Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive243

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 605416894, News about  support of dawoodi bohra, and news of FM having  mention of 'accession to the 53rd Dā'ī office' is retained. Please don't attempt 3rd for complete matter removal."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 605382698 by Summichum (talk)Condolences as son  does not carry any weightage but condolences with remark as new leader carry weightage here as support.."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

this is second time user:summichum has refered to Notice board without prior warning and discussion.Rukn950 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */"


 * Comments:

This user is having a COI and trying to add irrelevant offtopic text into article.

This has been proven from that both of the above editors are die hard followers of the dawoodi bohra religion and Mufaddal, Khuzaima are the two rival leaders of the religion and they are not letting another non aligned editors like User:Anupmehra, admin User:Crisco 1492 and other users like User:Ftutocdg to make neutral changes as per the available  media reports of the people involved.

I had edited as per User:Anupmehra as he is also the one without any conflict of interest, the other two editors have clearly shown their conflict of interest as they have proclaimed that they are followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin whereas I am not even born into that community but when I saw the initial versions I was suprised how people were pushing their POV without any evidence on such a famous issue of succession controversy which is now appearing almost daily in many Indian media. I had MADE the edit request after modifications requested by Anup Mehra.

even though he may not be born in this community but summichum's Vandals (Diff:,) has seen no limits. His POV speaks as loud as blowhorn.Rukn950 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

'Proof:'' ''' "And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith."

- Rukn950 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

".... can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here, myself don't know, please understand"

- --Md iet 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that summichum is quoting us out of context from another article's talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I also request User:Anupmehra to look into this matter as he is a trusted third party and is highly experienced in handling these issues on wikipedia and knows about what happened in talk page. Summichum (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC) — Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * admins please look into the matter.Summichum (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22 April
 * 2) 22 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: GS/Caste warning

Comments:

Pk041 is under 1RR sanction on castes/social groups related articles but he/she is persistently adding caste association in this article. -- S M S  Talk 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked indef. When sanctions are issued, the hope is that the user will stay away from the kind of edits that cause trouble and will become productive in other ways. There's no indication that this editor understands the sanctions or has any intention to follow them. His talk page is full of warnings (since late 2012) and he has never made any kind of response on his talk page. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the user understands Wikipedia policy and will follow it in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SyossuPL reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "GL&HF :*"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Courthouse in Września"
 * 2)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on  Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on  Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Courthouse in Września. (TW)"


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

This is a bit of a mess: it looks as if an article on a building has been nominated for speedy deletion A-7, erroneously and repeatedly, and in fact deleted. A-7 doesn't apply to buildings. The (new, school-project) editor who created the article repeatedly removed the tag (though probably without understanding that it was in fact incorrectly applied, or they might have pointed it out). Mistakes all round: one editor repeatedly incorrectly speedying a building; one new editor repeatedly removing that tag; one admin erroneously deleting. Ouch. Pam D  14:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I am the admin who mistakenly deleted this as A7. SyossuPL reverted 3 times, so formally 3RR was not violated. Dudel250 and myself are admonished to familiarize themselves better with the CSD criteria... Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User: reported by memills:Memills (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to -- see recent History

User's reverts -- see the recent History

The user Leavingtherain is edit warring -- repeatedly removing properly sourced material without an explanation, and, without, as requested, taking the issue to the Talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See recent History

The user cannot be contacted because he/she doesn't have a user or a talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

In the article History, I requested that Leavingtherain take the issue to the Talk page before making reversions. He/she has not done so. Also, I note that these are the only edits that this editor has made to WP.

Comments:


 * A few reversions over several days is not enough edit warring to justify a block. I've put a note on the user's page to engage in constructive discussion. Meanwhile, you could start this discussion on the talk page yourself, no need to wait for another editor to start one. Leavingtherain, as you note, is a newbie and might not yet know much of the way we do things. I see that you have not tried to engage the user on their own talk page either. I also note that you did not notify them of this posting, as is required (see top of this page). Please beware of WP:BITE. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SergiSmiler reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

SergiSmiler made 4 reverts, trying to introduce (poor) information into the article.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

Attempt 1, reverting User:Status

Attempt 2, reverting User:Status

Attempt 3, reverting User:Status

Attempt 4, reverting User:Tomica


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:Status tried to resolve the edit war on SergiSmiler talk page.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This user is incredibly disruptive, continuously warned about their edits, has had 10 warning altogether over the past months and blocked twice, once in October 2013 and the other in December 2013 for 1 Month for disruptive editing. There is a language barrier and a very stubborn temperament that he refuses to cooperate with other editors after they warn and give reasons as to why his edits are reverted. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:I like the truth reported by User:RJFF (Result: indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:


 * This is related to a post that I made at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —  Swedishpenguin  &#124; Talk 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Guys, it's not necessary to take it to two noticeboards. But it appears User:I like the truth was created a week ago for the sole purpose of POV-pushing and edit warring on Sweden Democrats. I have blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE; please see the ANI thread for a fuller rationale. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

