Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive238

User:Rushton2010 reported by User:ERIDU-DREAMING (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User reported:

I made some minor changes on the 15th October 2013‎ to the Breadsall Priory article, which were reverted by Rushton2010 on the 16th October 2013‎, on the grounds that my changes had "seriously distorted the information to the point of making it incorrect."

He nowhere pointed out what information was seriously distorted, and has used the same excuse to revert each and every one of the changes I have made, no less that 10 times now. Indeed as day follows night you can be sure that if I make a change he will revert it.

I told myself that if Rushton2010 reverted my changes more than 10 times I would (reluctantly) draw the attention of this noticeboard to his activities. My impression is that he has "ownership issues", and on those grounds reverts each and every change by me. At no point did he feel the need to correct any mistakes (if indeed there are any mistakes) he just reverts the whole text, each and every time I have made any changes, and this has gone on now for a period of several months.


 * Comments:

In summary Rushodon2010 reverted my changes on the 26th February 2014, the 24th February 2014‎, the 12th February 2014‎, the 8th February 2014, the 5th February 2014, the 4th February 2014, the 3rd February 2014, the 29th January 2014, the 5th January 2014, and the 16th October 2013.

This not only violates the three reverts rule, it seems contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu. I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here, but as the page is one of little interest probably only local interest given it averages only 10-20 hits a day; of which some/most will be us anyway and the user involved as shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism and they have shown no signs of wanting to discuss -having on 10 occasions now reverted- rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization. The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu. Some are more issues of wikipedia procedure - for example the removal of 8 categories: -all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries. There is also the repeated removal of "Citation Needed" tags, and the "Ref Improve" Hatnote - all without the issues they highlighted having being rectified. Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice -ditto why I thought he was removing the tags before they were rectified) . It's Breadsall Priory.... Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both. Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more.
 * Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
 * Monasteries in Derbyshire
 * History of Derbyshire
 * Marriott International
 * Augustinian monasteries in England
 * 13th-century establishments in England
 * Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
 * 1536 disestablishments in England

I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Response:

"The issues could broadly be described (as mentioned in the edit summary) the removal of cited information, introduction of incorrect and uncited information, the removal of maintenance tags, and the removal of categories, by Eridu."

Give a single example in the current text where that is true. If you can find a single example change it. You know full well that you have simply engaged in wholesale reversion. You know that you are being disingenuous. I am happy to make the article as accurate as possible.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts. I have considered for quite a while taking issues to the talk page or reporting the offending user here"

Again you are being disingenuous. The reason why you did not come here is because you know that you have engaged in wholesale reversion, each and every time, for many months. Not something to be proud of, and not something to which you wanted to draw any attention.

"the user involved has shown only disruptive tendencies: much of what the users does seemed to fall under the umbrella of blatant vandalism"

Again, you know that to be completely untrue, as anybody who looks at the article can see for themselves. If there was a specific issue you should have addressed it, but you didn't, you just engaged in wholesale reversion. Again you are being very disingenuous.

"rather than waste hours of mine and administrators precious life reporting him, I found it easier to simply remove the errors and restore the tags and categorization."

Ah a little bit of truth mixed in with the lies about "vandalism".

"for example the removal of 8 categories"

-all of which are obviously valid and in keeping with those used in the rest of the articles concerning English monasteries."
 * Grade II listed buildings in Derbyshire
 * Monasteries in Derbyshire
 * History of Derbyshire
 * Marriott International
 * Augustinian monasteries in England
 * 13th-century establishments in England
 * Christian monasteries established in the 13th century
 * 1536 disestablishments in England

I did not remove those categories. Why would I remove those categories? It makes no sense. If they were removed it was obviously accidental, and easily remedied by the editor. He simply demonstrates my point for me.

UPDATE I see that the last version did accidentally omit the last list, but that does not apply to any of the other versions which were changed back by Rushton 2010, which he knows full well, so (yet again) Rushton2010 is being "economical" with the truth.

"Some of the things have been smaller and bizarre: for example the repeated removal of the distance from the priory to the village of Breadsall and adding in another small village instead, something I thought may possibly be due to some form of local bias, COE or prejudice"

Again more deceit. I changed it to miles because that is how it is understood locally. I added Long Eaton because that is a much better known local centre. Long Eaton is much larger than Breadsall. He must surely know that, and so he should be careful about throwing the word "bizarre" around.

"Breadsall is the most logical (and closest) place to distance from. I did try to compromise early on by including both villages but Eridu continued to revert for a period - although has now been leaving both."

Again a little bit of truth, yes it is better with both, that is the point. No mention of the kilometers issue I see. I wonder why?

"Others are large factual errors. For example the user changed the referenced - "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon", to the incorrect "Augustinian Friars were not allowed to own land". Obviously that is not what is referenced, but is grossly wrong given that even small monasteries would sit on land running to tens of acres or more."

At last the nub of the issue. All that other stuff (to be brutally frank) he is just making up. This is the only substantive point. He disliked that I changed this sentence. Let us examine the issue. He calls it a gross error. Let us put aside the hyperbole and look at the difference between the formulations. He wants to say that "Augustinian Friars could not own any land other than what their priory sat upon" which is a clumsy sentence. I replaced it with a sentence which reads better. Why the protest? The complete reversions? The refusal to modify that sentence? Because he thought it was important that although Augustinian friars could not own land (which was why it was incorrect to identify them as such) he thought it was important to draw attention to the irrelevant fact that this did not apply to any land upon which the monastery was sited. Now anybody can see that this is irrelevant to the point being made (i.e. which sort of friars were they) but he was not going to discuss the issue, he was a going to revert every single change I ever made, no matter how minor, simply because I changed this sentence in a way that took out this irrelevant point, which he found so important.

"I think there has been a distinct lack of communication on both parts, but hopefully it is now clearer for the user involved."

Your behaviour has been clear all along. It could not have been more clear. You took possession of the article and reverted each and every change (no matter how trivial!) over a period of many months. You have now compounded this behaviour by lying about your actions. Lying about my actions, and all over a single sentence which you could easily have changed back if it mattered to you so much. It is all there for people too see. That is the beauty of Wikipedia. If anybody reads the article as it is now in comparison with the original it is clear that the charges of "vandalism" are just lies. All it amounts to is a difference of opinion about whether or not it is important to mention that the monastery owned the land "it stood on". The rest is just Rushton2010 attempting to justify his malice and arrogance.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I see that Rushton2010 has just reverted it once more, even while it is being discussed here! That makes a total of 11 reversions! ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are aware that if you make an edit, if it gets reverted, you're NEVER permitted to re-add it unless you have obtained consensus to add it via discussion on the article talkpage, right? D  P  09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 10:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This is a long-running dispute but nobody broke 3RR. Both parties are advised to use the talk page. Use WP:DR if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mingling2 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Malbin210 below Jim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't have any religious motive. The section about religion is very overcrowded. I request user malbin210 to resolve the dispute on article's talk page but does not respond. What should I do?Mingling2 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a exactly copy pasted from Mingling2 user contributions history > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mingling2


 * 14:50, 22 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . Albania ‎ (And the reason behind this is that Moslem women don't pray at mosques and evangelical churches which have a single church for every ten believers.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
 * 15:59, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2)‎ . . Albania ‎ (Islam is largest religion in Albania so its image needs to be placed first.) (Tag: Mobile edit)
 * 15:50, 21 February 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+571)‎ . . Talk:Albania ‎ (Tag: Mobile edit)
 * 12:30, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,001)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
 * 11:53, 2 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-2,438)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion: These estimates it cover just 79 out 83 fedral subjects. Not much informative.)
 * 16:18, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-437)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
 * 12:50, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+682)‎ . . Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)
 * 12:43, 1 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+849)‎ . . m Russia ‎ (→‎Religion)

Then he removes an image from the national hero of Albania ... because he faught the muslim Ottomans ! And then he gives an excuse, that only himself can understand !

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=596778004&oldid=596761300

'''And then he removes half of the section of the religions in Albania !!!! Why ? Because those minorities are christian !''' ( Albania is a multireligious country )

1 2

Let me repeat that this user is lying. He is not an albanian. And he is a sock puppet account of multiple times banned religious fanatic from Pakistan, with no life , that has a certain fantasy with albania ! I am sorry but i have lost so many hours now trying to clean up his mess !!! Trying to restore content that he deletes !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Malbin210 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff1 by JamesBWatson

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

Comments:

Not otherwise involved. A rather slow EW. Also Mingling2 aboveJim1138 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing more than reverting edits that user mingling2 was making for religious purposes. All his reverts as demonstrated by his contributs history is about religion, be that in Russia Albania Macedonia or wherever !!! All in all is not edit warring ! Why ? Because when you restore the original version of wikipedia, when that version is being vandalized by a person with a religious agenda claiming to be albanian as well ( which he is not , because i am from albania ) then is called protecting the article from vandalizers !!!

He removes established sourced VERY VALUABLE content ABOUT RELIGION and only, that has been there for months or years , meaning that there has been a general consensus , furthermore look the latest edit that he made ( you have presented it here already ). In the section of religion he removed around 1 kb of content about religious minorities in Albania which are a very active part of Albania society such as per example the Protestant community. Guess what he removed all that sourced and accurate content !!! And let me stress out THAT I HAD NOT WRITTEN that content. Why does he do that ? Because i think is one of the multiple sock puppet accounts that this person operates for Religious muslim propaganda !!! Please do investigate if he is somehow connected with an already multiple times banned user from Pakistan that has a certain fantasy with Albania! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:DiverScout (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States&action=history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Independent_Scout_and_Scout-like_organizations_in_the_United_States (warned on talk page that I was reporting, but no reply.)



Comments:

DiverScout add information with sources that don't contain anything (webpages nonexistant or now foreign language sites), so I reversed the addition for reason as unverifiable ( "nonsense sources" & "nothing regarding scouting at those links"). After all when clicking the edit linked the notice "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." is at the top, which the source are not. I have only reverse him twice and he had add it twice too. So, if I am block, he should too. He gave me minutes from his "warning" to posting here and another 2 minutes for an actually flagged message at my talk page that was to indicate that he was reporting me. In which time as was discussing his disregard for waiting for consensus in moving to rename the article. Also, note his attempt at improperly informing the responding administrator that he "Tried, but this guy is not interested and is a repeat edit warrior." When given the time frame given to respond was almost nil to respond, so no DiverScout did not try. Whether or not I am a "repeat edit warrior" is immaterial to the current issue. I have run into several contentious editors who would not show up to discuss the issue until reaching near the 3RR line. Any one can report me, just as frivolously as DiverScout has now. Spshu (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . Locked for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

89.79.201.171 reported by User:Joel B. Lewis (Result: Blocked; protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address and as User:Marek Wolf. --JBL (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked User:Marek Wolf for one week for edit warring and self-promotion. I've semi-protected the article for one week against his IP addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:62.44.135.196 and sock User:87.63.80.142 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:

and its sock.

Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196.


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 597834201 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 597833787 by Pjposullivan (talk) Other cities also have other langages for example Tetovo in Macedonia."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 597831244 by Pjposullivan (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 597827288 by 87.63.80.142 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "==ARBMAC Warning==
 * 2)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering.
 * 3)   3RR Warning by FPaS.
 * 1)   3RR Warning by FPaS.


