it and it's (yet again) ignored. If you think that reporting edit warriors for edit-warring is harassment, then you know where ANI is. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do, and I'm considering it, although I don't have to go there to sanction you if I think a sanction is warranted. That is why I warned you. Phrases like "Red Pen's arrogant editing style", "he's right, the rest of us are just peasants to be ignored", and "Red Pen's wikilawyering is nothing if not meticulous in its details" do not help your "cause". I get the impression that at least in this instance TRPoD is more interested in improving Wikipedia than you are.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's hard to get worked up about these cases given that the other party to the edit war is a proven (and now-blocked) sockpuppeteer who was flagrantly disregarding WP:RS despite repeated polite invocations of that policy by TheRedPenOfDoom. I suggest that this case be closed with a friendly reminder to TheRedPenOfDoom to resolve problems such as these with means other than revert-warring. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Red Pen, no doubt bolstered by having been green-lighted for edit-warring twice, is now proceeding to blank sources from the previous article at Mr Whoppit and edit-warring to repeat this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Animesh.roark and User:213.253.216.248 reported by User:Claw of Slime (Result: 24 hours )
Page: ,

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: Advanced Encryption Standard 2014-01-14T22:57:15, AES implementations 2014-01-11T09:47:27‎

Diffs of User:Animesh.roark's reverts on Advanced Encryption Standard:
 * 1) 10:09, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590792723 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)")
 * 2) 11:19, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Spam removed")
 * 3) 11:22, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:27, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Removed spam")
 * 5) 16:06, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590829321 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) One more time You spam, and you will be reported & permanently banned!!")
 * 6) 17:07, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590838938 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) Repeated SPAM")

Diffs of User:Animesh.roark's reverts on AES implementations:
 * 1) 10:11, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Removed SPAM")
 * 2) 11:24, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Removed spam")
 * 3) 15:28, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online Text Encryption */  removed spam")
 * 4) 16:04, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590829144 by 213.253.216.248 (talk) do not spam, this is your final warning & your IP will be banned If you spam again!")
 * 5) 16:26, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Miscellaneous */ Added another unique example for an AES based Application Implementation.")
 * 6) 16:55, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Rectified some grammatical errors & spellings.")
 * 7) 17:08, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590839125 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)")
 * 8) 17:09, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590839037 by 213.253.216.248 (talk)Repeated SPAM even after Warning!")

Diffs of User:213.253.216.248's reverts on Advanced Encryption Standard:
 * 1) 10:33, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590795124 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
 * 2) 12:18, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online demo */")
 * 3) 15:41, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590827407 by Animesh.roark (talk)Removed spam")
 * 4) 16:55, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590832698 by Animesh.roark (talk)")

Diffs of User:213.253.216.248's reverts on AES implementations:
 * 1) 10:33, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590795291 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
 * 2) 12:20, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
 * 3) 12:21, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
 * 4) 15:40, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590827611 by Animesh.roark (talk)")
 * 5) 16:56, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")
 * 6) 16:56, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Online File Encryption */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: to Animesh.roark, to 213.253.216.248

Comments: Worthless edit war by changing external links. Animesh.roark insists that his edits are just "Removed SPAM", however, both edits should be stopped.


 * - Strangely they both appear to be edit warring over their preferred spam link. Tiptoety  talk 18:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Historical2013 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Previously agreed to detail disagreement in summary.  This erased.  Fact is Ramsey is NOT a chemist nor historian and is not qualified to deny other evidence."
 * 2)  "Added comment as to why age of cloth is not settled matter. Numerous leading researchers disagree with 1988 conclusion." (this involved deleting other material).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  "Deleted Jack Nichols reference.  The original STURP team included Phd's in Anatomy and death related disciplines .  Jack  is not qualified  expert.   Comment is unsubstantiated opinion."
 * 4)  "Amended comment.  Statement was a distortion of the facts.  11 tests by STURP clearly established blood.  McClure measured paint left by painting overlay."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:



Various discussions between myself, another editor more involved with the article, and this editor can be seen at the talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . .  Tiptoety  talk 18:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Clubintheclub reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (via ANI due to combination of BLP violation and edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (discussion initiated by ClubintheClub on my talk page)

Comments: Six times in a bit more than 24 hours, User:Clubintheclub has added an inappropriate section to the Woody Allen BLP entitled "Sexual Abuse Allegations". The section is redundant to the more even-handed and less inflammatory treatment of the same events in the article at Woody_Allen, in the Mia Farrow section (of which the other edit is plainly aware, since some of the text is repeated verbatim). The section was initially (and quite properly) removed by User:Binksternet, then removed by me when ClubintheClub added it back without seeking consensus. It came to my attention as a pending changes reviewer, and I removed the content under that rubric over BLP issues several more times, as ClubintheClub restored it (sometimes with associated material removed). This is highly sensitive material, and ClubintheClub should not have initially disturbed the longstanding consensus treatment of the matter without reaching consensus. It was certainly and plainly inappropriate to include two overlapping discussions of it. Per BLP policy, once the contentious material was added and removed, it should not have been restored (not to mention WP:BRD, which carries the greatest weight in the context of "bold addition" of contentious content to a BLP. CintheC continued to add the material back, repeatedly breaching 3RR, even after I raised the problem (and associated matters) at ANI. (Note that I claim the BLP exemption to the 3RR limit, especially since the disputed edits were flagged as likely BLP violations by an edit filter, which CintheC disregarded, and because the edits were also flagged for pending changes review. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The user was not warned. I saw your contention at AN/I that this was a sock; I don't see sufficient evidence of this. I have warned the user about 3RR, and about BLP (which is a far more serious matter). I choose not to suspend AGF and to treat them as a newbie. I assure you that I will not be so lenient the next time. --John (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jacob Javits reported by User:DMacks (Result: Warned; subsequently indeffed as a sock)
Page: (and dozens of other "Institute of Technology" school articles

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff history:
 * 1)  JJ's edit
 * 2)  my undo with expl
 * 3)  JJ's unexplained reversion of me
 * 4)  and accusation that my edit was vandalism

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See poor response to my mentions of WP:V and WP:EW on his user-talk page. Note also pattern of unsupported-content revert-warring against multiple editors at Stevens Institute of Technology, which is what originally prompted my EW warning (note, JJ has now hit 3RR on that article).

Comments:

This editor started blindly reverting all of my edits; he/she removed my updatings also here.--Jacob Javits (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I got tired of rewriting the same explanation (uncited/unsupported and sometimes contradicting rest of article, or incorrect use of hatnotes) for my removal of the boilerplate you pasted into over a dozen articles. I did use WP:ES on some (as did others...as I noted on your talkpage, there are multiple editors who dispute its inclusion). DMacks (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You could've just moved it to the "See Also" section as was done on Stevens Institute of Technology. And there is no excuse for this edit of yours--which is equivalent to vandalism, but I'm assuming good faith, unlike you.--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And I 've no problem with your removing of the hatnote, that is why I didn't revert you here--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Javits appears to be a new editor with 70 edits. Suggest posting the particular problems on the article talk page. Follow the WP:BRD process. @Jacob Javits, the edits were WP:NOTVANDALISM. Please take some time to read up on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, do NOT make accusations of bad faith. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Stevens is a "Technological Research University" . @S. Rich, this edit is equivalent to vandalism as it removes updates.--Jacob Javits (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ., your editing pattern since recently creating this account has been disruptive. Although you have not breached WP:3RR, you clearly have no understanding of policies and guidelines at Wikipedia. I suggest you read some of those policies and guidelines, pay closer attention to the guidance of editors who are much more experienced than you, stop unjustifiably attacking other editors for vandalism, and stop reverting on many, many articles. This is your only warning. If you fail to heed it, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * based on this.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Damiens.rf (Result: Warned both)
Page:

User being reported:

Since its creation back in 2004, the article about composer Noel Estrada claims that one of his compositions is "the most widely known Boleros in Puerto Rico" without providing a reference.
 * background

I tagged the article for reference improvement yesterday ("Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.").

After that, User:Mercy11 changed the lead to say, also without a reference, that the song is "one of the most widely known songs around the world".

I reverted back to the less exaggerated original referenced claim, and since them a revert war has started. User:Mercy11 has reverted to his version at least four times
 * the revert war


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

(with me reverting back to the original version) In the last two reverts, he added a reference he claims covers the claim, but it does not.

An unfruitful discussion was started at the article's talk page.

I don't know if this edit war counts as a 3RR or not. What I know is that I'm having trouble with User:Mercy11 quickly triggering his revert link apparently in any article I touch. And discussion is rarely fruitful with him. I prefer some Admin (or non-Admin) to step in and resolve the issue. It's being stressing. I'm sorry if this is not the right venue for such complaints. --damiens.rf 21:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . It's hard to understand how an editor with your history does not know what constitutes WP:3RR. In addition, you should have notified Mercy11 of this report; I've done that for you. In any event, both of you have easily violated WP:3RR, and I'm struggling to understand why you both shouldn't be blocked for doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My position is Wikipedia's position: that The age of an "unsourced" article is not a valid reason to revert to that older, unsourced version when a newer sourced version is provided. Mr. Damiens has been obsfuscated with that arrticle, including its image which he nominated for deletion (the two article, Noel Estrada and En mi Viejo San Juan, are related by composer-song-composer). His interest in Puerto Rico related articles started anew when an editor reported him to ANI. Damiens has been going around attacking PR-related article. Now he tagged many parts of the text of this article Noel Estrada, and other editors have been contributing with cites to satisfy his tags. Initailly he was including WP:PEACOCK language ("famous") in a statement in his edit and I removed it, but he reverted me. I remvoed it again stating it was a violation of WP:PEACOCK and then he reverted to his preferred uncited version except for the peacock term. I modified the statement (he had not tagged that one) because it did not state what the sources do state, and he reverted me. When I asked him to please CN tag the new, disputed statement and that someone would find a cite, he instead reverted me again yet for a fourth time. Finally I provided a cite even though he failed to tag it. In response, he reverted it even yet taking the cited text out and replacing it with his prefered version, this time claiming -- falsely because the citation states it -- that the cite did not support the claim that "the song En mi Viejo San Juan is one of the most widely known songs around the world".