User:Gumanthakur reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Goldrop Adventures"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Had recreated the page after it got deleted one time before under G11 Dudel250 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with edit-warring the panda ₯’  23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:94.55.39.189 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

(And, earlier: link )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

IP user 94.55.39.189 has been reverted by at least one other editor besides myself since April 13, and has been warned multiple times at the IP user's Talk page that this behavior constitutes "edit warring" and that they should go to the List of metro systems Talk page to discuss this issue - the IP user has ignored all such entreaties. Worse, IP user 94.55.39.189 went so far as to delete the entry in question (diff) back on April 20 in retaliation for a previous reversion, which could probably be considered article vandalism.
 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page is almost entirely a discussion among registered editors. If IPs will participate more actively there and will wait for consensus on contested items, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments:

User was blocked previously for this exact behaviour: making changes without discussion or sources to the same Polish death metal bands, and constantly reverting to their preferred version. User shows no interest in working collaboratively on this project, refuses to discuss their edits, etc. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * They have not edited in over a week the panda ₯’  23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They edited today, see . MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP has been blocked one year by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

I request Admin to better look to the edit pattern of user Summichum and his history. He is assuming ownership of the above mentioned article. and other related articles. his POV is clear. and refering to Notice board, good faith editors has become his habit.he is assuming bad faith of other editors. his sole purpose in joining is to promote his POV and reverts any other good faith edits. Infact I request user:summichum should be blocked again, he never seems to learn from his previous blocks.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please refer COI NB and succession talk page, intention of Summichum would be clear, may please consider accordingly. He has reverted the matter immediately twice and stopped doing third, only after my advice of not to get blocked and avoid 3RR case. He wants to support only his POV irrespective of Wiki norms at any cost, and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Difference in 53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy

Diff:

Diff:

Diff:

Difference in Mohammed Burhanuddin

Diff:

Diff:

Diff:

Along with his reverts please see the matter he tries to impose.Rukn950 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Diff:

Attempt to reason and resolve this dispute:

Please Refer

Summichum kept on inserting Pritish Nandy qoute even after reasoning with him about its WP:BLPGOSSIP violation as same was removed from another article Diff: by Admin Mr. Stradivarius

The qoute by Summichum showing his POV
‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet, and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

' 'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As usual, seems like Summichum is not going to stop using Dawoodi Bohras or Mufaddal Saifuddin's page as battlefield.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with Rukn950 as argued at, a strong action is requested please.--Md iet (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above users are reported at COI noticeboard and one of them also have a track record of sockpuppetry . The above users all belong to one partisan group and they are trying to use Wiki as advertisement propaganda page, selectively hiding important information . I was the one ho sought third party intervention of User:Anupmehra , I suggest ruqn , md_iet should be blocked from editing bohra articles. A lot have been written about their behaviour in almost all the major notice boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

— Summichum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

now summichum is getting personal. and accuses us of propaganda when he himself does so. I am surprised at his audacity.Rukn950 (talk)
 * may please see discussion at, Summichum has accepted that he is from one of Ismaili shia group, and started behaving somewhat in cordial manner, but his tone is still too much offencive. Nizari are Ismailies but they follow Fatimid, have their Imam and almost no competition with any Bohra group. Alavi group Mazoon came to Mufaddal for condolences, and they principally have no differences. Now left out are Suleimani and progressive one. Sulaymani are also accepted the facts and happy with their group. This fellow claims that he is not born in Dawoodi Bohra, let us believe him and there is full possibility that he is from young progressive group, born after seventies, after separation from DB. This group don't have their Dai or any leader. They are feeling isolated, frustrated and very zealous of their fellow DB. They also want to get attached with Khuzaima to have something of their own and eager to form Qutbi Bohra. Khuzaima group is clever, he don't want to have separate name and want to get hold property of mass DB group and wanted to call themselves DB, but only few hundred real DB are with him.

Being disciplined follower of Wiki, and being DB also, we want to honour WIki regulations, but some how doing attempt to bring the real truth to public. We are not against having well published matter, although not a fact to have NPOV here at Wiki, but this fellow is adamant and somehow not able to sustain anything just written not in his favour. He has gone too far blaming Shia faith itself, to prove him right although claiming himself a Ismaili shia follower of Ali.

This fellow seems to be learned man, and trying to get cordial with us. We also don't want any personal harassment to anybody, as well principled by Wiki. We request him to not to take matter up to community level involving complete Shia community just for blaming DB. He may be having opinion difference, his opinion is his choice, we honour his freedom, but not this way please. Hope it is still time he respect Wiki principles above all. We are soldiers of Wiki and as being DB also we will further try to keep wiki above all and restrain us to the extent possible. Conduct of accusing complete community above is beyond any limit, and we all hope that situation to have edit restriction on DB topics is not good, not reflecting the principle of tolerance DB community have towards other faith. Hope we all including me will further restrain so to abide wiki rules completely. You Sumichum, searching our old accounts and finding our mistakes. Our intentions were never bad. I was just helping my nephew to open his wiki account with full of his agreement, when I was on visit to his place. He never continued further and I was trapped, which I have openly accepted.