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


 * Comments:

Coordinated edit-warring with sockpuppet across many WP:ARBMAC2 Greek articles. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/62.44.135.196. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Common target articles. Please check article history.
 * See also
 * Blocked for 60 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 60 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 60 hours. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Black Kite. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Matt Lewis reported by User:Snowded (Result: Voluntary restriction)
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:  (Note the latest batch is a continuation of earlier edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring against three other editors, personal attacks on the talk page. Matt seems to be back to his old ways Snowded TALK 19:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no "old ways" here: that's just something Snowded always says about me. This is a big one: policy has to come before 3RR here as the current wording commits a grave error in its misinterpretation of national identity. My clear 'OR'-correcting content has been removed from the article by a small group of people who want to break up the UK. 3RR makes less sense in this area, as it's just used to win arguments and stop change. Snowded has refused to give his opinion on the discussion page. As soon as a made a policy-correcting edit it was attacked, and it just went down hill from there. This was, however, settled last night with my compromising edit. Snowded today reverted it for no good reason other than just saying "talk" (which he personally hasn't done - he won't commit - so how can I?). It was settled, was all fine, and this is utterly needless now. It's entrenched nationalist politics at its worst imo. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see Matt you have been opposed by all other editors engaged, and trying the nationalist slur does not excuse the "I'm right so exempt from 3rr" stance you have taken Snowded TALK 20:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you looked a bit more carefully you'd see that in the end the better editors involved accepted the compromise (decausa, martinevans etc) - You've just needlessly fanned the flames today, and give air to known trolls like 'British Watcher'. If you actually engaged in the discussion you would have spotted all this. For the first time ever, I even sent you an email to point out the mistake you are making. I pretty sure that I've never done that before to anyone. Why did you ignore it Snowded, it's so needless and painful it really is. The current content is so non-policy it has to go. My edit was 100% inoffensive. Whatever happens to me, the article will simply have to be free from incorrect interpretive bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A clear 3RR violation by User:Matt Lewis. He may be able to avoid a block if he will agree not to edit the article or its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fine. But please be aware that at one point this article stated that "74% of people in Wales had no British identity". It was all interpretation of a column heading. Over 74% of us has! It doesn't make us any less Welsh, and like the census people we ragard British as Welsh and vice versa. This article insists the census was mutually exclusive in UK terms, and a test of Britishness. IT wasn't. What I found (a bit buried-away I admit) was beyond unacceptable for me, and I wasn't taken seriously from the very outset unfortunately. Everyone I've spoken to yesterday and today in Real Life Wales finds it utterly absurd (even on St David's day), and one woman said "this is why daughter says don't trust Wikipedia." It's so sad, and it does nothing for the project at all. But I'll ring around and alert and try and get some better sources from the census people (see if they'll 'prove the negative' in some way - they won't want this at all). I assume that is acceptable - they can only say no. I'll take what comes any way. Sorry but I thought this was over last night (in fact I'm certain it was) and today I didn't feel I had any choice but to say I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reverts continued here Daicaregos (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen the above comment since. It's just the final way of shutting me out Dai. It's pretty transparent imo. But as the person who put the above line into Wikipedia (on "74%") you've personally got what you want in the end, at least for a while. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Voluntary restriction for one week, in lieu of a block for 3RR violation. Matt Lewis will not edit the article or its talk page until 20:48 on 9 March. "I feel policy beats 3RR in this regard" -- check WP:3RRNO and see if you can find anything there which agrees with you. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:RolandR (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It doesn't say anything about Bursa, just a pile of gecekondu style apartments without architects. The main square shows the Governorate (Valilik) of Bursa and the Atatürk statue in front of it."
 * 2)  "This picture shows the main square of Bursa, with the Governorate Building and the statue of Atatürk in front of it, and the hills of Mt. Uludağ in the background. (The Admin didn't revert it, YOU reverted it.) By the way, you are obviously an Islamist."
 * 3)  "POV = Atatürk?"
 * 4)  "The picture that you added shows slums, and is obviously stolen from an internet website, with very low pixel resolution and quality."
 * 5)  "There is also a lot of air pollution when the picture was taken. Looks like a dirty, ugly, backward city."
 * 6)  "Are your parents also cousins?"
 * 7)  "Vre málaga..."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Maybe... 18 August 2013, conflict with IP around the same Bursa picture.
 * 2) back at square one... 14 February 2014, conflict with Lord of Rivendell around the same Bursa picture of the present conflict. No reply at all.
 * The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Warned several times, though not by me:    RolandR (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Template was protected at 14 Februari due to edit warring ( over pictures. A few hours after lifting of the protection Lord of Rivendell started the edit war all over again. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocking him a third time for edit warring would be pointless. Continuous reverts may be annoying but more worrying is that he resorts to trolling other users (not me in this case) when he loses an argument and is unwilling to let go of his battleground mentality that caused the previous blocks.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked several times for editwarring in articles related to Turkey before. Simonm223 (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – One month by User:Canterbury Tail for continuous edit warring and 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:1.10.217.3 and User_talk:1.10.193.26 reported by User:B20180
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)

warning:

Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)

warning:

Comments:

The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --B20180 (talk) 05:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ., you are going about this all wrong on a number of fronts. First and foremost, you are just as guilty of edit warring as the other editor. Second, what he's doing is not vandalism, and your report at WP:AIV was properly rejected. Third, taking this issue to the talk pages of multiple arbitrators demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding about how Wikipedia works. It doesn't help that your English is poor as others have some trouble understanding what you're trying to say. This is a content dispute. Resolution of it belongs on the article talk page where you discuss the content and not the conduct of the editors (your vandalism label on the talk pagge is not a good way to approach this). If you can't resolve the dispute, then you'll have to use other forms of dispute resolution. The one thing you cannot do is edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I think I should use that talk page later in other way. (I still busy in this time) And thank you again. --B20180 (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for explaining things to him. To be fair, someone who thought they'd play a joke on him told him to come here from my talk page.  B20180, Bb23's advice is good, and is similar to what I just said on my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that,, when I was evaluating the report. I thought the "joke" was unkind.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Sportfan5000 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, which was met with: "dishonest and disruptive trolling"

Comments:

This user is very well aware of 3rr rules, and despite a polite note that they were removing sourced content while claiming it was unsourced, went back and repeated the same while attacking me. I've seen them in action before and can't say any of this surprises me, but no one should be attacked for pointing out errors when they are made, as long as they are done so civilly.

Each post I have left on this users' page has been met with equal hostility and attacks so I ask for other eyes on this, and to post notice. The last time i posted about his edit-warring, he also just removed the notice stating, in part, " are hypocrites unwelcome here -- as they should be on all of Wikipedia". The edit in question was reverted by another editor indicating that the onus was, in fact, on this user to defend the addition which they never did.

The content in question clearly has sources sited, this is one of several articles they are doing this on. This also seems to be a regular pattern of theirs.Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The content at issue appears to be
 * It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist [[Vicky Pryce].

Which appears at first glance to be a tidbit of gossip and not a statement of fact. There is a legitimate question as to whether gossip belongs in biographies of living persons, and I suggest the fact that an IP has re-added the material might be of interest here. One source is a single aside in a Telegraph article, and the other is a Daily Mail article which uses the term "boyfriend" and not the stronger "in a relationship" which shows the DM is more careful than the Telegraph at times. I suggest, moreover, that "gossip" in a BLP ought not be a protected addition. Collect (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . There's been no violation of WP:3RR. The material is poorly sourced and not even correct, using the word "currently" (a dreadful word) when the source is from 2012.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it, my concern remains the dishonesty in insisting it was unsourced when clearly it was. Also of note for future reference i do enjoy Collect acting on this editor's behalf while accusing an IP of being suspicious editor out of hand. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You might like WP:AGF and note that I have edited well over a thousand separate BLPs of all types and descriptions.  Accusing me of "dishonesty" is not exactly compatible with that guideline.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Restoring material lost due to edit conflict and noted by Sprtfan5000:
 * Sportfan is not telling the truth. This is a frivolous if not outright dishonest report, part of a minor campaign of wikihounding and harassment.

The content at issue appears to be
 * 1) I did not remove the content as "unsourced." The content in question claimed a current romantic relationship involving McShane and another public figure, Vicki Pryce. The references for the supposedly current relationship were not current, but sixteen months old. In terms of gossip about the private lives of public figures, this is not at all current. (My rule of thumb has been twelve months, but I've seen other editors enforce shorter cutoffs.) I also checked some more recent news reports about the individuals involved (eg,, ) and saw the supposed "relationship" was no longer mentioned. I therefore removed the content from the article, with the edit summary "no current source", a summary I have used hundreds of times for similar edits without generating any significant confusion or controversy (see )
 * It has been reported that he is currently in a relationship with the economist [[Vicky Pryce].


 * 1) Sportfan, as part of the spurt of his own reverts this morning, added BLP violations and other unsourced content back to articles on living persons. For example, on the Joanna Thomas page they added back a claim that the subject was bisexual, based only on banners on the subject's glamour/nude modeling site mentioning "Girlfriends". On the Kevin Papics page, they added back a claim of a "current" romantic relationship, naming a private/nonnotable person, no more recent than 2011, declaring it to be properly sourced -- even though it was evident they had never checked the source, now a dead link but available on archive.org, which does not in any way support the content in dispute . Some of us really try to do proper research when editing BLPs. There is no sign that Sportsfan even attempts to meet this standard.


 * 1) As further evidence of Sportsfan's bringing this complaint in bad faith, note that Sportsfan failed to place the mandatory notification on my talk page.
 * This is basically spillover from other editing disputes I've had with Sportsfan, apparently mostly related to the intractable gender politics disputes here. It's really nothing more than an attempt to harass me by bringing a frivolous, probably malicious, complaint on unrelated matters. Sportsfan clearly misrepresented the matter in dispute. Sportsfan clearly reverted edits I made, restoring BLP-noncompliant and BLP-breaching content to articles. Even Sportsfan's comments here are laced with derogatory personalized comments and insinuations, unsupported by anything more than than their own inaccurate conclusory statements. There's no actual evidence.


 * Therefore, given Sportsfan's deliberatively disruptive behavior, their deliberate refusal to comply with WP:BLP, and their demonstrated willingness to wikihound an editor over content dispute disagreements, I request that they be given a significant block, with notice of even more substantial sanctions if this sort of conduct is repeated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that this material has been readied I will respond to these false accusations. I see HW as being disruptive, and needlessly so, Collect also seems quite able in that field and both have continued to operate as if their judgement is infallible. As the edits show I added no BLP violations, the claims were source to the subject's own websites, where they promote their bisexuality. In the other edits i disputed HW's false edit summaries that not sourcing was present when clearly there was. When i left a rather neutral note on their talk page they attacked me, and went about reverting everything while casting more personal attacks. This is a similar pattern Collect has shown. I'm fine with this case being declined and I hope both these editors will act better towards other editors from here on out. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um ... what the heck are you referring to? The edits in question are with regard to the Daily Mail and Telegraph gossiping about a girlfriend --- absolutely no "bisexuality" in the material at hand -- I fear you are quite asea.   As for your apparent belief than anyone gives a damn about your attacks on me here -- that is not the purpose of this noticeboard, and you may well find an admin reprimanding you for misusing this noticeboard in that manner. Collect (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my limit for your antics is pretty much been used up. You have attacked me on various boards and talk pages, fabricated events, and assumed bad faith time after time. The bisexuality issue was brought up by HW, so if you want to dispute that, accuse them of being "asea," yet another, unfounded attack BTW. Can you see your pattern yet? You misread what is right in front of you, assume the worst about me, and make false accusations, and repeat them as if that will somehow make them true. As usual we'll have to get more editors involved in these issues as diplomacy and civility are not accepted as brute force hostility and stirring up controversy where none is needed. I hope for a time when collaborating with you is a positive experience. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Farhoudk reported by User:Viewfinder (Result: Viewfinder blocked for 2 days, Farhoudk warned.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

User:Niemti reported by User:50.83.87.8 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]04:51, 2 March 2014
 * 2) [diff]05:03, 2 March 2014
 * 3) [diff]05:06, 2 March 2014
 * 4) [diff]05:12, 2 March 2014‎
 * 5) [diff]11:41, 2 March 2014
 * 6) [diff]14:27, 2 March 2014‎ (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)
 * 7) [diff] 15:20, 2 March 2014 (continued behavior even after being warned of 3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning posted on Users Talk page and he has also been warned in the Interplay Productions change log area.