 * Damiens's fixation appears to be my person: as you can see he reported me here despite the fact that he himself admits, "I don't know if this edit war counts as a 3RR or not". Fact is he is himself currently under investigation for incivility and Wikihounding at ANI and yet Damiens continues his relentless attacks on Puerto Rico articles and images, even though the matter has already been brought to his attention by another editor. A fourth editor yet has also pointed out to him how his delete nominations use language about Puerto Ricans than can be offensive to people of the Puerto Rican culture. So, there a long history of attacks that he continues to fester. Interestingly, when I warned him of the 3RR's at the Noel Estrada Talk Page, Damiens wasted no time and -instead of actually engaging in a fruitful discussion about the dispute-- simply turned that around and reported me "first" as if being the first one is somehow a winning score over the editor who, unlike him, has provided citations and is interested in discussion. As he has already shown elsewhere, Damines is not interested in discussion; he interested in being Pointy. Either way, my reverts are legitimate because the cite proves that his charge of exaggeration is invalid. His version is also invalid because it was uncited and, per policy, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." BTW, a new editor User:Jacob Javits has now entered the edit war scene, reverting -no edit summary- to Damiens uncited version. Mercy11 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * , the discussion at ANI is all over the place. Here, though, you appear to have a signicant misunderstanding about WP:3RR. Your reverts are not exempt under the rules, not even close. Therefore, I have no confidence that if you're not blocked, you will not repeat the same behavior. Both your edits and Damiens were very disruptive to the article, although toward the end you at least added a source.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ., it'd be great if you had addressed my concerns instead of continually refining your statement above. Nonetheless, the edit warring seems to have stopped, and I painted myself into a corner by not blocking you both from the get-go. So, I will warn you and that if you resume reverting for any reason other than one exempt by policy, you risk being blocked without notice. I also urge both of you to read the policy more carefully because neither of you understands it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be great if an end to the edit war could be reached through your warnings which are well merited. I only wish that that someone would tell Damiens to discontinue his rampage against Puerto Rican related articles. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sheer volume of edits is beginning to concern me. As an example, his editing history shows 7 edits at 18:25 on January 13, 2014, followed by 8 edits at 18:26. This represents 15 edits in 2 minutes. They're not in the Puerto Rico history articles, but does seem to target the Puerto Rico articles -- performing hundreds of edits within a 24-hour period. So in general, and in the PR articles, perhaps  needs to slow down and read the articles (and Talk Pages) more carefully.  Nelsondenis248 (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:187.38.65.148 reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: Protected)
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]

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

Comments:

Was told on the article's talk page, that the User User:Coltsfan should clearly justify his repeated reversions (later with accusation of Spam), what he has repeatedly refuse. Not satisfied with this, he have used threats on this talk page. If someone can mediate, would be interesting. Thanks. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Threats? Those are standardized templates to warn you (and it was ignored) to stop with your disruptive behavior. Coltsfan (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here you go again, trying to impute to others your disruptive practices. Yes, I understand this as threats, since when observed the article's revision history, who at 17:22, 15 January, started revertions without justification, refusing to explain clearly and unequivocally why the insistence on delete the remaining link of those you had previously deleted, going right to "warnings", I can not understand it otherwise. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't understand how wikipedia works, do you? I was deleting obvious spam. You were warned several times on two different wikis and still refuses to acknowledge. Coltsfan (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here you go again with "because I say so" argument. Look, if it was that "obvious", you had proved long ago and we wouldn't be here. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, here we go again. You were doing so much spam on the corresponding article in the portuguese pikipedia that forced the syops over there to protect the page. And I did explained, but you ignored. Coltsfan (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I became curious on your complaint about the equivalent article in Lusophone Wikipedia, and I checked (please mediators, if you don't know Portuguese, use online translator), and noticed that you used there the same policy. As other unregistered users didn't agree, I can even understand your paranoia to accuse me of being all of them... apart from other unreasonable accusations.
 * I noticed that there too you and only one other user (perhaps another self), refused to present evidences and arguments on the talk page.
 * So, despite your attempt to divert the focus of discussion, among other attempts, I ask again, where is thy plausible explanation?187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The link being added by the IP address does, indeed, appear to fail our external links policy, and should not be included in the article. Nevertheless, the IP fails to understand the most basic editing skill: be bold; if it's reverted, do not ever re-add it until you have new consensus to do so through discussion on the article talkpage.  The onus is on the person adding the link to obtain consensus, and as such, it most certainly is not Coltsfan who has been disruptive.  This means that the standard templated warnings were really quite a requirement to hopefully prevent further disruption and a block  ES  &#38;L  00:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Appear" is quiet different of "Definitively". Anyway, let's see how will unfold the discussion on Talk pages in the next days.187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will, again, remove all links that fails the WP:EL (and also to preserve the right version). Probably the IP will choose to revert it rather than discuss it, but we'll see. Coltsfan (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You who have refused to unequivocally clarify your point of view, appealing to others mister, not me. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just remember: if you add it one more time, whether today, next week, or next century, it will be removed as a failure of WP:EL, and you'll also be blocked for edit-warring. This isn't rocket science ES  &#38;L  00:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

And there you go (diff). Coltsfan (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You will want to undo that, as YOU are about to be blocked for edit-warring as well ES  &#38;L  01:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did stop now. I'm trying to preserve the right version. But it doesn't matter. The IP won't stop reverting, so there is no point. I'll wait to see what the syops will decide to do. Coltsfan (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Whereas you not satisfied to delete the link in question, deleted others in the same "because I say so" "argument"... 187.38.65.148 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still a tone of links there that does not satisfy the WP:EL. There is even a dead link there. What's to be done? Coltsfan (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . In lieu of blocking the both of you.  Seriously - both of you need to learn WP:BRD.  I will reiterate, do not add that link back to the article, or else there will be no choice but to block for a long-term edit-war.  Read WP:EL  ES  &#38;L  01:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Make your argument for removal on the article talkpage the way you're supposed to. Obtain consensus.  Period.  I'm adding the article to my own watchlist  ES  &#38;L  01:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But, as you could see, the IP not even used coherent arguments. To obtain consensus with someone that is not willing to talk it's kind hard. Coltsfan (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? As per WP:DR, the fact that one party won't discuss does not give you free reign to break the rules yourself.  You should be ashamed that you're still trying to justify your own edit-warring.  Before getting into an edit-war, follow WP:DR - which may include requesting page protection.  However, never take things into your own hands - YOU should bloody well be blocked along with the IP.   ES  &#38;L  01:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"the IP not even used coherent arguments. To obtain consensus with someone that is not willing to talk it's kind hard." This is not true Coltsfan. For example, about dead link, obviously I agree. Related to others, I believe (again) since you prove yr arguments, as for those eventually outside Wiki standards, or otherwise be inappropriate to the article, no problem. But you have to show this clearly, in a way that anyone can understand. 187.38.65.148 (talk) 01:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop. You want to discuss links on an article, go to the article talkpage - consider yourself fortunate that you're not blocked for this fiasco that you created. None of your links meet WP:EL, and you've been formally warned not to re-add them ... your links and arguments are not to Wikipedia standards, but either way, take it somewhere else  ES  &#38;L  01:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:, and

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&oldid=590554277]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Number zero': [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590279275&oldid=590274518], 22:15, January 11, 2014, three additions by Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar, not a revert
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590784339&oldid=590554277] 07:26, January 15, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.62, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590826388&oldid=590822423] 15:20, January 15, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.62, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590991977&oldid=590981782] 17:16, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590994288&oldid=590994072] 17:29, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=next&oldid=590994813] 17:36, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher&diff=590995780&oldid=590995618] 17:40, January 16, 2014, revert by 128.178.197.63, restoring text from Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:37, January 16, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, the start of the discussion thread Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

Comments:

User Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar edits many articles about Switzerland. The IPs are from Lausanne, Switzerland, and appear to be Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar editing anonymously. Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is adding material drawn from a math text book, which seems odd, and the website http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/, which is a self-published website, forum and wiki, therefore not reliable. Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar is greatly increasing the emphasis on an autopsy suggestion of multiple attackers, placing the following sentence in the lead paragraph as the third sentence: "The autopsy showed that she had been attacked by more than one person." Since the article concludes with a conviction of one murderer, this autopsy suggestion is not conclusive. Note that from Geneva, Switzerland, has also been editing the article, favoring the material brought by Mendisar Esarimar Desktrwaimar, though 144.85.164.231 has not made a revert. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I indeffed the named account and blocked the three IPs for a month, all based on sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Zack1189 reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591057930 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591057930 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591057930 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591057930 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591055756 by Dwpaul (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on The Promenade Shopping Centre. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on The Promenade Shopping Centre. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "mv discussion from User talk:Dwpaul"
 * 2)   "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ wl WP:CITE"
 * 3)   "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ add mention template"
 * 4)   "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ +reply"
 * 5)   "/* Recent edits to store count and list of stores */ rm errant wl"


 * Comments:

See User talk:Zack1189 and Talk:The Promenade Shopping Centre  Dwpaul  Talk   02:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I have blocked for 12 hours. the block will be renewed and extended if the behaviour persists. Ground Zero | t 03:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog‎ reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

< 02:04, 30 December 2013‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎. . (75,344 bytes) (-3,871)‎>

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17 Jan 2014 Jytdog
 * 2) 15 Jan 2014 Jytdog
 * 3) 15 Jan 2014 Jytdog
 * 4)  02:04, 30 December 2013‎ Jytdog (talk | contribs)‎ . . (75,344 bytes) (-3,871)‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning stated clearly on Talk page of this wikipage, and on the Edit History summary line of his/her serial reverts and section deletes on the page history itself.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page was initiated and BRD rules were invoked to see if any consensus was forthcoming. No one has supported the serial reverts by User:Jytdog who has been informed that he/she is at 3RR and edit warring. Previous user appears upset that no one is supporting his/her serial delete of full section and is trying to force the section delete without any consensus. Normal BRD attempt has failed and User:Jytdog appears to want to force the serial section deletion by serial reverts past 3RR.

Comments:

User Jytdog has been given the option of obtaining consensus on the wikipage Talk page for his/her section delete but none has come forward for this isolated opinion with no consensus. Previous user is apparently upset that no one has offered any consensus for his/her edit and has again started serial reverts by deleting entire subsections of this wikipage against two editors. FelixRosch (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * FelixRosch, there are now comments by previously-uninvolved contributors on the talk page - I suggest you resume discussions there. One thing I'd like clarification on though is your reference to 'two editors'. I can't see anyone except you reverting Jytdog - who is the second editor? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:70.29.241.206 reported by User:Josh3580 (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phone number was posted for 'source'. I'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified.(talk)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phone number was posted for 'source'. I'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified.  (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591203331 by Bhny changing facts with source. No phonI'm not interested in citing a linked source, this is merely a fact, one which can be verified.  original research or phone numbers(talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 591200778 by Bbb23changing facts. Note: It`s not my "say-so", feel free to contact him yourself. (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 591192987 by Bbb23changing fact. Note Not that I'm John Haarmann, but that he's the source (phone contact). The 70 on GCN are signed, the others are unsigned.(talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alex Jones. (TW)) "


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


 * Comments:
 * Caught this via my watchlist. Blocked 31 hours. -- John Reaves 01:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnohedinnit reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:10, 16 January 2014  (edit summary: "restored perfectly valid sources and important edits")
 * 2) 16:15, 16 January 2014  (edit summary: "added references")
 * 3) 00:54, 17 January 2014  (edit summary: "added references")
 * 4) 06:21, 17 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 591067786 by Zad68 (talk)")
 * 5) 14:40, 17 January 2014  (edit summary: "added more references, highlighted unsourced material")


 * Diff of warning: here

In each one of these reverts, Ohnohedinnit re-adds a large number of unacceptable sources, for example you can see the addition of the self-published website "chastity.com" to support biomedical information in each one of the edits. Sourcing issues were explained to Ohnohedinnit here, again here, here, and in explicit detail here. has been trying to help explain the sourcing issues as well but with no success. There are a few helpful things in Ohnohedinnit's edits but they are largely problematic. Attempts to get Ohnohedinnit to engage with the WP:MEDRS issues pointed out are met with reverts back.