Mr. Sumichum, please cooperate. You are blocked twice recently. No one wants there name on notice board. You put your claim on talk page with proper citation( for the god sake don't bring Azad or Bohra Youth forum news which are purely written to propogate hate propaganda), we will definitely cooperate. We have quoted from 'BM' theinternational DB magazine, published by private publication. It's authencity was questioned ,so we have put up the case in 'reliable source NB' and never reinstated the material. Shiv Sena has it's controlled news paper, having vide accepted circulation in Mumbai, whether Wiki will object to it's news inclusion, if not then BM case is similar and to be discussed comparing that. We will never oppose any matter if it is as per wiki rules even though not true. Let Ajay Mehra be our umpire till your aggression calm down, as he is having in depth knowledge of wiki guidelines and a true third party editor.--Md iet (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:75.62.20.174 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: blocked as sock)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

75.62.20.174 has made persistent reverts, disregarding numerous attempts to settle it through the talk page all throughout its process and have had a fair share of warning. I have also included a "citation needed" where the topic of conflict lies.


 * . This is evading his block.  Kuru   (talk)  13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks)
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: I've been working hard fixing the cites on this page and adding missing ones. This guy keeps removing some and reverting others to improperly formatted cites. I've asked him to stop it. So have others. But he persists. He's already been warned about edit warring and blocked for 30 hours, but he continues. It's getting quite old.Txantimedia (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't revert his edit. I only ask him "Add the link for his source" and i will revmove the "fact", but he didn't do thatMiG29VN (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see (http://www.vlink.com/mauthan/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1236530105&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&). This is Self-published, it isn't a reliable source, and i removed it. But Txantimedia reverted it. Addition, he claimed that he used FAKE figures in other source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#Unreliable_sources.3F (3-7th lines)) MiG29VN (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have NEVER "claimed that I used FAKE figured in other source". What I said was I added up the numbers that Vennema provides and wrote the total.  I can't reprint the entire fucking boook inside the Wiki page to shut your stupid mouth up.  The Massacre is covered from pages 129-141.  Each grave site is discussed individually and a total given.  A third grader can add them up.  Providing the total is NOT FAKE FIGURES.  GAWD this is getting old.  I'm trying to provide facts that I've uncovered in my research, and this jerk is claiming I'm lying because he doesn't have a copy of the book.
 * I quoted as you said: "Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies" - As you said, So, WHY do you add that EXACT NUMBER in there (27, 2,397, etc...)? I don't said you "reprint the entire a book", you only scan (or use camera) this page, which have this number (27 graves, 2,397 bodies)MiG29VN (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already explained to him on the Talk page that it is an eyewitness account that falls into the exception for self-published content. The author was a member of the lower House of the RVN congress and was in Hue during Tet.  He witnessed the events and interviewed a number of his constituents.  Yet he's removed it every time I've fixed it.  Without explanation and without notice.  It's getting very old.  He just keeps claiming the cites are fake and removes them.    Txantimedia (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Jeezus, he's done it AGAIN!! PLEASE tell this guy to stop it.


 * Please: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. Remember, this is a battle in history, not "information about themselves", not "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"MiG29VN (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? the material is not self-serving or an exceptional claim, there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity and it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.  Can you not read???  Txantimedia (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" - It's one of matters. An article is directly related to the sourceMiG29VN (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be made clear here is that Txantimedia is an extremely new user who has been given an extremely hostile reception by MiG29VN, and that MiG29VN has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry at this article. MiG29VN is simply far too quick to revert, and his edits are often sloppy. Even if VLink is a questionable source, there is no excuse for MiG29VN to delete references to Vennema's book (and tag the material cited to Vennema) on the grounds that he doesn't have access to the book, or to perpetually replace the neutral term "accuracy" with the POV "truthfulness". From issuing random threats and ultimatums to screaming that a source is "FAKE" because an editor combined its numbers with basic addition, MiG29VN has not been conducting himself in a very civil manner--and the way his careless edits constantly disrupt the formatting and language of the article makes any progress impossible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please, I didn't removed all of Venemma source. I only remove some words, which none in this figure (I ask him "add the quoted and i will agree", but he did't quote)MiG29VN (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a DAMN lie. You have REPEATEDLY removed the Vennema cites.  Now you have labeled them as unreliable.  How many God Damn times do I have to tell you I HAVE THE FUCKING BOOK.  Just because you can't find it in Google books does not mean it's not there.  If you have a damn problem, bring it up in talk instead of arbitrarily removing cites without justification.  Furthermore, every time you edit the page you fuck up the cites I have repeatedly fixed.  I'm getting damn sick and tired of it.  You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works.