Comments: User continues to use blanket reverts without even attempting to correct spelling errors, and continues to unorganize a game list and delete info, please look into this. Also instead of at least posting a comment as to why he thinks an undo is appropriate he puts things such as

(cur | prev) 14:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (besides the obvious lack of spelling Ex "which failed to return the large ammount of money invested in it.", the deleting the location, deleting public company info, unorganizing the games list, this is your official warning of the "3 Revert rule".) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:41, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:15, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (again, you "revision" does little to add to the page. Perhaps you should visit ALL of your other entries to see what else you have vandalized.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:12, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (Wikpedia:Vandalism; Troll Hard 2: Troll Harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:08, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (again, how is disorganizing the products area useful to this article other than vandalism?) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:06, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (you're not trolling hard enough) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:05, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (I do not see how your organizing of the products area helps the article. Until you can explain how it helps it I will continue to delete your vandalism.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:03, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (troll harder) (undo)

(cur | prev) 05:01, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:51, 2 March 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (learn the guidelines of Wikipedia) (undo)

(cur | prev) 04:48, 2 March 2014‎ 50.83.87.8 (talk)‎. . (17,174 bytes) (-1,146)‎. . (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:34, 27 February 2014‎ Niemti (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,320 bytes) (+1,146)‎. . (undo)
 * – Fully protected 48 hours. Both of you guys know how to discuss. It appears that neither of you knows how to wait for consensus before reverting. It is better for me to protect the article than to block both of you for 3RR violation. User:Niemti, try to cut down on the personal attacks in the edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:69.120.212.166 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Nyong'o has been subject of several recent changes, as a mixture of vandalism and GF edits, I assume this is the link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) restoring to original content
 * 2) diff
 * 3) i guess lupitas interview of her talking mexico makes you upset because it doesn't support your claim of her being a proud mexican.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I don't, but there's an open ANI case (ANI), which was open by. Both and  are geolocated in the same city (Bronx, New York), so although 69.120 hasn't broken the 3RR rule itself, the user has been edit-warring from before. <font color="#000000">© <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555"> ™ (en-2.5). 03:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And now the IP has broken the 3RR rule despite the warns to stop . This IP editor is here just to have a war. <font color="#000000">© <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555"> ™ (en-2.5). 03:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the IP continues, is it needed more evidence? <font color="#000000">© <font color="#4B0082">Tb <font color="#6082B6">hotch <font color="#555555"> ™ (en-2.5). 03:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * – User:69.120.212.166 is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BetterThanSuchAsYou reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - (no edit summary)
 * 2)  - (Canada finds unique cultural expressions in its pornography no less than it does in it humour, its cuisine, or its cinema)
 * 3)  - (template to reflect actual article content)
 * 4)  - (he adding of one item to a list is a minor edit)


 * The editor is involved in a few edits wars at once 2014 Crimean crisis - Culture of Canada - Template:Muhammad Ali.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor has gone to the talk page  as seen at  Template talk:Culture of Canada - however 4 editors have expressed concerns in edit summaries with BetterThanSuchAsYou still reverting all of them (including me). Clearly no consensus to add the link thus far.-- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Not sure the editor is here to actually help the project - as per the edit that added to the Culture of Canada hes a Legendary Canadian bisexual porn cock "woodsman". we had this same problem a few years ago on the same template..bit odd -- Moxy (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BetterThanSuchAsYou also unilaterally [ renamed] Crimean War to First Crimean War; [ renamed] 2014 Crimean crisis to Second Crimean War; and [ edited] 2014 Crimean crisis to identify Viktor Yushchenko as the "incumbent" Ukrainian president and his successor as "acting President in-pretence". Upcoming events might (or might not) end up vindicating these changes, but at the moment they are premature, and in any event they should have been discussed first.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] 06:37, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,630 bytes) (-2,891)‎ . . (unexplained removal Undid revision 597920445 by OccultZone
 * 2) [diff] 06:00, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,629 bytes) (-230)‎ . . (Most of the links are authoritative news sources, hence removing "biased" banner) (undo | thank
 * 3) [diff] 05:58, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,859 bytes) (-147)‎ . . (Most sources are valid news sources and are authoritative, STOP trying to encourage edit wars)
 * 4) [diff] 05:21, 3 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,222 bytes) (-2,299)‎ . . (partisan sources removed, the references are from personal blogs of one of the claimants, we need independent third party validation) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Summichum


 * Both Muffadalqn and Occultzone have removed content without gaining consensus. The links are third party non partisan. I had warned Occultzone first but he even removed his notification from his talk page, so did I. I had also gave an edit warring notice to Muffadalqn but he persisted in adding unsourced or slanderous information. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it is summichum who is adding slanderous information. I had in no way added any slander. you can verify in the history.infact I had added information pertaining to subject sourcing reliable source such as 'Times of India' . In fact it is summichum who is citing web based petition and forums as source. Mufaddalqn 08:17, 3 March 2014

Muffadalqn is taking one side removing well sourced content regarding Mufaddal who is characterized by the succession dispute. Summichum (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Mr.Sumchum, please restrain from doing unnecessary edit, removing well reported facts and encouraging edit war. We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV. We know that there is succession dispute and Wiki is not a platform for publishing your POV. NPOV will prevail. Your constructive inputs and well reported facts are welcome. If you act as an agent for someone, Wiki will never allow you and have means to control you.--Md iet (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am removing only content that is libelous to the person whose biography this article is. Mufaddalqn 08:21, 3 March 2014‎
 * summichum removed the tag and other blp issues without discussion. contantly reverting edit done by anyone else, without discussion.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Summichum is clearly using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it might be unintentional but accusatory statements like "We all know that you have joined Wiki to favour your POV" is a troutworthy assumption of bad faith. If it was meant like a NPOV warning I'd suggest using templates to help make it more clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , just count how many reverts User:Summichum has made in last 24 hours. I had warned him, but all he did was copy-paste that warning on my talk page.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Cmoibenlepro reported by User:Psubrat2000 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Crimean_crisis&oldid=598001444

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The people making these comments are not some random people on the internet. They are important European and US politicians. And Gary Kasparov. It is important in the context of how the world and the Ukrainians are seeing the situation develop.Psubrat2000 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC) -->


 * Comment. Both these editors broke 3RR on the article in the space of little more than an hour. Before today, the OP had roughly 15-20 edits/year, and hadn't edited in about 18 months; the target had only four prior edits. Both, however, show enough familiarity with Wikipedia processes to make one wonder if either or both are just bad-hand accounts used in a POV-pushing dispute. No other editors, as of right now, appear to have supported either set of edits. It therefore appears appropriate to block both and give other contributors a better opportunity to work on the pertinent issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I often edit from IP, without logging. Good-hand, bad hand, eeither one.Psubrat2000 (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User keeps adding comparisons with Nazi Germany in the article lead.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:81.100.136.89 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, "All that Student life stuff" is fact. The skeleton article you keep turning the page into is unsatisfactory for anyone wanting information about Wantage Hall. Indeed editing is needed, but not to the entire article."
 * 2)  "Indeed waffle in part, but as a resident the traditions can be be confirmed. You cannot reference student tradition. This article is being made unessasarily short. Must be someone from St Pats."
 * 3)  "This page should not be a stub"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Wantage Hall. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

First edit in sequence was a revert to this edit, with a few tweaks. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 00:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dispute over the history of Wantage Hall. Much is unfortunately un-referenceable as traditions and other day to day life aspects are not widely reported. It would be a worthy compromise to keep the page as a purely historical reference, so will not re-edit without references I find from the University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.136.89 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e, User:LimosaCorel and User:131.123.177.19 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: )
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Too many diffs to list; massive edit war shown in page history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

2606:6000:80c1:6900:84b:49d8:1ad1:157e has added a sentence to the article that is not supported by the source he added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lent&diff=598056601&oldid=598056566 He claims that "In the 20th century, certain Lenten customs, practices and traditions derived from Roman Catholic tradition prior to the Reformation also became part of mainline Protestants, evangelicals and Anabaptist traditions as well." This sentence is to be found nowhere in the source. I added a source that demonstrated that Lutherans and Anglicans mantained the tradition and he removed it. Unfortunately, the article remains in the incorrect version after protection from Drmies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:LimosaCorel has also been a part of this edit war, as evidenced by these reverts. Warned here. Novusuna talk 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You know why? It's because they're the same user - that's why they revert to the same version as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.177.19 (talk) 4:24, 4 March 2014‎
 * This dynamic duo, guised as a trio, has effected massive disruption by their misconduct. It has engendered reports at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Sockpuppet investigations/LimosaCorel, as well as here. IP 131.123.177.19, you are not blameless in this matter; for I believe you were well aware that your conduct was unacceptae – making you a willing participant in an editing activity that playfully mocked this encyclopedia; and the community of serious editors who invest thir time to build it. I am anxious to hear your account; for you did nothing but disregard my admonition on your talk page; to stop your part in the edit war.—John Cline (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Had no intention of mocking you or this encyclopedia. I thought your message on my wall was a result of 2606:6000:80C1:6900:84B:49D8:1AD1:157E/User:LimosaCorel's threats so I did not take it to heart --your message said that I was vandalizing when I was clearly not. The dispute is about the aforementioned man pushing the ultra-conservative agenda of the banned SSPX on this encyclopedia. I was trying to introduce neutral edits here, as noted by your friend, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lent&diff=598057666&oldid=598056601 and on the discussion page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lent/Archive 2#What.27s_wrong_with_this_material.2C_eh.3F Unfortunately, Lent starts in a day and that article still contains his biased viewpoints. The duo reverted, even after the article was locked. If you must take action against me, then so be it, but if the aforementioned man continues to edit, the integrity of this encyclopedia will be compromised. This duo has introduced other biased edits to this encylopedia, such as this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholic_Church&diff=598042159&oldid=598012970 and has told those who disagree with him to "Fuck off my Pagan you bareback mancunt pig slut", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LimosaCorel#NEVER_write_anything_like_.22Fuck_off_my_Pagan_you_bareback_mancunt_pig_slut..22_on_any_page_again If these things don't raise any red flags, then I don't know what will. Be well.
 * Ahem, if there is to any help, Lutherans have NOT historically observed Lent. That was one of the things that was removed after the reformation. Hafspajen (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:76.31.187.169 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

ElKevbo (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 08:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:74.73.35.53 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly adding hoax content to a BLP and has now violated WP:3rr. Not to mention it is User:Biodude73 evading their block. Pretty open and shut case. STATic message me!   05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 08:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: no vio)
Page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendon_Villegas

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=595527775&oldid=595527701

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598114840
 * 2) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598117800
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598106283
 * 4) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brendon_Villegas&diff=598117931&oldid=598101393

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#edit_warring_3

[link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brendon_Villegas Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carriearchdale&curid=41581894&diff=598121200&oldid=598063560

Comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&curid=6398673&diff=598120707&oldid=598120343

Also after following the protocol of warning the user about edit warring, the link is above, said user that was warned on his talk page reverted the warning itself and made a person attack by saying the editor or edit was "bizarre"

then same user that is being reported here for edit warring went to my own talk page and put a "FINAL WARNING" for vandalism when first of all there was no vandalism and secondly you can't give a final warning for some perceived offense if there have been no previous warnings at all. Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014


 * Will someone please block this deliberately disruptive editor, on whom I have wasted too much patience and effort. I'm not going to repost the issues I raised at ANI yesterday, which have now led to Carriearchdale's histrionics and false accusations. But they deserve attention. I'll just note that 1) I've made two pairs of consecutive edits, which count as 2 reverts for 3RR purposes; and 2) Carriearchdale's unexplained and groundless removal of well-sourced content from a BLP in an edit like this is vandalism, and its reversion is exempt from 3RR limits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * there is no vio here. I have full protected this for a week to force a discussion... Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Carriearchdale (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: notification listing of more than 8 reverts in the last hour or so TODAY

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 minute ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

21 minutes ago

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

23 minutes ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

40 minutes ago

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz left a message on your talk page in "March 2014".

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brendon Villegas, you may be blocked from editing without further n...