— 15:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This wildly misrepresents my edits. In response to concerns of other editors, I have added additional sources from journal articles. Yet User:Zad68 continues to revert. User:Zad68 and User:Flyer22 continue to use an unsourced quotation in the first paragraph - a point that I have continued to raise but has not been addressed. If they are so concerned about adequate sourcing, why not just delete the unacceptable references? The text is supported by medical journals, which I have added, in addition to the popular press. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

After this report was filed, the problematic edit was reverted by and Ohnohedinnit reverted back: edit summary "improved language, removed 'popular press'". Although a few bad sources like chastity.com were removed the edit still used NPR, CNN, Village Voice etc. for sourcing so it's still not fixed. Either way the issue is the continual reverting instead of leaving the article alone while the challenged edits are discussed and engaging in material discussion on Talk page. 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 15:28, 17 January 2014


 * Look, if the sources are really so problematic, I'll remove them. I'm confused why the editors who take issue with those sources can't just remove them and leave the text in tact. The text itself is accurate, verifiable, and supported by journal citations. Why revert to an obviously inferior version just because there are sources from popular press? Anyway, I've gone ahead and removed the sources that have created this issue in the first place. Hopefully that will resolve this matter, though why this couldn't be done by the editors concerned instead of a wholesale revision leaves me questioning their intent. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should we take care to maintain the decent material you've added to that article when you don't take care to maintain the decent material in it, such as the WP:MEDMOS format? You speak of wholesale reverting. Look at your reverts. You repeatedly added back in material without care, format changes and all; if you are only focused on particular aspects, then your edit should reflect that in this case, instead of bringing all the bad aspects with it. And do read WP:BURDEN. Flyer22 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 18 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)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User talk:Over the Orwell, particularly User talk:Over the Orwell and User talk:Over the Orwell.

Comments:

See report here: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive232. A classic case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Tendentious editing of BLPs of politicians, edit warring, followed by a 48 hour block. Several editors try to help the editor to see where he is going wrong. Editor returns and immediately begins edit warring on same pages. The editor is disruptive, is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and their behavior indicates that they intend to continue reverting repeatedly, despite warnings, explanations and a previous block just days ago. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 02:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The editor's sole interest is to insert this material on behalf of his 13 y.o. son, see . Regardless of the fact that numerous editors agree that the intended content is not encyclopaedic for numerous policy and content reasons, they have returned from a block only to insist that the material is a fact worth recording. It is a classic example of seeing only a single issue and failing to accept very good explanations and alternative suggestions made on their talk page. In addition to a further block, a well authored Admin. commentary referring to WP:BALASPS and WP:COATRACK might be useful. Leaky  Caldron  09:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Lewis07030 reported by User:Anupmehra (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591130526 by Anupmehra (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591128530 by Anupmehra (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591126904 by I feel like a tourist (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Dawn Zimmer. (TW)"
 * 2)   "New message notification."
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dawn Zimmer. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He just keeps on reverting. Comments? Anup Mehra  ✈ 15:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * is my only comment. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Civatrope reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591036129 by Roscelese (talk) Sorry I disagree with you. The two paragraphs are in violation of due weight. But are included in an appropriate section."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591050763 by Roscelese (talk) I posted a message on your talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591063032 by EvergreenFir (talk) See talk page."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 591078196 by EvergreenFir (talk) Sorry, I just disagree."

User was warned about revert count here and here.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits by Civitrope and Roscelese */"


 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours to Civatrope for 3RR violation. I tried to negotiate with this user but couldn't persuade them to make any assurance that they would stop warring. They do not seem to grasp the concept of consensus.  EdJohnston (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you EdJohnston. They're editing on Sociology of gender recently and adding nonsense.  Something tells me user is WP:NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:BjeliRabac reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591333736 by Peacemaker67 (stop the disruptive behaviour, there is no consensus for your edits)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591331147 by Peacemaker67 (stop the disruptive behaviour, there is no consensus for your undo edits)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591243054 by Peacemaker67 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 588725928 by Joy (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Template:Yugoslav Front */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Template:Yugoslav Front (3) */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Removal of AfD templates Battle of Zavlaka (1941) and Battle of Banja Koviljača */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring over large number of redlinks and addition of battle articles that are currently being AfD'd   */ new section"
 * 2)   "Notification: proposed deletion of Battle of Zavlaka (1941). (TW)"


 * Comments:

The user concerned has breached AN3 against consensus of three editors, but has also deleted AfD templates on two pages. A short block would probably be sufficient to get them back on track. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The user in question is new editor. Instead of block it would be better to explain them more clearly where they made mistake. PROD-ing and AfD-ing multiple articles they created without providing them more time to present sources for their articles was wrong and could have provoked new editor to violate wikipedia rules unknown to them. It would be good to follow WP:INVOLVED in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The "new" editor in question was fully aware that three other editors considered their actions were inappropriate, they were warned, yet continued. Doesn't show a collegiate attitude or interest in cooperation. They have already been given a 24 hour block by User:Joy for continued deletion of the AfD template, I believe 72 hours would be an appropriate corrective for the 3RR violation. Whether that will be effective remains to be seen. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * PROD-ing and AfD-ing multiple articles they created without providing them more time to present sources for their articles was wrong. I understand that new editor can make mistake and repeatedly remove it. It was additionally wrong to block them for this, especially by an involved administrator (there is no result filled above, I am uncertain if involved administrator followed procedure in this case). Requesting "an appropriate corrective" and prolonging this block after AfD-ing multiple articles they created is not constructive.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming it is an entirely new editor, I still believe it is completely appropriate. If editors are not corrected now, when they clearly have got off on the wrong foot and failed to understand the collaborative and consensus-based foundations of WP (despite reasonable attempts to correct them by experienced editors), when exactly are admins supposed to do it? We just let them continue on their merry way ignoring all attempts to correct their behaviour? This is not just 3RR when consensus was clearly against their edits, it is deleting AfD notices as well (which clearly state they are not to be deleted). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was appropriate. I am concerned if administrator involved in this issue followed procedure and I am concerned about your request to prolong block for this editor after you insisted to PROD and AfD multiple articles they created. Independent input is necessary. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Joy for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Nekomata3 reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: 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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Users changing "unobtainium" to "unobtanium" - using what seems to be a global replace which is also changing the spellings used in the sources & references. The two editors seem very similar - in both attitude and edits. Quack, quack in the duck test. I have requested that they engage on the talk page to justify the changes, and had little useful response - "LOL" as a talk page comment, and a simple "NO" edit summary to asking for talk page discussion.
 * . I blocked both the named SPA and their IP, not just for edit warring, but also for editing that rose almost to the level of vandalism, and a non-collaborative attitude., please notify editors you report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:BlueSalix reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:26, 15 January 2014


 * 1)  14:26, 15 January 2014


 * 1)  15:14, 15 January 2014


 * 1)  15:26, 15 January 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

BlueSalix, who has a long and contentious history with this article (see its talk page), claimed in his edit summaries that 108.50.220.60 is a sockpuppet and so 3RR didn't apply, but that IP does not appear at the relevant SPI, Sockpuppet investigations/FortyTwoAndAHalf/Archive. At no point did BlueSalix attempt any discussion with 108 or on the article talk page.
 * (1) This is a heavily PR-gamed entry involving 15 socks that have been blocked in the last few months, all at my initiation (not just FortyTwoAndAHalf but others). (2) 108.50.220.60, by his edit pattern and based on common sense, was clearly a sock and I made a 3-revert under NOT3RR. The sheer volume of PR agency socks active in this entry precludes an investigation on each one, in light of the backlog at CheckUser and the fact these are full-time paid socks; common sense must be applied. (3) Tenebrae has exhibited an unusual pattern of supporting these socks and opposing attempts to investigate them (see here among many others). (4) Tenebrae has established a pattern of making deceptive statements about me to Admins (e.g. "other editors have opposed his edits" in reference to sockpuppets opposing my edits) and engaged in a strange pattern of some of the most vicious name-calling toward me I've seen on WP (please see here among many other places I am happy to cite). I make this last point only to explain that this will be my only comment in this ANI in my defense; I have learned I need to avoid Tenebrae or risk being treated in a manner I've never seen a single other editor on WP treated. Therefore, I'm not going to revisit this page. I'm certain Tenebrae will levy additional accusations against me or make claims about how a broad swath of editors support his position, as has been his M.O. in his past attempts to get me blocked - if the patrolling Admin feel there's validity in them, please alert me on my Talk page and I'm confident I'll be able to address them succinctly and also reference you to other editors who can provide a neutral POV on the history of Tenebrae's unusual behavior toward me. I apologize, in advance, to the reviewing Admin your time had to be occupied by this ANI; this is something I have to endure regularly and it's unfortunate others get dragged in. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Cutting through all the clutter, he is saying bluntly that an IP who disagrees with him is "clearly" a sock without any proof, any checkuser request, etc., and that based on this assumption he feels he's allowed to 3RR with impunity. I would disagree we're allowed to make unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry to justify edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And much as I hate adding to irrelevant clutter, I have cut a great deal of promotional-seeming edits to this article, as the edit history shows, so how I'm colluding with people he claims without evidence are publicists, I have no idea. In the Ronan Farrow talk page, you'll see him accusing me of "campaigning" and getting together with sockpuppet users behind his back to thwart him. There's a word for this kind of baseless accusation. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . Regarding the socking issue, geolocates to Ridgewood, NJ. There are only two IPs listed in the SPI. One,, also geolocates to Ridgewood, and the other, , geolocates to Canada. Both SPI IPs made edits only to the Farrow talk page. Ridgewood made one, and Canada made two.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is good to know, albeit not definitive. In any event, it doesn't change the fact BlueSalix was edit-warring since he was reverting based not on this checkuser background or an SPI but simply on his own assumptions. He also made no attempt at discussion, but simply went on a reverting spree.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bbb23! BlueSalix (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected three months due to BLP issues by User:Mark Arsten. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EdJohnston! BlueSalix (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:96.241.218.72 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) RR1
 * 2) RR2
 * 3) RR3
 * 4) RR4
 * 5) RR5 (against another editor)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see warnings. Talk page discussion didn't really take off since interaction began with his accusing me of a conflict of interest to disqualify me from editing, and then accused me of disruptive editing in retaliation for my warnings. On the article talk page he accused me of "political propaganda" so I just didn't see further talking going anywhere.