This user, MiG29VN, has:
 * Used fake references to cite his content, references which don't even mention anything about the content he claims it supports. e.g. here, here, and here. Yet, he runs around and deletes other people's references, calling them "unreliable", "fake", or "self-publish".
 * Removes references to content he hates, then later removes the content altogether because "it's unsourced" or "unreliable source"
 * Total disregard for other people's contributions, and forces that his version be used only, even if it meant deleting improvements and new content
 * MiGVN doesn't truly understand what are reliable sources and what's not. He has made the declaration that "In wikipedia's law, and we agreed History.net and xxx.edu are the reliable sources". An online criminal can create a malware site using the .edu domain, or any fake "educational" institution can create an .edu website, and those will still be considered "reliable sources"?
 * Tried to falsely, deceptively frame opposing editors (myself and Andreas Philopater) as "vandals", in order to get unsuspecting, unaware users to delete content that I and Andreas have contributed that MiG dislikes. MiG wants other users to delete content for him, so that way he's not on the hook for edit-warring.
 * Engaged in extensive copyvios, by copy-and-pasting whole swaths of text into the Massacre at Huế section. Esp. his English is poor, yet how does he manage to "write in flawless English" in his article contribs??? Evidence of poor grasp of English: Here and all his responses in sections below When TheTimesAreAChanging paraphrased and summarized his content, MIGVN insists that the original copy-paste version be used. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction, you referenced David Hunter, a US Unionist military commander in the US Civil War, not Hunt, then you changed when you're busted. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – 2 weeks to MiG29VN for violation of WP:3RR. Editor has already been blocked twice in connection with this article. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be consulted if the quality of a source is in question. Admins should consider fully protecting this article if people continue to revert without adequate discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * He's done it AGAIN! Either this guy gets banned permanently, or I will quit editing pages.  I don't need this crap.  I'm using reliable sources and typing factual information, and this asshole keeps deleting the references or marking them as unreliable when he doesn't have the fucking book or altering the text to suit his POV.  I've HAD it.  Either fix the situation, or I'm done.

User:Roscelese reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )
Page: (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 violations of 1RR rule in past 4 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * 1)
 * 2)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I was originally hesitant to bring this to the noticeboard, because today's revert violated 24 hour rule by only 1 hour, but a review of the article's edit history showed *four* violations of the 1RR rule, by this user, in just the past 4 days. User repeatedly reverts and/or deletes contributions of other editors, instead of consensus building on talk page. History of disruptive editing on this page by this user.

User: DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 8:55 p.m., 4/25

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:00 p.m., 4/25
 * 2) 12:37 a.m., 4/26
 * 3) 1:11 a.m. 4/26
 * 4) 2:11 a.m., 4/26
 * 5) 3:17 p.m., 4/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2:19 a.m., 4/26

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

Comments:

Five different users have attempted to list Tito Vilanova's death in the 2014 article, but Derby has reverted each time. To their credit Derby started a relevant thread on the talk page, but reverting five different editors in 18 hours is the definition of edit warring. I am not involved in the dispute on the page but did warn Derby after four reverts. They replied to me that their actions "overrides 3RR"   Calidum   19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC) As an addendum, it also appears Derby is engaged in a separate edit war with  on the Arturo Licata article. I count five reverts by Derby (and four by the IP) on that page's history.  Calidum   19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Smartestmanonearth reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The article is under 1RR, detailed at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion seems to be at.

Comments:

This was originally reported at ANI, but I thought I'd move it here. Anon 126  (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear breach of 1RR after having been notified of the sanctions. As such: . Tiptoety  talk 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MartianColony reported by User:Calidum (Result:24 hour block )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:51 p.m., 4/25

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:50 a.m, 4/26
 * 2) 12:40 p.m., 4/26
 * 3) 12:43 p.m., 4/26
 * 4) 12:54 p.m, 4/26
 * 5) 1:07 p.m., 4/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:58 p.m., 4/26

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:58 p.m., 4/26. I also notified the user about this thread prior to his fifth revert.  Calidum   17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yet another revert by this user and continued refusal to address on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: not blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
 * 2)  "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
 * 3)  "blanking - requesting deletion - creator"
 * 4)  "creator blanking not notable"
 * 5)  "this is not a slur, it is simply another notable bloggers opinion presented as such"


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


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

trying to get this article I created deleted - I tried to create the story but its not notable - I am the major creator - almost all the content is mine - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Nuccitelli&action=history I think en wiki guidelines alow me to delete such articles? I am not well uunderstanding of the mark up here and I tried to send to article for deletion but did it wrong and although I got some help I also got this user reverting me without any assistance. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Page has been deleted at the editor's request, this is just a bit of confusion and inexperience. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:LibDutch, User:Michaelwuzthere and User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: Block, warnings)
Users being reported:

Articles in dispute:

Report:
 * First, LibDutch is removing material from WP on the basis of the Citation needed tag (a user has complained about it on my talk page, believing it to be unconstructive, I concurred). I've been proven to him that Citation needed and Verifiability don't condon mass removal of chunks because they lack sources (especially when large chunks of that article lacks sources).. For instance, in the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi LibDutch seeks to remove a large chunk of information on the opposition (albeit unreferenced) from the article, even if I proved to him that it was true.
 * Second, I and Michaelwuzthere are now currently waged in an edit war because he's opposing the consensus.. The edit war is simple; he wants to have Communism and Marxism-Leninism in the infobox, the consensus is only Marxism-Leninism. The reason? They are superfluous if both are in the same infobox since they mean exactly the same thing. To make it clear, I'm refering only to the infobox. Communism is mentioned throughout, but in a bid to make the infobox as clear as possible the consensus seems to be to only have one ideology in place (or more concret, the specific ideology and not the ideology in general and the more specific ideological orientation in communism)
 * There was never consensus over your edit which removed communism from the ideology. No, communism and Marxism-Leninism do not "mean exactly the same thing" and if you believe that then you frankly have no business editing the CPSU article. You may be under the delusion that consensus was ever reached, but there is no trace of consensus other than it not being reverted sooner by your own admission. An edit reversion taking a month on a low-traffic article does not equal consensus. Your edit is obviously controversial otherwise it wouldn't have been reverted by multiple editors. You need to take it to the talk if you want your edit to be restored, and if your argument is that Marxism-Leninism and communism mean the same thing, then your edit is not going to be restored because it is blatantly false. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Its been reverted by you (and the only reason why LibDutch is joined in is because of the edit war at the libya page).. Just you, in other words.. Are communism and Marxism-Leninism the same thing? No, but in the Communist PArty of the Soviet Union they were the same thing; Marxism-Leninism was theory in which the Soviet policy based its policy, it was Marxism-Leninism which was used to reach pure communism. Marxism-Leninism was the only official ideology of the CPSU from 1927ish(?); Marxism (or more correctly, Marxism as interpreted by Lenin) being the sole before that... When regarding the CPSU they are one and the same thing.--TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC) --TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Third, I agree, the edit war between me and Michaelwuzthere is stupid (and we both deserve to be blocked for it), but LibDutch is actually breaching Wp policy and is on a manhunt to remove all information he deems false (he doesn't remove all unreferenced material, only the one he doesn't like...) --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe it is true then you can just add the source to the article instead of reverting my removal of text that lacked a source for 2 years. And you removed the word communism first, as you did to other articles like the 'Communist Party of Vietnam'. --LibDutch (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In has stood like that on the Communist Party of Vietnam article for over a year now, if thats not consensus I don't know what is... If you believe it is true? What, I showed you a source from Cornell University Press; this is not a discussion of what is reliable or not, it is reliable according to WP policy, and you're edit-waring doesn't making anyless so. Stop being so abstract, and follow WP policy. --TIAYN (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe it covers the unsourced information and it is reliable, why don't you just add it to the article... Other editors can then also look at it.--LibDutch (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a huge violation of WP:3RR at History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi by both LibDutch and TIAYN. It looks to be seven reverts apiece on April 26. In my opinion both parties should be blocked. Removal of unsourced material is sometimes justified but you can't edit war while doing so. There's also a three-way edit war among the named parties to this report at Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Can any of you explain why you shouldn't be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think all three of us should be blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: TIAYN blocked five days, the others warned. TIAYN has been blocked up to three days in the past and he appears to be the center of the various wars. The block can be lifted if he will agree to control himself in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:88.235.176.93 reported by User:Bibilili (Result: 24 hours )

 * User being reported:

This user constantly reverts the 2014 latakia offensive article by adding a Non-NPOV source (Pro-Armenian).

Evidence:

09:49, 27 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎. . (48,018 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 606005283 by Gazkthul (talk) (undo)

08:54, 27 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎. . (48,018 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo)

19:17, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎. . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605867701 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

12:13, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎. . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605867701 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

06:14, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605782980 by Bibilili (talk)) (undo)

17:47, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605776780 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

10:28, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605722454 by Gazkthul (talk)) (undo)

07:56, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605655444 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

14:19, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605579461 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

08:35, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605569496 by Gazkthul (talk)) (undo)

04:57, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605496392 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

11:50, 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 605429374 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

09:29, 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo) 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.28.248 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo)

23:16, 22 April 2014‎ Gazkthul (talk | contribs)‎. . (47,065 bytes) (-134)‎. . (Undid revision 605309628 by 88.235.174.106 (talk) This has been removed multiple times before, nothing has changed: non-NPOV, no reason given for inclusion)

15:33, 22 April 2014‎ 88.235.174.106 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo)

05:34, 22 April 2014‎ 88.235.174.106 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo)

10:45, 21 April 2014‎ 88.235.153.161 (talk)‎. . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎. . (→‎See also) (undo)