1 hour ago | View changes

Your edit on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.(Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Rachel Reilly has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Your edit on Brendon Villegas has been reverted by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (Show changes)

1 hour ago

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] user keeps reverting the placed warnings on his talk page. see history for the info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz&action=history

Comments:

Comment - I don't' have the dif gathering skills that others do, but I'd like to comment on the fact that this is an ongoing issue with User:Hallaballo Wolfowitz. Granted, I've seen this User make good edits as well, but I have also seen this user attempt to discredit long standing sources as well as misrepresent information in those same sources seemingly to further their POV. One example is "here" in an article for deletion discussion. Furthermore, under the auspices of BLP policy (among others) I have seen this user outright ignore WP policy such as 3RR in instances where the exceptions hardly seem to apply. Additionally I've tried to communicate and "make peace" with this User only to have my comments erased with an accusatory edit summary. A quick perusal of this User's Talk page edit history reveals what this person thinks of attempts to communicate. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Users are permitted to remove warnings placed on their own user talk page - removal indicates that they did see the notice. However, people who repeatedly re-add such material are in violation of Wikipedia norms of conduct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The two parties to this dispute are both warned – Carriearchdale for edit warring on a user talk, and HW for using personal attacks ('caterwauling'). If this behavior continues from either party blocks are possible without notice. Anyone is permitted to remove notices from their user talk and per WP:3RRNO this does not count toward 3RR. But anyone who reinstates the removed notices is edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, but I never reinstated any removed notices on the talk page of HW. As he continued to personally attack me, I did put notices on his talk page which he immediately reverted, I understand that he is able to do that. Please do not characterize my actions against someone, who was personally attacking me 3 or 4 times, by reporting them and putting simple notices on their talk page as the instructions say is proper to do as edit warring n my part. Really? Really? Yes really...

If you care, here is the proof I saved everything I posted on HW talk page. There was no edit warring by me, I do thank you for having taken the time to look into the matter. But when the victim of three or more personal attacks gets warned for "edit warring" when I did not, but only reported and warned a user about the personal attacking he did towards me. I am not sure of the protocol here, after an admin closes an issue here.

BUT, I do request another look by the same admin, or another admin of his/her choosing. Thank you........ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carriearchdale#March_2014

ciao! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Darouet (Result: Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have only just notified the user, so perhaps any decision should wait for Lvivske's reply. The article Right Sector was recently semi-protected as a result of two days of intense vandalism, mostly by IPs or new accounts, responding to the developing Crimea Crisis. Unfortunately much of the resulting article was unsourced.

Today I returned the sourced descriptions of Right Sector that I added some time ago, noting its right-wing, far-right, or fascistic views. Lviviske removed this summary from the lead and placed it in the "ideology" section, while keeping more benign descriptors in the lead. I reverted the change, and placed a note on the talk page explaining my position that all political parties have their ideological views summarized in the lead. Lvivske again reverted and did not contribute or explain on the talk page. In this case I assume that a 1RR is in effect due to WP:ARBEE.

The user edits heavily on Ukrainian politics, has been blocked on many occasions for edit warring, and is well aware of WP:ARBEE restrictions. The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda, another far-right political force in Ukraine. The two of us have come into conflict repeatedly at Svoboda (political party), though until now we've been able to come to an understanding, in each case, through talk page discussions. -Darouet (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, looking at their talk page, I see they're deleting 3RR warnings from others and throwing abusive language in as well: . -Darouet (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of any talk page mention, or 1RR in effect since my editing has been down heavily the last few days. By your own statement, if this is the case, you restored once, then reverted me, right? Doesn't that put us both over now? Please refrain from COI accusations like "The user is also a declared ideological partisan of Svoboda", as it's an accusation of bad faith. You edit war with me all the time, taking this to admin is highly WP:BATTLEGROUND since I'm always willing to use the talk page with you. My argument was format (too many unsupported words, style issue) and your argument is me POV pushing (when I didn't remove a word of your content). Come on, now. (if there is a 1RR in effect I'll self revert, but I checked and see nothing?) --Львівське (говорити) 06:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would think the page is under 1RR like all contentious east European articles.
 * Looking through the article's history more carefully, I see that these IP edits show the exact moment when those descriptions were removed (less than 24 hours before I returned them). However, the article was then protected because the flood of IP edits was deemed vandalism.
 * I really feel that your "format" argument is a content argument because, in the name of style and concision, you've removed uncomfortable descriptors ("fascist") from major newspapers (Time (magazine), The Guardian, USA Today) while keeping others ("opposition group"). The effect is to bias what a reader sees when they first intend to learn about the group. These descriptors aren't being foisted on Right Sector: in an interview a few days ago, one member told the BBC that many (not all) in Right Sector want "a clean nation, not like under Hitler, but in our own way, a little bit like that." Which is why those reliable sources are providing accurate descriptions.
 * If you're willing to engage in the talk page (which I see you're now doing), I will appreciate that. -Darouet (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Львівське you state on your own user page that you support Svoboda, so I don't think my statement is so far-fetched. -Darouet (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'opposition group' isn't an adjective requiring good sourcing, why would I move it to the ideology section? Also, me +1'ing Svoboda has nothing to do with Right Sector or even a COI, unless you're saying all Canadians who like Obama be banned from American politics articles due to rampant COI. In which case...--Львівське (говорити) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To whichever Admin reviews this mess, in light of the COI accusations I went over the diffs to review the content and found that User:Darouet knowingly and deliberately used a source on wikipedia's blacklist diff, which was followed by adding original research. The blacklisted site is eutimes.net/2014/02/we-did-not-overthrow-the-government-to-deliver-it-to-us-eu-ukraine/ EUTimes.net and the diff shows he filled out the rest of the citation info and access date, but left the URL blank for obvious reasons.--Львівське (говорити) 07:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that, because the site showed up in google news, and I couldn't find the entry explaining that it was blacklisted, or why, when the url raised a red flag as I posted. So I assumed it was a mistake. And Lvivske, in your revert, you also removed an entirely different source, which is now a third revert on the same page. Lastly, I never accused you of WP:COI, which refers to something entirely different. -Darouet (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's PR firm and that you paired it with a blacklisted source. I posted it on the talk page for transparency, but you seem to see no issue with using PR firms and blacklisted sites. Per WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" and revert rules do not apply to BLP libel. I acted bold because this was such an egregious edit. --Львівське (говорити) 07:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that the EU Times was a PR site (it describes itself as a newspaper), and Eurasia Review is something quite different. Here is a video of the man Eurasia Review supposedly slanders. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, this is dealing with a section of the article, in the body, entirely unrelated to your violation of 1RR in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lvivske was put on 1RR restriction for all Ukraine-related articles by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on 30 October 2011, more than two years ago. See Talk:Ukrainians/Archive_2. As far as I can tell, no violations of WP:ARBEE was registered since. I think two years is almost eternity by wikipedia standards. I think we must keep a good faith and remind him about the restrictions before applying the block. There is also a BLP component in the editorial conflict. Organizations that are active in the present time are protected by WP:BLP, we need a much better source than an opinion of couple of journalists to state that a part is fascist and far right  as a fact, not as an attributed opinion as in Lvivske's version. I will give Lvivske a warning, reminding that his 1RR restriction is still active. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand: Lvivske was not adding those tags, (it was me, if you look at my complaint, who wrote that "Right Sector has been described as having far-right, or neofascist views"), and my complaint was only regarding 1RR. Regarding the tags, by the way, another editor already upheld them twice on the page, because of the high quality of the sources. -Darouet (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I understand your position. It should be noted that Right Sector is only a few months old, which is why we don't yet have academic, as opposed to journalistic sources. I will refrain from adding Op-Ed pieces using the term "fascist", though I believe that multiple news articles from reliable sources should be sufficient to characterize their political position with confidence, even if that position includes fascism. The presence of editorial boards should prevent the simple opinion of journalists from replacing the published record of the newspapers. -Darouet (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Alex Bakharev has closed this report with a warning to Lvivske that his 1RR restriction on Ukraine-related articles is still in effect. The 1RR restriction is actually still listed in the WP:ARBEE log if you search for it. Refer to Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2. The full text was (per a decision by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in 2011): [Galassi, Bandurist and Lvivske are] ..placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC). EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:DAJF (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598096131 by DAJF (talk)the content There is a reference support."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598096131 by DAJF (talk)the content There is a reference support."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Futsukaichi Rest Home. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not strictly a 3RR violation yet, but the IP received a 3-day block for similar edit-warring back in February, and has returned to continue adding unverifiable POV-pushing despite warnings and reversions by other editors. DAJF (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Mufaddalqn (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

07:36, 4 March 2014‎ Mufaddalqn (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (16,408 bytes) (-3)‎. . (→‎Succession controversy: typo) (undo) [automatically accepted]

Previous version reverted to: [mufaddal saifuddin]

Diffs of the user's reverts: March 2014
 * 1) [diff](cur | prev) 07:02, 5 March 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,766 bytes) (-6,642)‎ . . (still a claimant dont introduce biased information, the diary is not written NOR signed by burhanuddin, the signatures are wrong. Moreover it is a personal blog of mufaddal and cant be referenced here as its a biased primary source.) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

I made 1 revert, you made 3 reverts. Know the definition of edit warring. OccultZone (Talk) 07:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC) please refer user:summichum talk page

Comments:

After being unblocked he started edit warring again without any discussion and reverted all the well sourced and neutral inputs.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user has deleted edit warning from his talk page and is not ready to discuss the issue.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

user:summichum has deleted all the discussion from his talk page.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) The user:summichum is persistent in reverting the editing done by any other users. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:219.110.203.17 reported by User:XinJeisan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598188651&oldid=598182435
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598160854&oldid=598132872
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598089736&oldid=598075440
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598025289&oldid=598006720
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=598006156&oldid=597926559
 * 6) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kono_Statement_of_1993&diff=597922530&oldid=597796584

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:219.110.203.17&diff=prev&oldid=598075405

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

Comments: Editor has continued to attempt to add two blog-like youtube links to this page in spite of several other editors removing the link. Even after being warned, editor continues to revert changes.

The editor has a similar pattern on other articles and has several warnings already on their talk page. XinJeisan (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Also reported above for similar edit-warring on Futsukaichi Rest Home. --DAJF (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

There are floods of users adding unsourced or poorly sourced information regarding the succession controversy, or removing sourced content in this article. I've frankly given up, as I can't stop them all and stay within 3RR. Here's one removing that he is a claimant, addition of poorly referenced claims to support a political position.

Comments:

The user Mufaddalqn with other users has been warned several times, yet they persistently vandalize the article adding biased primary blog sources. Summichum (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * you are acting as if you are the only authorized person who has the right to edit.Mufaddalqn (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say that but it is you who have been indulging in edit war. my edit is relevant and i have cited proper source. you seem to be persistent in reverting whatever edit I have done or done by anyone which do not comply with your point of view. Stop using this article as propaganda against Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin. That is what you are doing. regarding khuzaima qutbuddin nass you can use the arguments in his site. their is no need to discredit other editors.your edit is libelous and defaming Syendna Mufaddal Saifuddin. You can clearly see that I have not reverted nor vandalised any article from history. you are treating this as war because I have reported you above. once you were blocked for the same issue yet again you persist.Mufaddalqn (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. This is not enough documentation to show edit warring by Mufaddalqn. The other party, User:Summichum, is already blocked for a week per a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

User:KajMetz reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / SCWGS 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:

KajMetz was blocked for edit-warring in early February on the same article and was warned of WP:SCWGS by Bbb23 on February 8th. He has however just violated the 1RR on Syrian civil war topic once again. I warned one of KajMetz's edit-warring opponents, as a first notice of violation on WP:SCWGS; in case of KajMetz a more serious treatment might me required.GreyShark (dibra) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why you've reported me. When I revert something I state why and only once per day (not that I'm reverting all days). I'm not currently involved in an edit war and as far as I know I only removed some content that had Facebook as source (twice in the last couple of days, on two different days with a different content by a different user), which isn't allowed the last time I checked. I feel like this is some kind of misunderstanding. - KajMetz — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User:25162995 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again reverted back to sources. No consensus is needed because it is clearly stated that conviction stands. This is stated in sources in black and white. DO NOT 3rr"
 * 2)  "Go to talk. Do no start an edit war. Provide a source that says she was not convicted and prove this in talk. Then revert when you have proven your case in comparison to black and white facts. WP:BOLD"
 * 3)  "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"
 * 4)  "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"
 * 1)  "Reverted yet again citing WP:BOLD. You are clearly editing warring and antagonising an issue that you cannot back up. Again stop reverting clearly sourced fact, See WP NOR and 3RR"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* March 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Use of the word convicted in the lede */"


 * Comments:

Multiple editors have tried discussing this on the talk page but 25162995 does not accept contrary views and ignores the apparent consensus against their preferred version <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a clear case of 3 editors with a clear POV banding together to try and change and article to their own OP whilst ignoring black and white sourced facts on the issue. 3 editors claim POV on the issue which clearly comes under WP:NOR. They have consistently reverted highly sourced info whilst providing no real interaction on chat barring OP. 25162995 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This case is crystal clear. User 25162995 must be blocked to prevent disruption, since the user has multiple 3RR violations with no cessation in sight. User 25162995 does not respect the strong consensus against the word "convicted", saying instead that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAmanda_Knox&diff=598325213&oldid=598321564 "there is no need for any consensus on this issue"], because the user thinks they are the only person who is correct. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

This user broke the rule 1RR.