Comments:

I realized I got to the 3-line and stopped right there. I apologize for this and am stepping back from the article while this is ongoing. The accusations of bad faith, "soap boxing" and "pushing propaganda" I think were over the line in establishing any sort of positive collaboration. User's edits removed sources (including scholarly sources) to fit their original research insertions...just messy, sticky stuff.--Львівське (говорити) 00:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ., just to be clear, my finding that the IP violated WP:3RR says nothing about the content dispute. Therefore, the fact that I blocked them does not give you permission to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that not like telling me I'm not allowed to edit the content at all? The user's reverts removed sources, and inserted a bunch of OR in there; any move to fix the content would fall under a 'revert' IMO --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As you yourself stated, you were up to three reverts and were (sensibly) "stepping back". I'm not saying you can't edit the content forever, but in the short-term, I think it would be wiser to get others involved in the content dispute on the talk page and for an uninvolved editor to decide what is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * oohh, sorry, thought you meant just in general to leave his as the status quo.--Львівське (говорити) 01:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Golden Prime reported by User:Flat Out (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If you persist in saboting this topic with no reason, higher authoritys will be notified"
 * 2)  "You are the one using fictious sites like your self made jackjacksonj, and opinions are in the opinion catagorie jacky, as the death accounts are from credible sources along with everything crybaby"
 * 3)  "Again sabatoges revision, with no reasons, if you have a complaint, post in the talk section"
 * 4)  "You have no reason to undo the more accurate and reliable/credible changes"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 591481763 by EvergreenFir (talk) whats the reason ofr undoing the post, it states the exact content on the article"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591481763 by EvergreenFir (talk) whats the reason ofr undoing the post, it states the exact content on the article"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring here after 3RR warning.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Please note- User:BigCat82 has also exceeded 3RR but they stopped after receiving a warning and engaged in discussion at my talk page, so I haven't reported them.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   08:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And again here, here and here for good measure  Flat Out    let's discuss it   06:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours due to extensive edit warring. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Stack:prism reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  on User talk:Stack:prism
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Keeps inserting the unnecessary content, won't ever explain the reason behind inserting it either. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Indian government, which has the power to close these brothels,police the border,repatriate these enslaved women, has done virtually nothing to curb this humanitarian crisis. India's disregard shows great callousness towards Nepal. If one really believes that the governments have no responsibility in what goes on within their borders, even if it is greatly hurting another country's sovereignty, then the section about human trafficking in China-Nepal relations should be removed first, since compared to India, trafficking between China and Nepal is virtually nonexistent. It doesn't change India's situation, and I don't think either should be removed.Stack:prism (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2014 (EST)
 * In general, we block after four reverts, not three (the 3 in 3RR refers to the maximum before the rule is breached, not the minimum to breach). While we do have discretion to block for non-3RR edit warring, I don't see anything here to suggest it's needed. Please discuss on talk, and pursue dispute resolution as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, he tried to discuss though, now if he resumes edit warring now, may file a complaint. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:75.73.193.200 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591443250 by Aiko (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591531277 by Aiko (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591564480 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
 * 4)  "Please read entire report before posing as an expert: http://www.everythingdisc.com/UserFiles/Everything_DiSC_Research_Report_AT.pdf"
 * 5)  "The previous statement could be said about EVERY psychological assessment (e.g., NEO-PI, CPI, 16-PF). There are, for instance, whole peer reviewed articles debunking the big 5, but this is not, and should not be, included in the headline for the big 5."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on DISC assessment. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on DISC assessment. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

75.73.193.200 has now made five edits to this page today. I did not report on the fourth edit as I hoped if I re-worded it and, more importantly, added sources, that would suffice as a compromise. However, the editor continues to remove the sentence. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  16:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Petesmith2013 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591354223 by Flat Out (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591346810 by Flat Out (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591354223 by Flat Out (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591346810 by Flat Out (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Ownership of articles on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Emma Kenny. (TW)"
 * 3)   "‎3RR Warning on Emma Kenny."
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Stubified article */ unreliable"
 * 2)   "/* Stubified article */"
 * 3)   "/* Stubified article */ done"
 * 4)   "/* Stubified article */"
 * 5)   "/* Stubified article */"
 * 6)   "/* Stubified article */ WP is never a reliable source"
 * 7)   "/* Stubified article */ response, lead rewrite, notability"
 * 8)   "/* Stubified article */ provide sources"
 * 9)   "response."
 * 10)   "response"
 * 11)   "response"
 * 1)   "response."
 * 2)   "response"
 * 3)   "response"


 * Comments:

Author of article works for the subject and has a declared COI, tedious editing and exceeded 3RR  Flat Out   let's discuss it   11:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Petesmith2013 is clearly here exclusively to promote Emma Kenny; thus, I've blocked him indefinitely. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ... and the article has now been deleted. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:132.254.68.86 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User being reported has self-reverted their fourth revert. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591579797 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591576690 by PRODUCER (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591282656 by Praxis Icosahedron (talk)"

, ,
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

, : "What you personally think about ICTY and newspappers IS utterly irrelevant, adn no one cares what one Muslim thinks. You are not going to send warnings to me, nor to edit my page, because NO ONE asked you about opinion, especially ahving on mind who you are"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I reverted one instance of edit-warring by this editor, but have not contributed to the article myself. That said, the persistent edit warring and the tone of the comments above indicate that this editor is not willing to discuss the edits constructively. Ruby  Murray  16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Later changed to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:55
 * 2) 20:09
 * 3) 20:21
 * 4) 21:47
 * 5) 22:18 (update, rv made after this report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Highly aggressive and opinionated editing, previously through various IPs. Note that the first three reverts include what appears to be a case of rather blatant source falsification: the editor is turning several statements into their exact opposite, but is leaving all the footnotes unchanged, making it seem that the previously used references now support the opposite of what they were thought to support earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Highly biased and unfair report. The edits are done because of the lack of any credibility to the current article's page and it's content. The entire page is riddled with fabricated facts and the user Future Perfect at Sunrise has refused to acknowledge the illegal use of a flag claiming to belong to the island. The article has fabricated a flag for the island and it is not even the official logo of the municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 22:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:68.32.136.75 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note: Ayn Rand is under 1RR/week restriction under discretionary sanctions. IP has been informed of that prior to their last reversion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please provide an explanation instead of propagandizing wikipedia readers by perpetuating false myths around Rand's legacy. there is no justification to keep the word statism and it contradicts wiki's own article"
 * 2)  "wiki's own statism article says minarchism  is a type of statism. you can't say she opposes statism and supports minarchism. the term 'anarchism' includes collectivist strains, and [state] collectivism better termed as state socialism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Ayn Rand */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Ayn Rand */ Adding detail per RL0919. Thank you."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ It looks like a sock"
 * 3)   "/* Bad IP edits to the lead */ comment"

IP is also a probable sock. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * IP is threatening to continue the edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  01:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . The block on the original account is expired, so I've just put an AE block in place for violating the restriction. Set for 1 month since this is not his first block for this.  Kuru   (talk)  03:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:204.116.3.106 reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP user was warned twice to stop making unsourced edits to this article without seeking consensus on Talk page. User refuses to start a discussion for these edits after being prompted to do so, and instead continues to revert without edit summary. Today, user makes a bright-line violation of 3RR policy. Clearly, this anonymous user is not getting the message of how Wikipedia works, and appears to be uninterested in learning. Please help get that message across. Thank you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The pages for UNC and NCST football both list USC as a rival. This isn't some absolute matter, as the nature of rivalries is mercurial and ineffable.  I have the consensus of other Wikipedia contributors on my side.  User GarnetAndBlack rules that page with an iron fist, and he will not let his blatant misconception of reality stand in his way.  He's also a poor dresser, and rumor has it that he doesn't brush his teeth very often.  It is my recommendation that he be banned from Wikipedia, and publicly condemned for his behavior.  I am willing to offer my services should it be necessary to create a Wiki page about his actions here.  I am also willing to purchase for him a subscription to GQ for his own personal use.  Thank you, and God bless Hogwarts.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the above pretty much speaks for itself. I rest my case. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You see what I've been dealing with here? I would like to formally recommend that user GarnetAndBlack have his name forthwith changed to "StickAndMud". As his current handle is far less appropriate. Amen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Taneyhill (talk • contribs) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . No comment on your hygiene.   Kuru   (talk)  03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And as it is patently obvious that User:Steve Taneyhill is the same user as the IP, could we get a block there as well? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Kuru   (talk)  03:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:71.214.117.177 reported by User:Sailsbystars (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "citation"
 * 2)  "cite book"
 * 1)  "cite book"
 * 1)  "cite book"


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


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


 * Comments:

Won't stop with refspam... no attempt at discussion. Sailsbystars (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Chuz Life reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Number zero: 20:07, January 18. User Chuz Life adds text and sources in a series of four edits, including the word "recognizes". Not a revert.
 * 1)  21:34, January 20. Restores the word "recognizes".
 * 2)  06:06, January 21. Restores text added earlier.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warning from User:MastCell about 1RR on all abortion topics. 19:22, January 19.
 * Notice of sanctions placed by Binksternet at Talk:Beginning of human personhood. 04:41, January 21.
 * Warning from Binksternet about 1RR at Beginning of human personhood. 06:09, January 21.

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

Comments:

The text added initially by Chuz Life included leading language that biased the reader toward a conclusion that life starts at conception and that abortion is murder. One example was the sentence starting "The law recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim..." I found the word "recognizes" to be a violation of WP:NPOV because it assumes the truth of the statement. I changed the sentence to start "The law defines a fetus as a legal victim..." Chuz Life reverted to the preferred word "recognizes". Following this, Chuz Life performed one more reversion, violating the 1RR established at abortion articles, the restriction having been explained to the editor by MastCell, and a warning placed at the article talk page by myself. The 1RR status was thus known to Chuz Life at the time of the second reversion.