Multiple users already warned him at his talk page, but he still continues. You notice that IP address sometimes change, but by using WhatsMyIpAddress, its always the same location.
 * . Tiptoety  talk 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Admiral Kahn reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Indef )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This doesn't make any sense? I added new host of the emmys"
 * 2)  "False // STOP your abusive reversions"
 * 1)  "False // STOP your abusive reversions"


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


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


 * Comments:

Also: Matt Stone, Trey Parker. Have already filed an SPI/CU request for this account (see here: ). Believe it to be a sock of User:Monterrosa. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * as a sock. Tiptoety  talk 14:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:109.125.39.86 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Block, protection.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606046843 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 606043939 by Mike Rosoft (talk) "Gay rights" is a loaded phrase used by the homosexual lobby."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 606041934 by Mike Rosoft (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 606041128 by Mike Rosoft (talk) We do not need nuanced homosexual propaganda detracting from a publicly-viewable account of Pope Saint John Paul II"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP editor ignored 3RR warning and undid ClueBot's edit Marek  . 69  talk 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another IP editor 109.125.61.167 (in same IP range), continues same edit war & vandalism  --  Marek  . 69  talk 18:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ First IP blocked, page semi-protected for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverted back to Materialscientist. The consensus from WP:RS  ld50 is around 0.30 mg/kg.  the book cited is errouneous see talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 605980197 by DendroNaja (talk) Zug et al is not subcutaneous. 3 sources say LD50 is 0.30. its all in the talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 605987036 by DendroNaja (talk)You should be ashamed of yourself trying to "fix" scientific data to your desires. Black mamba has LD50 of 0.30 mg/kg subcutaneous."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 605987454 by DendroNaja (talk) all the sources say you are wrong, and that zug book is incorrect.  all the published sientific sources say LD50 of 0.30. what's wrong with you ?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Snakebite. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Venomous snakes. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Black mamba. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Black mamba. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The above editor is trying his best to game the system. He has edited much of the black mamba article. and is trying to rewrite (snakebite article, venomous snake article) and erase the scientific consensus on snake venom toxicity in order to support his personal view. it has been elaborated in detail using authoritative sources why he is wrong. he knows he is wrong but he is very invested in his favorite snake79.176.152.55 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC) This user is known by several admins as a vandal and disruptive edited warrior. He was caught plagiarizing an entire article. Admin Diannaa tried to block him, but due to the type of IP address he's using, it wasn't possible. Dendro†Naja Talk to me!  04:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Three articles semiprotected by various admins. In my opinion the protection could be even longer, like a year. These articles are a constant target for an IP-hopper who has his own theory about poisonous snakes. I've semiprotected Inland Taipan even though it wasn't mentioned in this report. It's getting attention from a different IP from Israel, probably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:37.74.93.206 reported by User:331dot (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Harold Robles. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Harold Robles. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* April 2014 */"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Harold Robles. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user is continually removing certain information from the article(information that could be perceived as not-so-good for them) but has not posted an explanation or responded to the warnings given. This may be Mr. Robles or a representative. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Fully protected one month, on an old version from 23 June 2013 that is free of any BLP concerns. While some mention of his financial irregularities seems proper, there ought to be a consensus reached on the talk page as to the best way of wording that. If a consensus is reached and the IPs won't respect it, semiprotection can be considered. If you need advice on the BLP matter, consider asking at WP:BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Widefox (Result: 2 weeks )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 605935498 by English Bobby (talk)Obsessive vandal that wants to ignore British citizens"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 605925100 by English Bobby (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 603853373 by Widefox (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) (several warnings given after last recent block, 3RR warning(s) given for previous recent 3RR block)
 * 2) Warning before 3RR violation  for 3RR on European Union.
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Long term pattern of vandalism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) (see multiple warnings on usertalk page going back to 2012)
 * 2)   "/* British or English? */ Per sources MOS:IDENTITY - both sides need taking into account, fix markup"


 * Comments:
 * Within short time after last block (and previous block).
 * (Report delay due to misfiling at UAA for vandalism).
 * Long term disruptive / edit warring on several articles for same issue (bio nationalities, without/against consensus on talk)
 * Refusal to engage in dialogue on own talk page about editing behaviour.
 * Frustrating other editors, who are risk getting warned (3RR) when they revert the disruption. Widefox ; talk 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) UAA
 * - Please block this blatant vandal (off and on since 2012), who has been previously blocked for vandalism (see ), and who has resumed vandalizing the Michelle Fairley article (see, , ) ; will check other edits by Erzan. Quis separabit?  14:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Long-term, persistent vandalism/disruptive editor, 3RR. Please block Widefox ; talk 19:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Erzan has continued to vandalize since receiving final warning, which he/she blanked from his/her talk page, and has disregarded (see Dominic Cooper and Isambard Kingdom Brunel). Needs to be blocked. Quis separabit?  22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if just a backlog here, or if the disruption would be assessed quicker as a 3RR violation at 3RR. I would have thought ANI is appropriate given this level of long-term disruption. Users may blank their pages WP:BLANKING. Widefox ; talk 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Widefox ; talk 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Calvin Harris: Apologised and engaged on editors talk page before and after being reported. Have tried discussing with editors concerned but after being unblocked, no response.
 * Isambard Kingdom Brunel: Have not edited more than 3 times within a 3 week period and have engaged the talk page seeking consensus.
 * Dominic Cooper: Cited several sources for edit, which have been ignored and reverted but realised it was becoming edit war and have since stopped.
 * European Union: Definately no edit warring. Posted propose edit change for over a week, no response despite sending messages on interested users talk page asking for input. Set up a talk page to discuss the proposed edit. No response so implemented my edit. Week later 1 editor disagreed and 1 agreed, so a discussion started. Each one revising one anothers edits without a single complaint of edit warring. A third editor joined, reverted my edit, and claimed my undoing of his/her revert (once) was me editing warring.