Here are some examples:
 * 1) her
 * 2) her
 * 3) her

He do not listen any arguments of other editors and simply insists that only he is right.her and her He was offered a compromise solution but without success, he does not even want to listen to other editors. He does not want to compromise and provokes war the editors. I ask you to take action. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like Amensnober91 made a clear violation of WP:SCWGS - i counted at least 6 non-consequent reverts in the last 24h. He needs however to get a formal 1RR warning first prior to further sanctions.GreyShark (dibra) 17:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I informed him. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But he continues his actions. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You notified him after reporting here, but he has to receive one warning on WP:SCWGS from an experienced editor or from an administrator (which will probably happen, once this case is examined).GreyShark (dibra) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . Strictly speaking, a warning isn't necessary for a violation of WP:1RR. However, another (more experienced) user,, also violated 1RR, and I decided I couldn't block the one without blocking the other even though Amensnober91 reverted more times. Plus, both users have stopped. They have been officially warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:83.200.15.5 reported by User:Silvrous (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598319115 by Silvrous (talk)"
 * 2)  "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940. People of nice are italian. Garibaldi is an Italian surname and Nice are italian until 1860."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598318207 by Silvrous (talk)"
 * 4)  "it wasn't french in this time"
 * 5)  "The kingdom of Sardinia was occupied by France. Paris was occupied by Germany in 1940."
 * 6)  "??? garibaldi is french loool"
 * 7)  "It wasn't french"
 * 1)  "It wasn't french"


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


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


 * Comments:

Resolution attempts were made through edit summaries by myself and Discospinster, and by adding a reference; <font color=" #007fff" >Silvrous ''<font color="#8c1717">Talk  22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gnyan1 reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Page full-protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "7 international awards"
 * 2)  "added most notable award winners only"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598103500 by Vensatry (talk)12 yrs is a large period of time"
 * 4)  "included B Nrasing Rao significant contribution to parallel cinema in telugu language"
 * 5)  "discussion is going on, on the other editors POV, do check his talk page"
 * 1)  "discussion is going on, on the other editors POV, do check his talk page"


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


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

I came upon as a 3rd party, I warned the reported editor for edit warring and observed some minor attacks and assumptions of bad faith with a declaration to remove information [] and [] if they did not get their hoped for result, this edit [] and [] is the beginning of those edits despite several warnings on WP:POINT. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Yep, he has been involved with disruptive editing in Telugu-cinema related articles. He never comes forward to discuss with other editors and has been involved with edit-warring in at least two articles Cinema of India and Chiranjeevi. &mdash; Vensatry <font color = "Indigo" >(Ping) 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The reported editor is continuing to remove information and edit war [] . Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Addedum - have locked the page - get folks to list consensus on talk page. Will look at Chiranjeevi Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumudpant reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* You in JTHJ */ new section"
 * 2)   "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Jab Tak Hai Jaan. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps adding his name to Jab Tak Hai Jaan, claiming that he acted in the film but provides no reliable evidence for the same. He does not even seem to open his talk page. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Related, he has created an article on himself at Kumud Pant, but the sources don't seem very strong and a vanity article is flashing its caution lights at us. I've dropped a line asking for help at the Reference Desk. The roles he is adding seem very, very thin. "Man at bar" and such. I'm on the verge of AfDing, but only as a courtesy because I'm still waiting for a response from the Ref Desk. A speedy-delete seems more obvious, and the article was previously nominated, but the user removed the template. I PROD-ed in response, and he delivered some references, though not compelling. That's all I've got for now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I changed my mind. I nommed the article for speedy delete. The editor deleted my discussion attempt on the talk page and replaced it with copy/pasted interview content. I think he believes the article is "his", and so he can do what he wishes. I wish to bring light to that assumption. He hasn't responded to any questions or warnings. I left my speedy delete notes on his talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He has gone too far this time. Repeated recreation of the article that keeps getting deleted due to lack of notability and sources. He does not even respond to all the warnings given to him. Somebody please block him right away. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I opened an ANI discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User Kumudpant has been indeffed by Materialscientist for using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes. Am I allowed to do a non-admin closure on this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:GSK (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film.  Two articles are not justified - and this is only a cut and paste job from Development of Jurassic World"
 * 2)  "NO!  We do not need two articles for a film that has not even entered production yet.  This is a WP:CONTENT FORK"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598043430 by Koala15 (talk) Revert was is essentially a cut and paste move.  Stable article was at Development of Jurassic World"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Jurassic World. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Violation of WP:NFF */"


 * Comments:

Instead of the usual 24 hours for 3RR, this is more like 25 hours, but it's still edit warring, in my opinion. FWIW, the redirect on Jurassic World was temporarily removed to make this report via WP:TW.  g s k  20:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nowhere near WP:3RR. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where it is clear that two articles are not appropriate.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider WP:BRD also. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add I asked he stop and talk, but he ignored me. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Warning regarding your cut-and-paste move. Suggestion how to proceed according to protocol. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not on trial here. Yu ignored two people asking you to discuss your actions rather than deleting a whole lot of content, which you blatantly ignored. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion was already underway, and we were both already involved in it. You had boldly made a cut-and-paste move, I merely reverted it to the stable article.  My third revert on the page (made over 24 hours after the first) was after there was further consensus at the discussion for one article only, in order to avoid any further potential content forks.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see the copy and paste argument. I was working to rework some of it so that it wasnt a complete duplicate. My only sim was to have a film article (redirection do problem since filming hasn't begun), as well as a separate development/production article detailing all the different starts and stops. Watchmen did something similar. But it's a problem when, though I understand you not wanting two similar articles, that after we requested you discuss, you didn't. It may not be 3RR, but its still warring. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See also WP:A10. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Qwer1995 and User:Newwikiuser12345 reported by User:Meters (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

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

A small sample of what has been gooing on

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598218664&oldid=598218124]
 * 2) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598217615&oldid=598216895]
 * 3) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598216676&oldid=598216543]
 * 4) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598215545&oldid=598214974]
 * 5) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598118122&oldid=598103217]
 * 6) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598102611&oldid=598102557]

And by the other:


 * 1) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598218124&oldid=598217615]
 * 2) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598216895&oldid=598216676]
 * 3) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598216136&oldid=598215545]
 * 4) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598214974&oldid=598118122]
 * 5) [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airtel_Super_Singer_4&diff=598103217&oldid=598102611]

Diff of edit warrings / 3RR warning: [link][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwer1995&diff=598217921&oldid=597933885] and [link] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newwikiuser12345&diff=598218314&oldid=595776311]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwer1995&diff=598228306&oldid=598217921] I'm not involved. Since being warned [user:Newwikiuser12345] has at least made a token attempt to resolve the issue, albeit by proposing mutually exclusive ownership of sections.

Comments:

Edit war between user:Qwer1995 and user:Newwikiuser12345 on Airtel Super Singer 4. Approximately 60 reverts between the two of them in the last 3 days. Both have reverted since being warned. Meters (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Mark Marathon blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been persistently revert my addition of totally appropriate reference tags. has also engaged in tendentious editing, including covering page with citation tags. All I want is that my citation tag for some basic statements, such as that there are rangelands that are ungrazed, are left in place. For some reason this editor will not permit these tags to remain and refuses to give a reason why they have been removed when asked on the talk page. Blatatnt violation of 3RR.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Per WP:BOOMERANG, here's the actual sequence:

I'd just suggest that we just drop the whole silly stick, address the actual content and not just slap on tags and make threats. I should also note that the talk page discussion seems to be more about tagging than content. I do not dispute that the article could be better sourced; I do think the other user could put forth some effort to do so. Montanabw (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) the user above placed middle-of-a paragraph tags] on the article, (the "huh?" tag being rather  trout-worthy all by itself) and fixed one typo:
 * 2) I replaced those tags with a general, and in my view more appropriate tag at the top of the article, but forgot to keep the typo fix - NOT a full revert:
 * 3) He then reverts and adds more random tags:
 * 4) I reverted with explanation -and kept the typo fix,:  (1RR - me, though not wholesale, kept the typo fix)
 * 5) He reverts: (1RR)
 * 6) I then tagged every uncited paragraph to demonstrate how silly it is to tag-bomb an article instead of using refimprove:
 * 7) sarcastic reply followed
 * 8) Whereupon I reverted MY OWN edits and restored the refimprove tag.
 * 9) He reverts, adds a couple NEW random tags and a threat about 3RR, which neither of us had precisely violated.
 * 10) I reverted and made my second request to go to talk: (2RR me, but over 24 hours)
 * 11) And took discussion to talk (See Talk:Rangeland
 * 12) He reverts and adds more tags
 * 13) I check source for original tags and note source supports most of his original tagged sentences:
 * 14) Then we each start reverting each other without changes, as far as I can tell: ,,, I think this is 2RR each
 * 15) Then he reports here and followed it up with this threat.
 * 16) and a nasty edit summary

It's much quicker to just look at the article history than read Montanabw's weaselly self-exculpation. And you'll form your own impression of events, rather than be spoonfed what to think by her. If Mark Arston acts here as an admin, after having been solicited by his friend and ally Montanabw, I'll be very annoyed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with folks looking at the article history as well, as some discussion occurred in the edit summaries where I tried to explain what I was doing and why, and the other user made threats and false accusations. However, many admins specifically ask for diffs, so I provided diffs with narrative for those who choose not to actually read the diffs.  Everyone can be happy that way.    And excuse me, but what part of a simple defense of one's actions is "weaselly," and what part of saying I was "weaselly" is AGF?   Montanabw (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest boomerang on Anthonycole. Coming here and making poor-faith allegations is intolerable.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the dispute, Montanabw's position strikes me as superior. Large numbers of tags are not friendly to the reader, and clutter the article.  The best course would have been the refimprove or similar tag, and possibly hidden comments to note where citations would be needed. I'm not sure if anything more needs to be done here. Given MM has been blocked for "disruptive and releated tagging of articles, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT behavior", I can see little point in blocking Montanabw, a FA writer, for being the victim of such a troll.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note I have just come across this after having blocked User:Mark Marathon for other reasons earlier this morning. This does not mean there's a boomerang in play, nor does it mean that this 3RR should be ignored as there may be other blocks required.  As I have already acted on one of the parties in another manner, I will not investigate this report myself  D  P  12:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment One of the four diffs provided as evidence appears to be User:Montanabw reverting one of thier own earlier edits: Diff #1 above, Montanabw reverting her earlier edit, and Montanabw's earlier edit.
 * Looking through the history to see how this started, User:Mark Marathon was tag bombing: 1 2, 3, Montanabw made a good move when they changed to a less disruptive single tag replacing multiple tags, But instead of compromising, Mark Marathon just reverts of the single tag. Then, yes tempers flared. But from my view, Mark Marathon should not have tag bombed the article in the first place; and then when a more reasonable solution was provided, he edit-warred instead of compromising or working it out in some fashion.  He was being disruptive from the start.  Dreadstar  ☥   17:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark was not randomly tagging the article, but tagging those assertions he seriously doubted. Montanabw just deleted them with no reasonable explanation. She placed a tag at the top saying the whole article needs improvement, which was good, but that doesn't justify removal of the tags Mark added which point out the specific assertions he's challenging. Most of the article seems OK, despite the lack of sources, but the points highlighted by Mark deserve scrutiny.