In responding to my 1RR notice and request to self-revert to avoid consequences, Chuz Life said that if it takes getting a ban then "so be it." Rather than self-reverting, Chuz Life next performed this further edit to the article. This indicates the user is not willing to abide by 1RR.

Chuz Life is involved solely in the topic of abortion. The editor established the username L.L. Brown in 2010 then soon changed to Chuz Life. A week ago, Chuz Life reappeared after a break of three years. The editor went to the talk page of Beginning of human personhood and proposed a novel interpretation of U.S. law. This proposal got no answer at all, so Chuz Life went ahead and implemented it. No attempt has been made on the article's talk page to engage this editor. Quite a bit of discussion about this material has, however, been carried out at Talk:Abortion debate and at Talk:Abortion debate. Binksternet (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To all who are concerned and involved in this matter; it is 3:00 am at my location and I would like to have a fair chance to respond to these allegations as soon as possible and time permitting - tomorrow. The user: Binksternet has several things in error about my posts and indeed about the chronology of my account, name etc. For the user's information, I originally created my account under the name "Chuz Life" three years ago and in anticipation of a reaction such as yours, Binksternet, I changed it to my actual initials and last name. This is but one of the several errors in your allegation.


 * Again, I hope to resume this discussion, my defense and my participation on Wikipedia as soon as possible - tomorrow. Your patience and understanding is appreciated. In the interim, if senior editors reading this would be so kind as to visit the talk pages where I attempted to reach a consensus on my edits, you will likely agree that I was the participant putting forth the most effort to abide by the rules, work towards a consensus, productive dialogue, etc. And I still would like to be able to work together with some of the more experienced editors on these additions because I believe them to be informative and relevant. I digress. I'm tired. Thank you for your time.L.L. Brown (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . I don't see any defense to the violation. However, Chuz Life can make any defense on their talk page if they wish. Although not relevant to the block, as I understand what happened, Chuz Life did create User:L.L. Brown initially and then changed it to Chuz Life. He customizes his signature to read L.L. Brown.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Puhlaa reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=591148884&oldid=591117854]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=591574552&oldid=591549311]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=591587333&oldid=591584419]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=591598324&oldid=591590406] (This edit after edit warring warning issued on user page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Puhlaa&diff=591611135&oldid=576066611]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Removal_of_verified_fact_that_chiropractic_is_a_profession]

Comments:

User has clearly broken 4RR. Last minute attempt to invoke WP:BRD does not alter this clear fact.

I appear to have made a mess of the reporting process. Not sure what to do to sort it. Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment from accused editor

 * A brief history; In April of 2013, removed the fact that chiropractic is a profession from the lede of the chiropractic article with this edit. Discussion ensued at the chiropractic talk page here, and resulted in a clear consensus to include the verifiable fact that chiropractic is a profession and an ‘approach’. This has been the stable version of the lede since the consensus in April.


 * On January 17 (3 days ago) returned to the chiropractic article and once again removed the reference to chiropractic as a profession here with a somewhat misleading edit summary "clarifying lede a little". The first link provided by  here shows me reverting John Snow on Jan 17; my edit summary says why I reverted and lists the talk page archive where consensus was reached last time John Snow tried this.


 * Today (~60 hours later) John Snow once again removed the mention of chiropractic as a profession from the lede here. I reverted John Snow (Roxy's second diff), and restored the consensus version again. This time my edit summary directed John Snow to the talk page, where I started a thread to outline my issue with his change to the lede. Interestingly, then appeared and initially reverted John Snow here stating that John Snow’s edit was "not an improvement". For unknown reasons, Roxy then changed his mind and restored John Snows controversial edit?  Now Roxy and John Snow have been alternating at restoring their preferred version instead of the consensus version. At the talk page I have only received accusations of COI editing and some negative comments about chiropractic itself, but John and Roxy have chosen not to address any of the real issues I have raised; such as the fact that they are going against consensus and removing verifiable text from the lede without any discussion. Now Roxy puts a warning on my talk page, stating that I am violating WP:BRD, when I am the only one who has added any rational discussion to the talk page and my preferred version is the version that had overwhelming consensus a few months ago here. I believe that policy suggests we keep the last stable, consensus version until new consensus is reached at the talk page. There was not consensus for John Snow's controversial edit back in April and I do not see anything new here now, except that Roxy has jumped in and tried to turn the tide without any discussion first. I reverted John Snow 3 days ago and now have reverted either Roxy, or John Snow, for a combined 3 more times today. I am open to administrators recommendations/decisions here.Puhlaa (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not made negative comments about chiropractic, or you personally, Puhlaa - neither would I seek to. But it is, unfortunately, all too evident that you have a clear conflict of interest, and that puts you in the wrong here really.  The right thing to do would probably be to take a break from this article for a while.John Snow II (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussions from last year that ended up with the "health care profession and an approach to healing" compromise consensus upset by recent edits, see the discussion in Talk archive #36 Puhlaa points to. It looked like John Snow II was involved last year in removing "profession" but didn't participate in the consensus-building discussion that followed. Although Puhlaa broke 3RR here, I think John Snow's initial edit removing "profession" without discussion and the edit summary "clarifying lede a little" is unfortunately a bit disingenuous, and I think Puhlaa is being gang-tackled a bit. I hope some administrator discretion is shown here. If I weren't involved in the content I'd lean towards closing this with full-protecting the article for a few days and directing the editors to the Talk page. 00:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I would have a hard time supporting Puhlaa now that he/she has canvassed for support at the article. He contacted two editors with these two edits [|1] and [|2]. He did not notify anyone who disagreed with him during the old discussion just those that agreed with him. Clear definition of canvassing.  VViking Talk Edits 02:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was previously involved in the chiropractic article years ago and edit around medicine today; I can assure you that neither BullRangifer nor Zad68 are editors predisposed to being 'pro'-chiropractic. They're both pro good-evidence and reasoned discussion.  I imagine Puhlaa contacted them because they are both excellent editors with expertise in this area and these kinds of debates.  I would have done the same. Ocaasit &#124; c 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ocaasi, was my thought exactly. Viewmont Viking, BullRangifer will be the first to tell you that he is quite critical of chiropractic and Zad has always seemed impartial at medical articles. In the previous discussion of this same topic at chiropractic, while we had disagreements along the way, there was no dissenting opinion remaining by the end (at least no one that spoke up), we all agreed with the final text. As such, there was no one to notify that disagreed with the previous outcome and I did not think it would matter who I notified about the current discussion.Puhlaa (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was notified of this controversy, and I'm glad I was. I'm a notorious chiroskeptic, having once been named, on the front cover of a chiropractic magazine, as "Chiropractic Enemy #1", an honor I share with Dr. John W. Kinsinger, as well as having my life and the lives of my children threatened for my skeptical writings about chiropractic. Puhlaa knows that, but also knows that I'm fair and know the rules here. He, even though a chiropractor, happens to also be a reasonable editor who faithfully maintains the NPOV status of the article. His COI has not been a factor here. He has often allowed negative content into the article because it was properly sourced. That shows that he is not allowing his COI to get in the way of being a good wikipedian.


 * John Snow II's edit summaries are clearly disengenuous, and his intention to edit war his nonconsensus version is rather obvious. BRD shouldn't have to be invoked with him, as he is not a newbie. He knows how it works. Already after his BOLD edit was Reverted, and he repeated his BOLD edit, that's the exact point when he began to edit war and 3RR need not be invoked against him. It's not BRBRD. In such cases, a block is already deserved for edit warring. He should simply know better than to edit war. Yes, Puhlaa got carried away and didn't notice he was close to violating 3rr. That's too bad, but he certainly was supporting the longstanding consensus version. Since that version is now restored, I think the Solomonic solution here is to drop this matter, as this report is brought in bad faith by someone who supported the edit war to begin with, and dragged Puhlaa into it. Just drop this and let's get on with our lives. The article is now back in balance, and John Snow II had better not start such disruption again. The talk page should have been used instead of edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree - we really shouldn't edit war, so I've heeded my own advice and taken a break from this one too. The edit was not disingenuous, or even particularly bold, but when tempers flare it's not a good use of anyone's time slugging it out. John Snow II (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . The claimed 3RR (4RR sic) requires four reverts within a 24 hour period. Clearly, there's a heated discussion and it would be a good idea to conclude the discussion on the talk page before making any other reverts here.  Kuru   (talk)  03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kuru. I understand what you have said and there will be no more reverts from me before discussion is concluded at the chiropractic talk page. Puhlaa (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I should learn to count and read dates properly for the next time. I apologise for wasting editors time (and the time of any health professionals involved)--Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ParkinsonProject reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This is an edit warring report, the editor keeps reverting unsourced and poorly-sourced challenged content back in without discussion despite multiple attempts to get the editor to engage, without any indication of stopping.


 * Initial addition of unsourced and poorly-sourced history section:


 * 1) 01:48, 14 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* Notable historical examples */") -- revert back in Charles I of England, unsourced
 * 2) 01:53, 14 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590601531 by Flyer22 (talk)")
 * 3) * -- adds a bunch more unsourced and poorly-sourced
 * 4) 11:44, 14 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590633517 by Frze (talk)")
 * 5)  adds more poorly-sourced to wiktionary.org and urbandictionary
 * 6) 19:39, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 590860243 by Zad68 (talk)") - reverts wiktionary.org and urbandictionary back in
 * 7) 21:05, 19 January 2014  (edit summary: "/* In law and forensic psychology */  Putting back the history section.") - reverts unsourced and poorly-sourced "history" section back in
 * 8) 20:13, 20 January 2014  (edit summary: "Stop removing the history section. Expand it instead.") - and again


 * Diff of warning: here. Both  and I tried to detail the problems with ParkinsonProject's edits on their User Talk here.  ParkinsonProject not join Talk page discussion regarding history section here despite being ping-notified, and despite being aware that the Talk page exists as ParkinsonProject commented in another section.