Tag bombing is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to pages or unjustified addition of one tag to multiple pages.

Mark added five tags to Rangeland: Four are justified, and one is a mistake. Assertions 3 and 4 are supported by the source cited at the end of the paragraph but, since Australia's GDP is $1.525 trillion, and the source only mentions $24.9 billion coming from the rangeland, it deserves clarification in my opinion. As RexxS points out on Mark's talk page, the 4th claim did not warrant a tag. The other assertions were unsourced, and the last "clarification" tag is appropriate too. Toward the end of the edit war, Montanabw claimed that the abovementioned source supported most of the assertions Mark had tagged. This is untrue.
 * 1) Rangelands are distinguished from pasture lands because they grow primarily native vegetation, rather than plants established by humans
 * 2) Grazing is an important use of rangelands but the term "rangeland" is not synonymous with "grazinglands". There are areas of rangeland that are not grazed
 * 3) Australian Rangelands support most of their economy.
 * 4) Rangelands support Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr), tourism ($2 billion/yr), pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion).
 * 5) Australian rangelands are important in; biodiversity, income, social and cultural heritage, sub-artesian water sources and major river systems, clean and green food and fiber production, and carbon storage.

I can't excuse Mark's edit warring. And I can't excuse Montanabw's. It was Montanabw who added 15 tags to the article. Neither deserves blocking, though. The responsible admin action would have been to simply protect the page while the two of them calmed down. ES&L/Panda/Whatever, could you try that next time, please? You don't have to whip out your block tool every chance you get. You should do the minimum it takes to sort these things out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Anthony, but Mark Marathon's tagging was not justified. Some of those tags are possible, but in my humble opinion, the refimprove is a better solution.
 * There is one tag in particular that I've looked at, the fact tag at
 * Rangelands support Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr), tourism ($2 billion/yr), pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion).
 * At the end of the relatively brief section Rangeland there is a reference to Ecologically Sustainable Rangeland Management (ESRM), Australia that was clearly present when . That source contains the sentence "Our rangelands support most of Australia's valuable mining industry ($12 billion/yr) and growing enterprises such as tourism ($2 billion/yr) yet the broadest land use in the Rangelands is pastoralism ($5.5 billion/yr – cattle $4.4 billion & sheep $1 billion)". Now I could understand someone who read that source for that section complaining about close paraphrasing, but a fact tag is simply incompetent. Yet, despite MontanaBW even placing an html comment in the section, Mark managed to place that same fact tag six times in six days. Surely you can't support the contention that that tag was justifiable? --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I didn't see Anthony's amendment when I composed the above. I've struck my last remark. FWIW, I don't think the third tag was appropriate either, given the quote from ESRM. The first and second tags were placed in the lead and I think you'll find that MontanaBW was saying that there's no point in tagging the lead as it ought to be summarising the rest of the article and that's where the sources need to be requested. I worry though that Mark's intention seemed to be to delete sections that were unsourced after giving them a few days with tags on them. That's really not the way to improve articles when there are putatively sources out there that may support the content. I'd be happy to award MontanaBW a trout-slap for demonstrating how *not* to add fact tags on a live article, but I can't say I'd disagree with the overall thrust of her argument here. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I didn't see Anthony's amendment when I composed the above. I've struck my last remark. FWIW, I don't think the third tag was appropriate either, given the quote from ESRM. The first and second tags were placed in the lead and I think you'll find that MontanaBW was saying that there's no point in tagging the lead as it ought to be summarising the rest of the article and that's where the sources need to be requested. I worry though that Mark's intention seemed to be to delete sections that were unsourced after giving them a few days with tags on them. That's really not the way to improve articles when there are putatively sources out there that may support the content. I'd be happy to award MontanaBW a trout-slap for demonstrating how *not* to add fact tags on a live article, but I can't say I'd disagree with the overall thrust of her argument here. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And Montanabw managed to remove the same fact tag 6 or more times. It was an edit war. That's what happens in edit wars. Tag number three was a "clarification needed" tag. The assertion it was attached to is in the source - but its meaning isn't clear - at least to me. Hence, a clarification needed tag is justified. If an assertion in the lede is not supported by a source in the body of the article and you doubt it, the place for the tag is in its first iteration - not buried in the body of the article where most readers won't see it. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of you defending your mate because she's your mate when you know full well she's just as guilty of poor behaviour here - more so in fact, given the WP:POINTY tag-bombing - as the poor sucker who's just been blocked for a few weeks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As the current article now notes, the other user did tag something that was cited, Anthonyhcole's items 2, 4 and 5 above were directly in the source, in one of my edits I actually reworded the bit about "most of their economy" make it less "huh". (Can't remember if that one was reverted or not) I then, to be helpful went back to theother user's original tags, in the Australia section, and put the source after each sentence that I could clearly identify as coming from that source, just to make matters crystal clear. Some of the other tags placed in the interim were restoring tags I had placed and removed, so "whose" tags those were is kind of a moot point. Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And Yeah. I edited but then reverted my OWN edit when I demonstrated to the other user how disruptive tag-boming can be by putting a gazillion cn tags at every uncited paragraph. That was a bit POINTY on my part, and for that I apologize to the WP community in general for my loss of patience and response to BAITing.  But I also was the individual who initiated taking the issue to talk, and I also requested on the talk page of the other user that he collaborate, only to be threatened with a block in return. I have no particular need to see the other user blocked, apparently he got blocked for something else, not this.  I just want to see actual improvement of articles, not tag-bombing.   Montanabw (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "items 2, 4 and 5 above were directly in the source..." You mean 3, 4 and 5. And he tagged 3 and 5 for clarification not fact, so whether they're in the source or not is irrelevant. Were they clear? No. In fact you say you tried to make one of them clearer.


 * You were not being baited. You were in an edit war. If anyone was baiting anyone, you were baiting Mark by unreasonably and repeatedly removing his justified (all but one) tags, and spraying fifteen tags all over the article. You did the tag-bombing, not Mark. Mark added tags. Something we're allowed to do in good faith. Are you going to ask Panda to unblock Mark? He blocked him for this incident. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  22:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . Mark Marathon blocked for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We know. It's mentioned above. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This user broke the rule 1RR.

Here are some examples:
 * 1) her
 * 2) her
 * 3) her

This editor once again continues is not legitimate action and again violates the rule 1RR. He also uses for editing information from Facebook although the reliability of such information raises serious doubts. And how do I know in Wikipedia not welcome of use for editing data from Facebook or from blogs. Since the accuracy of data obtained from social networks is very questionable. Editor Amensnober91 also rudely of ignored warning from the administrator Bbb23. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia data from Facebook is not reliable.WP:FACEBOOK Hanibal911 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * He should be punished as he again provoking war edits. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . Sanctions block for violating WP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Redmen44 reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

There has been no talk page conversation yet. The edit was originally made by one user, which Redmen44 reverted. Another user (Bagumba) reverted Redmen44, and Redmen44 reverted again. A third user (myself) reverted Redmen44 again, then left him a warning about his edit warring and he responded by copy and pasting my warning onto my own talk page and reverting a fourth time. I stopped reverting after two reverts as I feel any more signifies an edit war and I won't be reverting further.. however this user was warned and broke 3RR regardless.  Gloss •  talk  04:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As an involved admin, Redmen44 was issued an edit warring warning regarding the same article but for a different issue only days ago on March 2. This is happening too often, and it seems a WP:BLOCK is in order.—Bagumba (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to engage the user to discuss the issue on the talk page but  Gloss •  talk continued to revert. So I reverted the page to it's original state and advised to discuss on the talk page. I will be starting a talk page conversation to discuss this issue further. I am sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. Thank you. Redmen44 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the part of WP:EW that says "it is no defense to say 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring.'"—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Redmen44, I left you a warning that you were edit warring and about to violate 3RR and you proceeded to copy and paste my warning onto my talk page, remove the warning from yours.. and revert regardless.  Gloss •  talk  12:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no way for me to be certain I suppose without a check user... but an IP reverted Redmen44 a few hours ago and another IP reverted back to Redmen44's version. See Special:Contributions/50.77.171.74 - I'd be strongly inclined to believe this is Redmen44's IP as their edits are very similar.  Gloss •  talk  12:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Coming here to comment. Redmen44 was recently warned for edit warring (he removed the warning from his talk) and although Gloss should not have continued reverting, it was suggested here that it be updated at the end of the season, so Gloss does have defense for his actions, but Redmen44 refuses to ever discuss changes with people on his talk page. Instead, he deletes comments (which is fine), but doesn't even reply. So, a reminder to Gloss and a block for Redmen44 may be best. <font color="Blue">Sports <font color="Orange">guy17  (<font color="Blue">T • <font color="Orange">C ) 22:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Slow your roll there. It's clear that Redmen44 was in the minority, outnumbered 3-1 about that decision and his reverts were disruptive. I reverted twice and stopped before I involved myself in the edit war Redmen had started. No warnings needed over here, but thanks.  Gloss •  talk  22:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And you just thanked me for that revert. What..?  Gloss •  talk  22:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The thanking was accidental and I apologize. I do see consensus heading in your direction and the FLC page is also a good example as well. In that case, you don't deserve even a warning, but just be careful then, Gloss. <font color="Blue">Sports <font color="Orange">guy17  (<font color="Blue">T • <font color="Orange">C ) 22:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be just fine, but thanks for the concern.  Gloss •  talk  23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me an admin needs to make the call if Redmen44, after having already been warned about warring in the prior incident on March 2, is WP:GAMING the system by continuing to revert even after a new EW warning in this current incident, and only offering to start a conversation after the incident was reported here. It's exhausted my WP:AGF.—Bagumba (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:31.221.87.87 reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */ according to "
 * 2)  "Undid revision 598408675 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598409300 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) adding one more source for release date"
 * 4)  "Why reverting ?"