— 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I might be a rubbish wikipedian, but nevertheless I sincerely think the Pedophilia article needs a history section. You cannot just brand this predilection a "mental disorder" from a modern perspective, you need to have a historic perspective. User:ParkinsonProject (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And it's already been explained to you what is wrong with trying (because "trying" is all it would be) to include a "historic perspective." Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Franek K. reported by User:Sobiepan (Result: Warned)

 * violated the 3RR Rule Lechitic languages and West Slavic languages and probably on few others.--Sobiepan (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been problems with him in the past [] (two linguists involved)--Sobiepan (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On Lechitic languages


 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

On West Slavic languages


 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

--Sobiepan (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sobiepan make new controversial changes, enter non-neutral changes (POV), and also changes without consensus. I reverted his editions with description of the changes. Also, both got a warning here. I stopped the edit-war. Franek K. (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR is a brightline rule, meaning that even if you disagree with another editor's changes, you don't get to make more than three reverts in 24 hours, ever, unless you are reverting something that is obviously vandalism or a significant BLP problem. If you have problems with edits that Sobiepan makes, take it to the talk page - don't edit war. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sobiepan reported by User:Franek K. (Result: Warned)

 * - edit-warring in Lechitic languages and West Slavic languages and remove data / pushing controversial and not neutral changes without consensus. Franek K. (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

On Lechitic languages


 * 0. stable/previous version
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

On West Slavic languages

Franek K. (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 0 stable/previous version
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.
 * The three revert rule says you can make three reverts. From the diffs you provided, it looks like Sobiepan stopped at three reverts, whereas you went higher than that. Sobie's behavior isn't perfect, but Sobie did stop before the brightline rule was crossed. Since this involves silliness from both of you, as long as you agree to not revert war and to try to work out a consensus on the talk page, I'm not going to block you for a 3rr violation.  I would prefer if you self-reverted your violation of the three revert rule, though.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * if it is not 3RR (although no doubt, this is edit-warring), I authorize the removal of my notice. Franek K. (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that neither of you have behaved perfectly, which is why I didn't block either of you. I would advise both of you to take disputes to talk, and refrain from making any further reverts.  (If editwarring continues, I will be likely to block.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Marathon reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warnings, protection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The issue is not Sahlins. the issue is that the reference is just a rehash of the same work covered elsewhere."
 * 2)  "And this is nothing less than a book a review of "Darkness at El Dorado", already covered in detail below. Failed reference checks. Material removed."
 * 3)  "Reverting. Referrnce check failed. See talk."
 * 4)  "Not a reliable source. See talk."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
 * 2)   "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"
 * 3)   "/* Lizot, "Tales of the Yanomami" */"

Since I only reverted each those references once at the time of reporting, this should be fairly easily resolved. The fact that one editor keeps posting the exact same material in a BLP with different, but still unreliable, references, does not violate 3RR, nor constitute edit warring. Each removal of a different reference is a different edit, not in any sense a revert. Each edit had achieved consensus on the talk page, at least to the extent that the editor didn't challenge that the reference check had failed. Instead the editor added the same sentence with a different, still unreliable, reference.
 * Comments:

At no stage was the edit reverted for any reason other than it failed a reference check, and hence had to be removed immediately as per WP:BLP. So clearly no edit warring on my part. It will be interesting if the mods find otherwise since the first 3 edits to reject the references had achieved consensus, and leaving the material in the article unreferenced would itself violate WP.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The material as supported by a reference to something by Marshall Sahlins in the Washington Post is by no means a BLP violation; not sure what it means to say it "failed a reference check". And no-one was proposing to leave the material without a reference.  I think it's obvious there's a problem here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The material with the reference to Sahlins has only been reverted twice by me, and twice by you. I will point out that even you don't dispute that one of your references was not RS, and was just a Blog repeating a reference that had already been judged not RS. Some of us are now engaging in good-faith discussions about your second reference on the talk page. Meanwhile you are here making accusations of edit warring after just two reversions. There clearly is a problem here.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope others can see through the inaccuracies here. This edit adds information to the reference a different editor provided and so is not a revert; that means I've reverted once . Moreover they're not "my" references (though I'm happy to stand behind the Sahlins one).  The edit-warring by Mark Marathon here is obvious; it's just a case of seeing through the red herrings.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing? Not a violation of 3RR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope this one doesn't get left as "stale" & archived. At a minimum, Mark-Marathon's posts here show a misunderstanding of the 3RR policy that needs correction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Still? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Three editors are warned and the article is protected two weeks. It looks to me that User:Nomoskedasticity (4 reverts since January 1), User:Mark Marathon (5 reverts) and User:Jimjilin (6 reverts) are engaged in an edit war. They are reverting some criticisms of Napoleon Chagnon (a living person) in and out of his article with no indication that consensus was obtained. I recommend that all the parties stop reverting these items until agreement is reached. Open a WP:Request for comment, use WP:RSN or follow other recommended steps of dispute resolution. It's possible that some reverts are excused by BLP but there is no reason for this to go on so long without proper closure. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:H2ppyme reported by User:Djsasso (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:26, 21 January 2014‎
 * 2) 07:33, 21 January 2014‎
 * 3) 08:44, 21 January 2014‎
 * 4) 08:56, 22 January 2014‎

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

Callanecc warned that any editor that changed the birth location when the protection expired without a new absolute consensus would be blocked.

Comments: The protection expired the day before yesterday and immediately the page was changed by H2ppyme and another edit war resumed. H2ppyme has since done 4 reverts in slightly over 24 hours when he was warned not to do any by another admin. Previous consensus had been reached in this discussion and others that for hockey bios we use the compromise version of "City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union" instead of either extreme of just Soviet Union or just Estonia. If other editors want to change that a discussion is needed and more than welcome but until then there should be no edit warring. I am involved so I have brought the request to block here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is long-term edit warring behaviour, as this editor has attempted to enforce their personal preference against consensus (or, at the very least, non-consensus to change) on several occasions. Reverting runs are evident in their edit history from December 18 and December 4 related to hockey players, and they have been warring on the Estonia vs. Estonia SSR debate since at least 2011, if not earlier. Resolute 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Laser brain  (talk)  18:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:174.112.42.106 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 21:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Arildnordby reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591936531 by Darkness Shines (talk) YOu are vandalizing, removing content with no argument. Discuss at talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 591934819 by Darkness Shines (talk) Vandalism REMOVED"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 591911524 by Lihaas (talk) Malevolent vandalism REMOVED"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 591816020 by Bladesmulti (talk) Vandalism removed"


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


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


 * Comments:

Got there from ANI, I reverted due to the inappropriate allegations of vandalism Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one vandalizing here, removing amounts of fully referenced content totally without argument. You should take up such changes at the requisite Talk Page, rather than engaging in your private pet projects of bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ANd all the others were vandalizing in the same manner.Arildnordby (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe the article should be full-protected, so that the other parties will be encouraged to join Arildnordby on the article talk page to seek consensus? At present, they are notable by their absence there, and he by his presence. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness Shines has recently made a mendacious claim I misrepresent sources. I have provided source after source, showing my originally included figure has been cited as relevant by SEVERAL professional historians. Furthermore, all that has come up against this is that certain historians regard the figures as under-estimates (but Yang, for example, calls it "usable" data, but as with most data, "fraught with problems"), rather than British fanasies about overestimation. At nop point have I removed material underlining the due caution one should have to those numbers. Nor do they in any way represent a warping of the prior content of Sati (practice), but instead, provides valuable primary source material on some of those numbers the British Administration itself used (however much they may have underestimated it). At NO point have those removing my edits been able to come up with a single, cogent argument for why they should delete 6700++ of fully referenced material at Death by burning, for example.Arildnordby (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Instead, Darkness Shines engage in bullying, by threatening to throw me out.Arildnordby (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever other issues exist here, Aril violated the 3rr rule after receiving a warning about it. Aril: the edits you labelled as vandalism were not vandalism.  I would encourage you to read WP:VANDALISM upon your return, and to productively engage on the talk page once you return. I'll take a bit of a look at the rest of the article involved as well.  Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Demiurge1000, and Kevin Gorman, for hours, the issue was discussed on his talk page instead, you can read it here, and the issue can be viewed it ANI. The user is basically spinning the same wheel, while stopping anyone else to edit the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the further reading. I'm tempted to up the block from 24 hours given some of Aril's other behavior, but am going to leave it in place for now.  I'll keep an eye on the article and will step in if, after the 24 hour block, the issues return. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Amatulic reported by Yobol (talk) (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1) 15:52, 22 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid and copyedited revision 590405774 by Yobol (talk) - this is a secondary source according to WP:MEDRS")
 * 2) 22:57, 22 January 2014  (edit summary: "Restored removal by Jytdog, including proper citation. This article has had rather wide coverage in independent reliable sources. Per talk.")
 * 3) 23:06, 22 January 2014  (edit summary: "No consensus or justification for this - per talk page")
 * 4) 23:15, 22 January 2014  (edit summary: "Final revert. Appropriate sourcing has been found. Notable coverage by science organizations isn't enough? Please read tlk page comments, and WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.")

—Yobol (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do count four reversions in well less than 24 hours from User:Amatulic, which would be a violation of the 3rr. However, I'm curious to hear from Amatulic before taking action here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry Kevin. Missed that. Happy to hear their response. This one was fairly cut and dry however. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I did assume it would end with a 24 hour block, I was just curious why a long standing admin and editor like Amatulic with an otherwise clean blocklog would have made a little booboo, and was hoping that there was a reasonable explanation I was missing. No worries. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It happens sometimes. It is a short block. Hopefully it will not happen again. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry reported by User:Ceekay215 (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 00:57, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591410396 by Bluerasberry (talk): Go to talk page... (TW)")
 * 2) 02:25, 23 January 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 591955026 by Bluerasberry (talk): See me on talk page or get other opinions, as you like... (TW)")

Comments: I have attempted to engage the user several times in discussion about NPOV, and he simply ignores me and reverts my edits. He also appears to have invited another editor to make an additional reversion User:Josh3580 to avoid an explicit violation of 3RR himself and leave me unable to make additional corrections to his unwillingness to discuss the article.