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


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

Please also see [] where the IP has incorrectly used templates, assumed bad faith and continued battleground issues in contravention of WP:BLANKING. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Semi-protected for two days by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:A:3C00:824:8440:7EBF:3938:1648 reported by User:FriendlyFred (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:52,  5 March 2014  (edit summary: "Moved poll back to top. No evidence has put out against the poll only speculation. They were transparent in methods and fount only on percent had no opinion. This all points to a good poll. We are not entitled two our own facts.")
 * 2) 23:01,  5 March 2014  (edit summary: "typo two poll")
 * 3) 23:10,  5 March 2014  (edit summary: "just but however in frount of thierd sentance to cantrast with genaral veiw of American Indians.")
 * 4) 18:45,  6 March 2014  (edit summary: "OK not to beat a dead house. You need some real evidence to dispute a poll like this it was done over a long time by a first rate orginazation. We have a section to hash things out but really?")
 * 5) 20:01,  6 March 2014  (edit summary: "Got rid of hearsay.  Some of that can go in the public opinion section. There have been no “peer reviewed” criticisms of this poll and it is 10 years old.  The is an “intro section” and I think spells main factors of the debate well.  The “age'")
 * 6) 21:56,  6 March 2014  (edit summary: "yep the poll is the context vast majorty of native amaricans are not bothered by the name. Should be in first paragraph. We have a section for opinon polling. Again you need evedince to dispute in the intro. People saying stuff is not evedince.")
 * 7) 22:21,  6 March 2014  (edit summary: "")

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several IP addresses have been used in an attempt to place a particular POV at the top of this article. I attempted to restore a NPOV, which has been either modified or reverted. A talk discussion was created, with no response. FriendlyFred (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . I semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthernTrainsTraveller reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: no vio)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Reason why editor's changes cannot be accepted given at Talk:Arriva, link was provided in Edit summary. Mo7838 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * +1 - I've advised him on going to the talkpage .  →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  00:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * However, because at least two editors have demonstrated disagreement with his edits, so if he continues without gaining consensus via discussion, it will still be considered edit warring. -- slakr \ talk / 01:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Zzz369 reported by User:GeorgeMilan (Result: Protected and users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Link1 and Link2

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

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

Comments:

I told the on user your changes and does not address reasons why I ask the intervention of an administrator, you leave a message on the discussion but leave a message is like pulling teeth do not respond, insists on using summaries of publication discussion as to solve their problems. In Venezuela there was a change of schedules and schedules several novels and screens were removed, the user insists on downgrading the page.-- GeorgeMilan (Talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I did not do the application well, the truth or do not speak English well is not understood, but I ask that this edit war to stop or these two templates are fully protected.-- GeorgeMilan (Talk) 21:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * and both users warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:108.169.164.146 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "good idea! Make your case and I'll read it.  Please read "The MYTH of th e1970's GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS"."
 * 2)  "restore pertinent information that was deleted. Please read the source of foot note [2]."
 * 3)  "let's just say it this way."
 * 4)  "Read the source, footnote 2.   27 percent of the scientific comunity did not believe in global warming! 27 percent is not small"
 * 5)  "African-Americans make up 12 percent of the US population.  Do you consider that group small and not significant?"
 * 6)  "27 percent is not small,  12 percent predicted cooling, 15 percent cound not come to any  conclusion.  (percents are rounded off, 27.62% from calc.)"
 * 7)  "as per foot note [2] as indicated."


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


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


 * Comments:

IP has made way more than 3 reverts and gives the distinct impression of being WP:NOTHERE. Gaba <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorse. Beat me to it by 60 seconds... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lokalkosmopolit reported by User:Snowded (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Lokalkosmopolit has expressed some strong opinions but has failed to engage other editors. Some if his edit summaries are also abusive.


 * There's only been 2 reverts today by me. The user reporting me - Snowden - also made 2 reverts today, . I specifically asked for possible changes to the text I proposed to be made before I re-instated it, as of now, not a single constructive suggestion has been made. Instead Snowden and his tag team keep reverting my perfectly well-sourced and neutrally worded additions. This is a case of tendentious editing with the aim of keeping everything critical of the subject away from the article. Therefore, I've opened a Dispute resolution thread concerning this article.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . I blocked Lokalkosmopolit for disruptive editing, including a slow edit war at the reported article, and personal attacks at Talk:Far-left politics (calling other editors "commies") and own talk page (responding to User:Dougweller's warning with the following edit summary: "just get lost. before your sysop privileges are removed"). Accusations of tag teaming when other editors disagree with you usually reinforce the weaknesses of one's substantive arguments. Finally, the report filed at WP:DRN is unlikely to go far as it focuses on editor conduct, not content.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No need to put all the positions in the box, is already explained in the story. just in case the main position just"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 598590279 by 187.252.103.226 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598490908 by 187.252.103.226 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598490908 by 187.252.103.226 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Diego Costa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Diego Costa: */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* WP:BRD */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* WP:BRD */"
 * 5)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Giovani dos Santos. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Tried to talk to this person on his talkpage several times but he edit warred on two articles Giovani Dos Santos (5 reverts) and Diego Costa (3 reverts) and does not stop on either despite warnings. Has warnings for edit warring in the past but dont seems to get the point. Perhaps WP:OWNERSHIP as both me and at least one oter editor says. QED 237  (talk)  22:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And now he reverted again . He really dont know what edit warring is and has to be blocked. He fails do listen to all attempts to discuss and removes all messages. QED 237   (talk)  23:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . I've also semi-protected the article for three days because of the edit warring by the anonymous editor using different IP addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Oracle55 reported by User:Aua (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop Undid revision 598636103 by Aua (talk)"
 * 2)  "I read all of it Undid revision 598635770 by Aua (talk)"
 * 3)  "Excuse me? Undid revision 598631957 by Aua (talk)"
 * 4)  "modify"
 * 5)  "more"
 * 1)  "more"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please discuss before adding... */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The first 2 edits are essentially the same (so they could be counted as one), but the following 3 reverts make the whole thing add up to four, thus breaking 3RR. There is already a long discussion thread on the talkpage. User warned before their 4th edit on their talkpage. Additions are controversial and require discussion in any case. <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 02:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you could also semi-protect the page, that'd be tremendously appreciated! We've had quite a few single-purpose accounts before (like this one).
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 02:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . Semi-protection isn't warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Just to make sure (and I have been here for 7+ years, but never had to do this): reverting to the original stable version (i.e. before blocked users' edits above) wouldn't be breaking 3RR since it falls under the reverting vandalism exemption, right?
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 03:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it qualifies as vandalism independent of 3RR seeing that it removed reliable citations, added inaccurate information, and had an unexplained removal of material. Though it'd still be good to know what the rule is on reverting back to the stable version following 3RR.
 * Cheers, <font size="2.5" color="blue">&Lambda; u  α  (Operibus anteire) 05:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:62.98.113.152 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 3-nov-2013 "Rush is a Soundtrack albums not studio albums"
 * 2) 20-feb-2014 (no summary)
 * 3) 20-feb-2014 "'Rush'' (1992) is soundtrack album."
 * 4) 6-mar-2013 (no summary)
 * 5) 6-mar-2014 "Rush is not studio album but soundtrack album.)"
 * 6) 7-mar-2014 "stop edit war. Rush is soundtrack album not studio album ok."

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warning on ip talk page: User talk:62.98.113.152

Comments:

User seems not prepared to accept or even discuss proposed change on article talk page. Wide IP-range. Perhaps long-term semi-protection is called for. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IP finally seems to finally have found their way to the talk page:. I'll leave it to the other regular editors of the article. I don't really care either way. - DVdm (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Add92 reported by User:JonathanHLee (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Reverted well cited facts thrice. And blanked his talk page after the warning I sent.


 * Not only is this not a violation of the three revert rule, but a likelihood exists that, , and were either sock or meat puppets of the same person, thus verging on the three-revert rule themselves. -- slakr  \ talk / 12:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lucia Black reported by User:DragonZero (Result: both editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598637611 by DragonZero (talk)don't agree with this new structure"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 598638401 by DragonZero (talk) per status quo of BRD rule, lets discuss this and reach to a consensus before re-reverting."
 * 3)  "reverting back, if you want this format, you will have to discuss, people have been banned for messing with 3RR."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 598653449 by DragonZero (talk) lets not play this game, you know the one not wanting status quo is the one getting the hit."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Format issue */"


 * Comments:

Four reverts. User argues status quo and uses reasoning along the lines of "If it's not broken, don't fix it" to undo my new structure to the article. I have already given my reasoning why the new structure is an improvement. <font color="#0080FF">DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 07:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:GAME per status quo, he has to stop reverting and discuss the situation until a consensus or compromise is reached. Problem is DragonZero doesn't want to discuss it at all and simply wants his edit to stay i was the first to revert, so per status quo the revert must stay until it sticks. Him reporting me for this is pointless because he's even more wrong for refusing to make a discussion out of it, and saying BRD rule isn't something that applies here. Lucia Black (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Both and  should consider themselves warned that edit warring is still edit warring, even if you're not the first to violate the three-revert rule; the three revert rule is just a more bright-line part of it. Please use the bold, revert, discuss cycle or seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring. -- slakr  \ talk / 12:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Victorkkd reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanking_Massacre_denial&diff=597631229&oldid=597631112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Last week, Victorkkd was blocked for edit warring on the Nanjing Massacre denial page, and for general tendentious editing on the Nanjing Massacre Denial page. Almost immediate following the expiration of his block, he immediately returned to attempting to re-add the content which he had been edit warring over. Consensus among other users was that the content was poorly sourced (of the sources he provided, one appeared to have no relevance to the subject of the article whatsoever, and the remainder were not sources at all in any sense of the word) and of dubious quality, both in readability and content. In addition, during the talk page discussion regarding the content, linked above, Victorkkd likewise provided little to no reasonable justification for the additions, and has expressed little interest in constructive participation in the talk page discussion itself or towards consensus building (in the recent revert notes, he has indicated that he seems to view the talk page discussion and his edit warring as a "contest of stamina", and characterized opposition to his edits as vandalism). Furthermore, in this particular instance, he has violated the 3RR in the course of his editing of the page.Zmflavius (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by -- slakr  \ talk / 12:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrsud reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Created the content: Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revert after removed by another editor:
 * 2) Revert after removed by another editor:
 * 3) Revert after removed by another editor:
 * 4) Revert after removed by another editor:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ANI Section: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

ANI Notice:

Comments:


 * . Mrsud didn't breach 3RR, as the second diff listed, this edit, isn't a revert. (It's a very strange edit, but that's something else.) He certainly did edit war, but I hesitate to block such a new user without talking with him first. (Not new in Wikipedia age, but in having less than 50 contributions.) To begin with, I have posted a question about possible COI on his page. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC).
 * -- slakr \ talk / 12:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:172.254.79.43 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "please review talk section and refrain from placing a link to parapsychology which is inaccurate and misleading."
 * 2)  "refer to comments in talk section. if there are not sufficient reliable reference sources other than personal opinions this link to parapsychology shoukd remain removed as it is misleading public."
 * 1)  "refer to comments in talk section. if there are not sufficient reliable reference sources other than personal opinions this link to parapsychology shoukd remain removed as it is misleading public."
 * 1)  "refer to comments in talk section. if there are not sufficient reliable reference sources other than personal opinions this link to parapsychology shoukd remain removed as it is misleading public."


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

IP just passed 3rr, but he's been ip-hopping and warring over this template since the 7th. I filed a request for semi protection at RfPP, but since he's now over 3rr, a temporary block may also help. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . I've semi-protected the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Somas123 reported by User:Shriram (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is about addition of Indic scripts. I have tried to explain in the edit summary like this: Do not add indic scripts: INDICSCRIPTS. But the user I am reporting, actually accused me of disruptive editing. All I tried to do is to follow the INDICSCRIPTS policy. The user that I am reporting has also edit warred Mangalore, Belgaum, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga. I have also communicated with the user before trying to resolve it on the article's talk page. Shriram Talk 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I accept that I had added indic scripts in the above mentioned articles. But after I was informed about this policy of no use of indic scripts I used them only for the native name and not in the first sentence. But that too was reverted by Shriram. Now please don't tell me that I can't use indic scripts even for the native name because I find it being used in many other articles. And I feel Shriram is biased since he's making changes only to the articles where I have made changes but no change to articles of popular cities like chennai, hyderabad, tirupati etc where indic scripts are used to specify native name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somas123 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Now don't call me biased. I am never biased. You can check my edit history. I always try to maintain WP:NPOV and I believe I am successful so far. Just because you don't like my edit does not mean I am biased. So it took you 2 reverts in each articles to understand the policy? Did you not go through the policy on the first revert itself? I had clearly mentioned it, INDICSCRIPTS. Just because you are careless does not mean I am biased. Be it a lead section or anything else, you should not deliberately add indic scripts. That's not acceptable. A proof that you did not read the policy on the first revert. If you had read the policy, probably you would not have asked me such questions. You have also added wrong indic scripts here 1 ,2 ,3, 4 and 5. I don't know where else, probably more. Now who is being biased? Shriram [[User talk:Shriram| <font

color="green">Talk ]] 06:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok then why haven't u removed the indic scripts in the articles that I have mentioned in my previous comment? Maybe you should do that first. Even the article on MSRTC has an indic script. Why don't you remove that?