—Ceekay215 (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your allegation of collusion is quite wrong, my friend. I have never even communicated with Bluerasberry (talk). I am a recent changes patroller, and came across your edit in WP:HG. I very clearly invited you here to discuss your contribution on the talk page, but you responded by giving me a WP:3RR warning (diff), after a single revert on my part. Yes, I gave you the warning first, because you were refusing to discuss the issue, and resorted to re-reverting. Understand that I have only reverted ONCE. Your inappropriate use of the user warning as well as this noticeboard may come back to bite you. I invite the investigating Administrator to thoroughly investigate my edit history, if they are not already familiar with my contributions. I am prepared for the WP:BOOMERANG. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

My only allegation is that you reverted a proper edit not on the merits, and for reasons I do not speculate upon. As you fail to mention, I have attempted to engage BlueRasberry in constructive dialogue, and he issues five word proclamations and simply reverts all changes without discussion. Why would you ignore all of the content on the article's talk page? You participated in an edit war, witting or not, by blindly reverting an edit without understanding what you were reverting or why. I would invite you into a conversation on the article's content, on the merits. Until then, you did indeed deserve the warning. Note that I did not follow it up here, since you only did it once. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You did allege collusion actually, very clearly just a couple of paragraphs up from here. That is not the issue. The user that you reported here reverted you TWICE, which is not a violation of the 3-revert-rule. It takes 4 reverts to reach that point. There are now three different editors who have reverted your edits, now that  Flat Out   let's discuss it   has joined the discussion. You obviously do not have WP:CONSENSUS for your change, and throwing around warnings and reports is not the way to gain it. —Josh3580talk/hist 03:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment- editors have engaged with Ceekay215 despite claims to the contrary. The only edit-warring has been by the reporter who might like to read WP:BOOMERANG. I have provided links to appropriate forums for Ceekay215 to raise any concerns regarding the article.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please review the article talk page again. I'll patiently wait for Bluerasberry, who is the subject of this notice, to do more than issue proclamations. The only edit war here is his failure to engage with my polite requests to discuss the issue on the merits, and simply revert this article back to the way he insists it remain. It's unclear to me why you continue to avoid the merits in order to fan the flames of the dispute instead of making a case for the proper content and order for the article. If you would do so, there would be no other issue of contention. Ceekay215 (talk) 03:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Ceekay215 has reverted the article four times in four hours on 23 January. The simplest way to stop the war would be to issue a block of Ceekay215. He might be able to avoid a block if he will promise to avoid the article and its talk page for seven days. If he does so this might be taken into account by the closing admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved controversial content from the lead and into the article body which should appease Ceekay215's concerns.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   04:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the fair look at this by Flat Out and Josh3580 Ceekay215 (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to remove this request based on successful resolution. Thank you. Ceekay215 (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Ceekay215 is warned for breaking 3RR. Since a discussion is taking place it seems unnecessary to issue a block at this time. 3RR complaints are not generally removed from the board once they are submitted. EdJohnston (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Mishae (Result:No action)
Page: User being reported:

Hi, according to WP:Musicians the above article is meant to have an infobox while user is deleting infobox saying that its against WikiProject Classical Music. My argument though is that our readers do need to know the basics sometimes and they wont care to read the whole article. Furthermore, when user put it back in, he came back and removed it. I think that user Toccata quarta is vandalizing and is disruptive toward this and other articles such as Vadim Repin, and I need someone to take care of this, before it will go over and I will get blocked! Like honestly, why do we have an infobox on say Charles Dutoit but we can't have infoboxes on the rest.--Mishae (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Outside observation. Mishae, Toccata quarta has only reverted twice. You then went and added the infobox a third time, and as far as I can see, you have made no effort to discuss this on the article's talk page. I've now converted that box to Infobox person. I suggest you read WikiProject Musicians/Infobox:
 * "Infobox musical artist is the standard template to be used on a non-classical musician's or musical ensemble's page." (my bolding)
 * Infobox musical artist is designed for pop musicians and is not suitable for classical musicians, both in terms of terminology and fields. If an infobox is to be used, Infobox person is much more suitable and flexible. Please also read Manual of Style/Infoboxes:
 * "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
 * Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Voceditenore, for your pertinent and concise comment, to which I fully subscribe. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There's not enough disruptive activity here for action, at least not yet. Maybe we could keep it that way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If its not prohibited, then user should have just changer it to person and our dispute would have been over, instead he removes the infoboxes not substituting them. Keep in mind, that removing and substituting is two different ways of handling an infobox issue. In for one, believe that any article which is above a stub needs an infobox solely because some information that people need is that way on the very bottom. Why do I need to the bottom for associated acts and labels, if I can read it all from the infobox? Come to think of it, I got an idea (see if you will agree with me), instead of using background in the infobox, why not remove it from classical musicians, that way, all of the acts and labels will be in place?--Mishae (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:82.114.94.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Accept my edit, cuz the current edit is incorrect why are you not accepting ?"
 * 2)  "Mariusz can`t deadlift 430 kg or squat 390 kg sir, accept my changes cuz the current changes are fake."
 * 3)  "The current info is incorrect"
 * 4)  "Look i really dont know to use wikipedia but if you see this,pls acept my edit cuz i`m a near friend of mariusz and i`m 100% sure the current info is fake ask mariusz on his official fb page if you want,Thnx"
 * 5)  "Sir look here Mariusz official web http://www.pudzian.pl/mariusz.php ,this web is even on mariusz personal FB, i don`t know what is so hard to understan ?"
 * 1)  "Sir look here Mariusz official web http://www.pudzian.pl/mariusz.php ,this web is even on mariusz personal FB, i don`t know what is so hard to understan ?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Mariusz Pudzianowski */ new section"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mariusz Pudzianowski. (TW)"

Attempted on user's talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . The duration is because the IP is using a network sharing device. I am also concerned abotu, who is using the same network and made precisely the same edit on the article. However, I have not blocked 178 or semi-protected the article. Please let me know if either or both becomes necessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's like you have a crystal ball: 1. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Would that I didn't. I blocked the other IP for three months as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Raamin (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not notable enough for own article"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 592089789 by Raamin (talk)"
 * 3)  "not done in good faith"
 * 4)  "rd, not in good faith, information was swiped from Marvel Anime & was restored there; article was already deleted in 12/2012"

Comments:

The User has removed the entire content 4 times; and has accused me to edit without good faith. I was trying to find more reliable sources, added to the article ( link ), suggested to discuss this matter, or if the user wants, another nomination for deletion [in edit comments], with no response. Raamin (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Article was previously deleted. Content was restored where I origin placed it at Marvel Anime#Iron Man: Rise of Technovore as indicated. He can expand it there. He doesn't address notability and attempts to use "new page" tag as a shield. Notability is currently being address at Talk:Marvel_Anime, which Raamin has not (yet) chosen to join as I have. Onus is on those want to restart a delete article not those opposed as I understand it. Just saying that you are acting in good faith when some points out that the article is notable isn't a defense. Spshu (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ., you've reverted three times. I wouldn't do it again, or you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This means, I am not allowed to start this article? When the edit warring started I was adding more info and sources to the artice; I wasn't simply re-reverting. Raamin (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as Spshu is not permitted to violate WP:3RR because of their perspective on how this split or new article should be accomplished, neither are you. You can continue the discussion about the split on the main page. Another editor can restore the new article if they wish, or you can use the talk page of the new article to gain a consensus for restoring it and let someone else implement it. There are many non-disruptive ways to go about what you want to achieve.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:B575 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Removal of longstanding sourced content, no exact prior version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see comments below

Comments: B575 is simply hopping between articles wiping out sections they disapprove of, with any related discussion. Not sure if this is simple vandalism or politically motivated W/P:POINTYness (see also Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as well as edits at Chris Matthews and Bill Maher), but there's no obvious location for a substantive discussion and no indication the editor would engage in one. They're just wiping out parts of some BLPs and sticking labels into others, and will keep going until they're stopped. Note this response just moments ago to a warning from admin User:Malik Shabazz about aspects of this behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I see both AndytheGrump and Malik Shabazz tried to get B575 to adjust their behaviour, but they have finally engaged at Talk:Glenn Beck with this edit.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:VeritasVeritasOra2 reported by User:Safiel (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 591976033 by Bgwhite (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 592101205 by Bgwhite (talk)Actually Marquis Who'sWho is a very reliable source;additionally, why is "Bgwhite" eliminating the "List of" which is a form of enriching an understanding of"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592102520 by Bgwhite (talk) Bgwhite must still be practicing to become an ass.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This occurred earlier this evening. User's only edits are these problematic reverts, plus some edits to the associated talk page, leading me to believe this is either a sock puppet as well or an associate of another editor. User was not warned, but his last vulgar edit summary indicates a decided lack of civility, as well as his posting of an attack page in his user space against user Bgwhite. Safiel (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Bgwhite did attempt to resolve the issue on VeritasVeritasOra2's talk page. Safiel (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * After leaving a message on the talk page, the "ass" revert told me nothing good will come to talking to the person. It is a sock puppet.  There are a bunch of other SPAs editing the page.  Messages on Talk:Jan Crull, Jr., including the now reverted messages, paint the same person.   Nothing can be done to the editor as this is a SPA.  I did put a month long protection on the page to keep any more SPAs away for a bit.  Feel free to shorten or lengthen the protection.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:2.26.115.20 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 60 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to remove references to this celebrity's widely reported police caution for assaults. IP has not discussed this on talk page despite warnings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Nfomamdoalfrlpsa reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

 * Report 1 of 2
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 06:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 592136369 by Dr.K. (talk) Final warning: stop edit-warring your violate the three-revert rule"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592135908 by Dr.K. (talk) Final warning: Violating the three-revert rule"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 592135377 by Optakeover (talk) stop edit-warring your violate the three-revert rule"
 * 5)  "/* Removal of sourced information */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on  Arms industry. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Arms industry. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of former sovereign states. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Arms industry. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Refactoring my comments. Reported at AIV for many other issues but no action there. Hopefully someone can take some action here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * User λόγος release false unreliable sourced and delusive information and are currently engaged in an edit-warring toward me by Rv all m contributions all!! and revert unsourced content!!!!!
 * λόγος has violate the three-revert rule after Final warning--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with Dr.K. User keeps removing content without proper reasons. Keeps insisting on him being correct. WP:COMPETENCY. Optakeover  (Talk)   08:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

requested CheckUser sock puppet

Please check


 * Please check Optakeover  (Talk)  It is a sock puppet suspect sock puppet of User λόγος he concur with him on everything !!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)




 * You are not going to win any friends here with accusations such as this.  g s k  08:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume lack of competency. But either way, I suggest action to be take, as we have repeatedly tried to tell Nfomamdoalfrlpsa that unexplained removal of content is not allowed and its reversion is exempt under WP:NOT3RR; removal of content is disruptive and is considered vandalism, especially when it is repeated. Optakeover  (Talk)   08:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * i not looking for win any friends here!!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) have repeatedly tried to tell Optakeover  (Talk) suspect sock puppet of User λόγος that unreliable sourced and delusive information is considered vandalism and unconstructive edits to Wikipedia especially when revert unsourced content!!!!!--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Nfomamdoalfrlpsa, I honestly do not know whether to take you seriously or not. But I'd just say that the burden of truth is on you to prove that what you are deleting as you said, unreliable. However, it has been shown in the edits you have done, the content you have removed have been properly sourced, especially 1, 2 and 3. I don't know what you are trying to achieve here. I don't want to waste my time arguing with you, I am only a witness to what you have been doing in regards to Dr.K. And as far as I can see, you are the blatant breaker of the rule under WP:VANDTYPES. I need not carry on explaining what I have said (and others have as well). Optakeover  (Talk)   08:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * use your first account User :Dr.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk • contribs) 09:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Optakeover (Talk)  suspect sock puppet of User User :Dr.K. has violate the three-revert rule after Final warning--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 08:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe I am a sockpuppet, then go right ahead and report me here. Don't waste my time. Optakeover  (Talk)   08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Report 2 of 2