 * I have been trying to convince you, you should not attack me. You did not do this, you did not do that just to prove your point. You should not challenge me to do something. May be you should also go through these Civility and Edit warring. Go ahead, Be bold. Discuss, discuss, discuss with civility. If you think I have done something wrong. Do enlighten me. But please maintain COOL. Shriram Talk 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Just tell me whether it is wrong to use indic scripts for specifying native names. If yes then then I'll myself revert all edits that I have done and also edit other important articles which use indic scripts in the first sentence or for native names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somas123 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tzowu and User:DIREKTOR reported by User:86.127.10.142 (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page 1:

Page 2:

Users being reported: and

Both editors broke 3RR on both pages. Direktor had many sanctions in the past - see his block log 86.127.10.142 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

This suspicious IP is probably User:Shokatz, who's also very much involved in the same edit war (apparently he's trying to be clever). I offer no defense aside from trying to defend the old sourced version from (what I perceive as) nationalist distortion. Is that you, Shokatz? <font face="Eras Bold ITC">-- Director ( talk ) 12:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I am not User:Shokatz 86.127.10.142 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice try to divert the attention from your edit-warring, but no, I am not very much involved into anything, my involvement is mainly on talk pages for the past two months. My IP is 93.137.254.51 and I am certainly not from Romania. Isn't your blatant edit-warring enough that you will now resort to these offensive and baseless sockpuppetry accusations? Feel free to report me to WP:SPI, in fact I insist you do so....it will look good when I report you to WP:ARBMAC for a range of violations, among all those other nasty things you do and did on those two articles and elsewhere. Shokatz (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . If you believe additional sanctions, such as topic bans, are necessary, please start an WP:AE thread. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Salvio giuliano - only a 24h block for a user like User:DIREKTOR that has such an edit warring history and which broke 3RR on not less than 2 articles simulatenously? 86.127.10.142 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both editors were edit warring on two articles simultaneously, Direktor's last block before this one was imposed more than two years ago and he was warring to restore the stable version of the article (which, per se, does not excuse edit warring, but can be taken into consideration as a mitigating factor). Taking all that into consideration I thought that imposing a block of the same duration on both parties was the most appropriate decision. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:72.220.176.33 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598662553 by Creativity-II (talk) Where's the proof of this reception from the fanbase? Links? Sources? If not, then it's speculation."
 * 2)  "That's the ACTUAL reception, you idiots."
 * 1)  "That's the ACTUAL reception, you idiots."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Total Drama All-Stars. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Total Drama All-Stars. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Not assuming good faith on User talk:Creativity-II. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has also engaged in uncivil behavior toward editors (including myself), referring to them as "idiots" and "morons" despite warnings against doing so. Doubtful if a dispute resolution would work given the IP's history of incivility toward other editors. Creativity-II (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Druid85 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598805056 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 598803565 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Avoiding copyright problems. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * Comments:

User is attempting to edit war in images on multiple articles (this, along with 2014 Winter Paralympics and Venues of the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics) that are clear copyvios. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Thecodingproject reported by User:Sammen Salmonord (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor reported by User:GabeMc (Result: GabeMc blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: STATicVapor reverted my work there 4 times within 23 minutes. They reverted my edit warring warning erroneously calling it vandalism. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  19:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What a ridiculous report. The user is disruptively changing the projects wording to fit their not WP:NPOV to gain traction at the discussion at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Not to mention the first "revert" was copy edit of their edit, not a full revert in any sense of the term as I was not reverting anything. And the fourth "revert" was me cleaning up the mess they had made, all I did was move one sentence somewhere else, no reverting of anything occurred. So yes I reverted you twice, the policy is WP:3rr, you can be blocked for going over three reverts, not making two. I would like this user to stop harassing me as is clear by this and User talk: STATicVapor. If only they could quick close these sort of garbage reports. STATic message me!   19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The third and fourth diffs are two revisions in "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user", which "counts as one revert" (WP:3RR), so STATicVapor only committed three reverts. Instead of making this report, why not focus on discussing this exchange at the article's talk page and getting other editors' thoughts? That's part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. The page being edited is a WikiProject style guide, so I'm sure these changes can't come down to two editors but a thought out consensus. Dan56 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite a ridiculous report when you also made three reverts yourself. — Status  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Three reverts? Diffs please. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked GabeMc because they violated 3RR. I might not have done so except for (1) they brought this report here because they weren't getting their way on the project page and (2) they made a personal attack calling another editor a meat puppet., you did not violate 3RR. However, you reverted three times. Remember, a revert is changing information on a page, and that include edits that you might not think of as disruptive. The "harmlessness" of your reverts may be taken into account be an evaluting administrator, but that's discretionary. Best to be more careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with BBB's action. He should have either blocked both users, or neither of them  p  b  p  21:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you do not understand WP:EW or WP:NPA. STATic message me!   20:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is there a guideline called WP:MEAT if it cannot be referenced without committing a personal attack? Also, this edit summary is inappropriate. A 3RR notice is required and calling it vandalism is also a personal attack. Per WP:VANDAL: "Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do. Gabe edit-warred; you edit-warred.  Gabe was blocked, you should have been as well.  If you don't realize that you've edit-warred, 'tis you who doesn't understand edit-warring.  p  b  p  21:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, incorrect. As myself and Dan56 explained, I in no way violated WP:3rr, as I did not go over the limit. Gabe was only blocked for his multiple personal attacks on top of the edit warring. Know the whole case, before you comment. STATic message me!   21:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Multiple personal attacks"? I called you a meatpuppett-bully just once. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You do realize that EW and 3RR aren't the same thing, right? And that you can be edit-warring long before 3RR, right?  p  b  p  23:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

User:75.191.173.190 reported by User:Lieutenant of Melkor (Result: Stale)

 * Page:, , , , , , ,
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flagstaff,_Arizona&diff=prev&oldid=598179780
 * Diffs of the user's reverts (amongst dozens):
 * 1)  "/* Climate */"
 * 2)  "/* Climate */"
 * 3)  "/* Climate */"
 * 4)  "/* Climate */"
 * 5)  "/* Climate */"
 * 6)  "/* Climate */"
 * 7)  "/* Climate */"
 * 8)  "/* Climate */ Climate chart updated" (an obvious LIE)


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

User talk:75.191.173.190
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Clearly shows this user is WP:NOTHERE, and is in fact, here to "edit war ad infinitum" and distort climate data, and is ignoring (almost) all attempts at communication. This issue was also taken up at WP:AN/I, where other editors expressed their strong displeasure with this IP, whom was also reverted by others. However, no action (shamefully!) has yet to be taken there, and it is only upon the suggestion of another that I have come here (DO NOT misread this as "admin shopping") "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 19:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A key point is that this is no longer a content dispute. The IP user is making edits of objective data that do not match the cited, reliable, official sources, without explanation. The edits are clearly contrary to the consensus of multiple users that are cleaning up after them. The IP user fails to discuss the issue substantively, instead continuing to edit and revert, ignoring multiple warnings. While the problem may ultimately be solved by discussion, the IP user needs to engage (possibly with the help of an interpreter – there may be a language issue). Disclosure: I took this to AIV yesterday, without success. I'm here at the suggestion of that admin. I had no exposure to the issue prior to that. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 21:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . If the IP resumes, WP:ANI may be a better forum than here as most of the battles have been between the IP and the reporter. Thus, a determination would have to be made that the IP's edits are disruptive independent of edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tapered reported by User:GSK (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 598949725 by Codename Lisa (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 598908016 by Codename Lisa (talk) Addressed on talk page of reverter"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 598866839 by FleetCommand (talk) Very relevant --major issue for internet security."


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


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


 * Comments:

After being given a 3RR warning on their talk page, the user retaliated at me for apparently siding with, even though I have yet to make any changes to the Microsoft article.  g s k  07:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by involved user : The comment "Addressed on talk page of reverter" is untrue. The editor did not talk to me before this, let alone "address" the issue. comes long after this assertion, which, in my humble opinion, is an attempt to intimidate me instead of a cooperative message. I was amid sending him another message when I noticed GSK's nomination. Given everything, this looks like either an instance of trolling or the editor is badly panicked (in colossal magnitudes) and must calm down. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . Although some of 's comments on user talk pages are less than optimal, they've self-reverted their third revert, leaving only two. They've clearly done so because of the warnings and notice of this discussion, but my sense is they don't intend to force their material back into the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by involved user : I appreciate being (sort of) "exonerated." At the time, I removed the material because I didn't wish to incur the wrath of two editors with lots of barnstars, etc etc. I misunderstood the timeline of the three revert rule, and had forgotten the first revert in any event. I violated the rules, but not the spirit of the rules. Codename Lisa's first revert involved "label and dismiss," to which I object vehemently. And she used the same technique above, deriding me as 'trollish' and 'panicky.' In the shoes of you 'administrators' (Sorry I don't know the proper terminology), given her behavior, I'd have voted for acquittal just based on that, and I would have been disappointed but resigned if I had been banned. BTW, I also self-reverted the first revert. Regards, Tapered (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:‎217.96.115.78 and User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: Both reported accounts blocked)
Pages: and

User being reported:‎217.96.115.78

User being reported:‎Batiste Igienice
 * Reporting both as they appear to be the same user, according to previous block warnings on both users' talk pages.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  and  (These diffs are reversions of an earlier issue with this user, for which they were already blocked: . This also brings up another point, I believe User:Central Casting, who was also blocked in that ANI, is the same as the two users mentioned above.)
 * 6)  (Another article with similar edits, just as unsourced and undiscussed as the other edits.)

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

Comments: User(s) keeps adding unsourced information to Decapitated (band) and Dark Tranquillity, claiming both were signed to labels without providing any evidence that either band was signed to those labels. I did some searching on Google to try to confirm this, but could not find any reliable sources to confirm these edits. Despite repeated attempts to discuss these edits with user(s), no replies, no edit summaries, nothing but repeatedly attempting to re-add this unsourced information. As shown above, the IP has also just removed information without discussion of a member of Decapitated. When they did this previously in November 2013, they were blocked for this behaviour. I don't think this user(s) is interested in collaborative editing or discussion of any type. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

. Batiste Igiencie has been indefinitely blocked and the IP blocked for one month. Batiste Igienice has three blocks for edit warring before this one, all in February. In two of those three blocks they used the IP address in tandem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bonender reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I am an uninvolved third party. Other editors have tried to resolve this edit war at Talk:Himarë.

Comments:

I asked help from the administrators noticeboard and this is what i get. Thank you buddy, you seem brilliant. It will be an edit war, when 3 persons informing each other , are trying to revert a sourced edit. All these 3 persons did inform each other in order to undo my revert. However do check the edit i have done and let me know, is it in any way shape or form , against wikipedia rules or unconstructive ?! And on what basis, are sourced material being deleted ?!

Hypothetically speaking, me and 2 of my friends informing each other undo a sourced edit by another user. Will that user be accused of breaking that 3RR rule, and isnt what i am doing called breaking the rules as well ?!

Let me stress out that 2 of those edits were to correct the sentence in the right format, and not as a dispute per se. BY THE WAY, the matter is resolved. Do you see any election results in the lead, or even any speculation in the current version ? I mean it does not make sense, what you did here ????

Also i need to stress out, that you did leave me a notice , and after that i did not revert anything more ? Because you seem to imply otherwise. Bonender (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:90.218.229.6 reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This article is under a 1RR restriction due to its topic, per the talk page. User has been reverted by at least three different editors, but has shown no intention of discussing anything, just keeps pushing their edits forward. According to the notes on the talk page, anonymous editors may be reverted freely. CodeCat (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Spa-to-afd-Tseng Kwong Chi reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "tags defeat the whole point. Please make your case on the RFC"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 599056526 by Green Cardamom (talk)"
 * 3)  "green - as it stands, this page serves to explain broad concepts to 100s per day; no conensus says not, so pls respect that"
 * 4)  "per ANI"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything: Revision history. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* March 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Survey: Essay */"


 * Comments:

The guy is also reverting as an IP The IP is the SPA account, as can be seen by this. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Both the account and IP are Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Now he is using a sockpuppet account "Darkness shone". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And the page semi-protected for a week. Black Kite (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)