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592152727 by Ishdarian (talk) stop Rv have talked about this stop your edit!)
 * 2) 09:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592147273 by Jim1138 (talk) unreliable source)
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592094519 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv false unreliable sourced and delusive infrmation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 591969505 by Dr.K. (talk) Please stop your edit war!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 591968425 by Dr.K. (talk) deceitful source i have talked about this Please stop your edit war!"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 591966234 by Dr.K. (talk) so wrongly"
 * 7)  "Removing unsourced content"
 * 1)  "Removing unsourced content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Arms industry. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of former sovereign states. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) to last version by Dr.K."
 * 2)   "Revert to the revision prior to revision 592137030 dated 2014-01-24 06:52:39 by Nfomamdoalfrlpsa using popups"


 * Comments:

Yet another report. And an additional comment: How is it that a brand new user with less than fifty edits knows so much about sockpuppets and checkusers and is assertive enough to instruct other users to use their "first account"? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  08:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to make another report. You might also be faulted for making double reports. Maybe you should delete this one and just add on to the previous report. Or consider bringing this right to WP:AN/I. Optakeover  (Talk)   08:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I don't think so. It shows an undeniably disruptive trend. It may be unusual to have multiple reports but this is an unusual case. But merging may be a good idea. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * hilarious funny short jokes""""--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . Two clear 3RR reports, and a troubling response. I don't doubt that this will end up as an indefinite block in the future if Nfomamdoalfrlpsa cannot read warning and interpret our policies on this behavior.  Kuru   (talk)  16:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnvr4 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 592176706 by Alexbrn (talk)"
 * 2)  "Reversions have not been discussed. the page is IN USE, Please quit reverting to unsourced information or  that which abuses the sources. These change were discussed ."
 * 3)  "removed contrail statement (again)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 592136319 by Dougweller (talk) chemtrails and the conspiracy surrounding is the subject and the changes were discussed on talk page."
 * 5)  "removed unsourced The term specifically refers to..."
 * 6)  "Government response, Expert quotation, Un-sourced comment removed as no source was provided despite request."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

I am 100% confident that the good faith alterations that I made to the above entry I made are improvements and were previously discussed on the entry's talk page. Any representation made to the contrary is unsupportable. Not one editor doing the reverting my submission participated in the discussion of my proposed changes or has properly or accurately described the reason for their reversion.Johnvr4 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Clear reverts at 23:34, 13:49, 14:00, 14:20, and 14:30.  It's great that you like your edits; others clearly do not.  Please resolve the discussion on the article's talk page in lieu of continually reverting other editors. An "in use" tag does not give you ownership of the article.  Kuru   (talk)  16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Arkhandar reported by User:Azsayswhat (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Nintendo_developers&oldid=564124910]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=564357725&oldid=564318103]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=564438719&oldid=564423450]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=564504841&oldid=564445329]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=564586259&oldid=564576450]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=565129714&oldid=565124944]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=565764010&oldid=565749813]
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=566195672&oldid=566185060]
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANintendo_developers&diff=574993081&oldid=574955660]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arkhandar&diff=592139490&oldid=591125002]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ANintendo_developers&diff=574955861&oldid=561849885]/[//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Nintendo_developers#Second-party_developers]

Comments:

Refuses to allow any other changes than their own, ignoring the agreements made in the discussion.--Azsayswhat (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) It is very unlikely any action will be taken here considering the most recent diff provided is from September 2013. 3RR usually only applies in situations where more than three reverts are made in a 24 hour time period, and this report was created about 2,897 hours after that limit.  g s k  07:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it not still considered edit warring despite the low traffic, as the user has said, the page receives? Any sort of time frame should not apply. It is still clearly evident the user refuses to accept any changes, discouraging any users from attempting to do so. This is closely following the description given in Three_revert_rule. Bold edits were placed, they were reverted, then discussed, yet still no edits aligning with that discussion have been put in place. A large discussion has taken place with nothing to show for it. Regardless of the report here a resolution should be assisted in being reached rather than letting the conflict go stale from lack of interest in dealing with this user, allowing them greater rule. --Azsayswhat (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_99#Second_Party_Nintendo_Developers] is the additional discussion not directly linked above as it was archived. The only opposition in the discussion is the very user in question. --Azsayswhat (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

User:193.169.80.41 reported by User:Josh3580 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 2)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 3)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 4)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 5)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 6)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 7)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 8)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 9)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 10)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua"
 * 11)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and  http://24tv.ua"
 * 12)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg"
 * 13)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg"
 * 14)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg"
 * 15)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6L4_zBm-tr0/UuJz2Oi6OKI/AAAAAAAAAB4/WzTDltvQ8fo/w615-h845-no/Scan.jpg and http://24tv.ua/home/showSingleNews.do?8_grudnya_narodivsya_illya_mechnikov_avtor_teoriyi_pro_im"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 592115329 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv { https://plus.google.com/u/0/ }"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 592109681 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 592086350 by Jsqqq777 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 592022272 by Jsqqq777 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 592086350 by Jsqqq777 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Fixed. Information taken from the archives of Kyiv"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592022272 by Jsqqq777 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Jsqqq777 (talk) is also involved in this edit war, but has not edited since I gave him a WP:3RR warning. He was probably just reverting for the same reason I was - unsourced additions. —<b style="color:green;">Josh3580</b>talk/hist 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am up to 3 reverts on this page now. I started a discussion on the article's talk page, and added the diff to my report above. —<b style="color:green;">Josh3580</b>talk/hist 21:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * for vandalism by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:173.21.45.133 reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I reverted this anon-user's edit as it was not properly sourced, removed other content and was not written in proper english. They came back and redid the exact same edit. Zackmann08 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ., you need to prepare a report here properly. You provided no diffs; coincidentally, there are only two. Nor have you tried discussing the IP's edits with them. I suggest you do that if you can't resolve the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Swab.jat reported by User:Ronz (Result: Blocked)
Pages:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * List of digital forensics tools
 * 1) 00:00, 24 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 592049072 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 2) 10:14, 24 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 592147277 by ErrantX (talk)")
 * 3) 00:06, 25 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 592204915 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 4) 00:18, 25 January 2014  (edit summary: "Inappropriate editing by authors outside their subject domain violating free/open wiki")


 * List of job scheduler software
 * 1) 14:00, 23 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 591155804 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 2) 14:01, 23 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 591152695 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 3) 23:59, 23 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 592048977 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 4) 00:06, 25 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 592205426 by Ronz (talk)")
 * 5) 00:16, 25 January 2014  (edit summary: "Inappropriate editing by authors outside their subject domain violating free/open wiki")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

New editor and WP:SPA, trying to promote non-notable software. See his talk page for attempts at communicating with him. His efforts to contact me after being given a 3rr warning while he continues to edit-war are less than helpful.

Yes, he was so busy edit-warring that he's edit-warred over a spelling correction. Doesn't look like he's interested in improving this encyclopedia nor working with other editors. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User: 217.96.115.78 reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * This user keeps reverting my edits and refuses to discuss it. I made discussions on talk pages and addressed his own talk page, but does not respond and only reverts my edits. If any moderator feels I too have been edit warring, then I will accept the consequences myself. However, I at least made at attempt to resolve the issue. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: History shows you have both been edit warring over a period of several days. I know it can be difficult to communicate with an anon IP but you shouldn't resort to edit warring. Also try to sign your post please. Antiochus the Great (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I do apologize for that, but I started a section in each talk page to resolve this, yet he did not reply. I made a comment to use the talk page after my last reverts on both pages. Should I try once more to communicate with him through his talk page? If he does not respond and keeps reverting the edits, should I file another report? TheSickBehemoth (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:JOttawa16 reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * on Canadian Forces
 * 1)  "/* Military expenditures */ added decade of darkness"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 592202247 by BilCat (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592247116 by Ahunt (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 592258689 by The Bushranger (talk)"
 * on Jean Chrétien
 * 1)  "/* Prime minister */ added decade of darkness"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 592203467 by Ahunt (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 592255282 by Paul Erik (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:Canadian Forces
 * 2) Deletion review


 * Comments:

Editor is attempting to insert content into these articles that was deleted from the standalone article Decade of Darkness at AfD under a claim that the DRV has formed a consensus for this action. It has not (in fact the clear consensus is that the content is unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia), and regardless the edit-warring is clear. The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the same editor has now posted the exact same content on Talk:Canadian Forces: . - The Bushranger One ping only
 * Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Pava reported by FAEP (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:00, 15 January 2014  (edit summary: "please see source")
 * 2) 05:34, 17 January 2014  (edit summary: "not is olympic game question, is a matter of sticking to the sources and officialdom information: This prize should go to a state and have it assigned to Italy. WP:NOR")
 * 3) 21:50, 20 January 2014  (edit summary: "user does not listen, user ignore the source, ignore WP:NOR does not establish collaborative, much less reasonable and mature, I ask the intervention of an administrator. I do not know what to do about it: misunderstands the question")
 * 4) 00:53, 22 January 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 591756604 by Spacejam2 (talk)")

—FAEP (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: User tries to enforce the removal of the french flag. Regarding this user's behavior in the past, the most likely reason for his edit-warring is childishness and a nationalistic attitude. User has also been blocked on commons for sockpuppeteering and edit warring.--FAEP (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I myself have asked for information on this project ((before any intervention or notification of FAEP)), in order to avoid edit wars: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. however, just read the history of the item in question to realize that the other user does not have collaborative purposes of the edit war, but rather acts with spam. also emphasize that the purpose of FAEP are not cooperative or to improve the quality of wikipedia, but he pursued my actions with the only purpose to hurt me, to make me look bad and provoke me, his behaviors are harmful and I hope that someone sooner or later take action now because it has been years since these are her hobbies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pava (talk • contribs) 23:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . As can be seen by the diffs, there has been no violation of WP:3RR. The edit war is between and, which begs the question, , why you reported only Pava. Spacejam2's edit summaries are beyond the pale: "VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM! VANDALISM!". Wow.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because, as I have already explained its purpose is not to contribute to wikipedia (as it has ever been to contribute to the commons in the continuous bickering that offers every time with me) its only purpose is to cause, harm me and put me in Cativa light, I now I ignore it, I just only to explain to others how things are, pleased him. For me this is a behavior to be punished, because for years now here or on the commons continues. It hurts wikipedia, wikipedia is not made for these purposes.

Anyway, I just to avoid edit wars, I opened the discussion to the film project, and it seemed to move more correct. Then it is obvious that with such comments in the subject field, it seemed obvious to do rollback because no director has intervened (although I has requested the intervening). Anyway, thank you for your intervention --Pava (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)