I am not a vandal, and have left explanations for my edits and have tried to provide sources to support it my edits. Although not responding on my talk page, have engaged in discussions on editors talk pages and the talk page of the wiki page in question. Some 'frustrated' editors have resort to reporting people before open up a talk page or exhausting other channels of communication. There are also no rules that restrict you from blanking your page after such long a period as far as I am aware. Erzan (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * by for two weeks.  Tiptoety  talk 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Hoops gza reported by User:JasonAQuest (Result:Blocked for 3 days at ANI )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is the editor's second go-'round at this edit war. The first time several weeks ago he seemingly acquiesced when a clear consensus was demonstrated that these edits were inappropriate. Since resuming the crusade a few days ago, his only response on the subject has been to assert that the previous discussion did not happen; it's unclear whether he believes this or is just trying to pretend it ... either one is cause for concern. (The earlier incident also include an instance in which he claimed something that was easily disproven by WP edit history.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a slow running edit war with Hoops gza being reverted by at least 4 editors and no one supporting him. At Talk:August Landmesser he is facing 4 editors who disagree with him, with no support there either. At List of Nazis he removed the criteria for the list to allow it to contain anyone who had ever been a Nazi - see the discussion at Talk:List of Nazis. Ah, just looked at his page! Blocked for 3 days by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Paydar93 reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: Already blocked as a sock.)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user is clearly another suck puppet of User:پارسا آملی, I already reported him here and they will ban him after considering my report but until then I'm already in edit war him. so I thought I have to report him here too. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Highly malformed report, and not really appropriate for here--but the sock is already blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Aubmn reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 606199437 by 82.225.228.135 (talk)"
 * 3)  "vandalism reported"
 * 4)  "vandalism"


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


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


 * Comments:

The user is also edit-warring on T-80, trying to get the same improperly sourced material, sourced to a personal website (military-today.com) but contradicted by SIPRI Arms Trade Register, into that article. Edit-warring that has been going on for days, on both articles. Thomas.W talk 19:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked 36 hours. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:71.230.71.243 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 605716195 by Jerry Pepsi (talk) Sources have been cited properly"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 605998643 by Jerry Pepsi (talk)"
 * 3) 05:52, April 18, 2014‎ 71.230.71.243 "Undid revision 604692152 by Jerry Pepsi"
 * 4)  07:47, March 12, 2014‎ 71.230.71.243 "Undid revision 598802296 by Jerry Pepsi (talk Jerry, are supported. Please stop removing."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Current edit war */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Current edit war */ c"
 * 3)   "/* Current edit war */ c"
 * 4)   "/* Current edit war */ c"
 * 5)   "/* Current edit war */ c"


 * Blocked 36 hours for continuing after being warned--even after posting on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by Homunq (࿓) (Result: Decline )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:26, 25 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605816060 by HangingCurve (talk)please read the talk age discussions thereon before adding this material - prior consensus does not support its use here")
 * 2) 00:24, 26 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605824359 by HangingCurve (talk)PLEASE talk on the article talk page - this has been quite well thrashed out in the past indeed")
 * 3) 02:32, 26 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605838165 by Bigvic2002 (talk)direct violation of WP:BLP if ever there were one")
 * 4) 12:15, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 606159627 by Sam11333 (talk)odd edits")
 * 5) 15:29, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */ the "annulment" section violates WP:BLP and would require actual specific sourcing for all claims therein")
 * 6) 17:39, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "/* Federal Bureau of Investigation (1991–2006) */ WEIGHT applies to your favorite "FUCKING" quote per WP:BLP, and "refused" is an argumentative view")

Comments:

I understand that some of these edits are covered by BLP; and I have no doubt that all are in good faith. Still, I think Collect is being more combative than necessary here. Since the last of these edits was not a clear-cut BLP case, Collect should have made a compromise-seeking edit instead. In general, I think that this user is too quick to reach for the revert button, and too quick to justify those actions by spouting policy, without considering whether another action would have served. —Homunq (࿓) 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If "some of these edits are covered by BLP" then they should not have been listed here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yup. These edits are clearly reverts of unambiguous WP:BLP violations,, while this looks to me to be a revert of vandalism, or of a very confused contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, checking further, Collect may possibly have been wrong to revert this - it seems to relate to the renumbering of congressional districts. It is far from clear though, and I can understand why it looked like vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * These aren't Collect's only edits on the article in this time period. The others were, generally speaking, editing in "the same direction" as the reverts; but since they involve actually writing new versions, rather than mere reversion, I didn't list them above. Still, you could probably begin to argue a case that one or more of them constitute reversions as well. Collect certainly knows the rules here, and is riding right up to the edge of them. All in all, I think that a slap on the wrist is in order. Homunq (࿓) 20:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andy but would add that I also think the last listed revert is justified by BLP. It removed this: "A former NYPD officer working as a bouncer at the time said that Grimm remarked about the husband, 'I’ll fucking make him disappear where nobody will find him.'"  The reporter is apparently not willing to give the Grimm quote as factual, and instead attributes to a single anonymous third party of unknown credibility.  Grimm denies having said it.  BLP policy was designed to keep crap like this out of BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Number three is indeed a BLP violation and wouldn't count toward 3RR even if it weren't. It's a different edit entirely. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Number four isn't edit warring either. Reverting what looked like vandalism (random date changes) to me as well. Although Andy seems correct in that it ultimately was not. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Numbers 5 and 6 have been discussed at BLP/N there was broad agreement that the marraige and annullment stuff was a BLP violation, therefore subject to removal. I suggest that this EW case is not made. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been involved in editing this article, so I won't be the one to close it, but that this easily becomes a coatrack on which to hang a bunch of quotes with bad words in them is easily seen--and that stuff simply has no encyclopedic value. Even if some of the additions aren't BLP violations, adding up all the "fucking" quotes amounts to UNDUE. Drmies (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone inserts another damn FUCKING quote into that BLP after all the discussions at BLP/N, with an admin protecting the BLP as a result of the FUCKING quotes being added and re-added by the same perps, I shall feel affronted. The edit that I reverted at 02:32 was with regard to a totally unsourced contentious claim, which WP:BLP is clear may be removed on sight. The one I reverted at at  12:15 was for an edit which 'conflates district numbers and insisted Grimm was replaced by Charles Rangel - again unsourced, and, as far as I can tell, wrong to the nth degree. I fear this EW report is ill-framed and designed to harass me at this point, because I did not agree with the OP on adding material to a page where he has a vested interest in adding a topic which was found to be "not notable" at AfD. Using ANEW to "get even with someone" is a waste of this page entirely. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (Note 1, 2 and 3 were several days ago, and 4 and 5 were fully unsourced in the first place ... I get the odd feeling that such an ill-formed complaint is harmful to this noticeboard). Collect (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The majority of those reverts are indeed not only covered under BLP, but were a necessity under that same policy. Reporting this here was absolutely poorly-considered  the panda ₯’  23:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:187.250.98.246 reported by User:Drmies (Result:60 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Simple case of edit-warring, inserting material that is written non-neutrally and sourced to a non-independent source. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And again: . Drmies (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also ongoing edit warring by the same user on the Drug cartel article (and I suspect other articles too).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * the panda ₯’ 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:113.190.46.114 reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I never got the chance to discuss this on the talk page. A user was blocked for edit warring, after which a discussion took place regarding the Dispute and Denial section. After discussion and agreement, I removed several sections there were agreed to be unreliable sources.

I started several new sections in talk, discussing suggested changes, content that I wanted to add, grammatical and sentence structure changes that I felt needed to be made, and cites that needed to be cleaned up or clarified.

Now this guy has added back everything that we had agreed to remove, without discussing it first, without notifying anyone that he intended to do so. I'm convinced it's the same guy that was blocked previously. His username was MiG29VC. I'd bet, if you check his IP, it's the same one as this new IP account.

After he made the changes, he added a section to talk, which I have responded to, explaining why the cites are not reliable and should not be included. I have also asked him to please discuss these issues before making any changes, but after reading what he wrote, I'm convinced it's MiG29VC. The grammer and syntax is the same, and he is arguing over the exact same issues that he had edit warred on before.

Txantimedia (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional info: He posted his talk article stating that he added the reverts at 113.190.46.114 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF&action=edit&section=32

His first edit was at 2:14 and his last at 2:19. So he reverted first, then placed a section in talk to CYA.

(cur | prev) 02:19, 29 April 2014‎ 113.190.46.114 (talk)‎. . (45,736 bytes) (+4)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 02:17, 29 April 2014‎ 113.190.46.114 (talk)‎. . (45,732 bytes) (+278)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 02:16, 29 April 2014‎ Txantimedia (talk | contribs)‎. . (45,454 bytes) (+328)‎. . (More wiki cites VC and NVA) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:14, 29 April 2014‎ 113.190.46.114 (talk)‎. . (45,126 bytes) (0)‎. . (→‎Dispute and denial) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:14, 29 April 2014‎ 113.190.46.114 (talk)‎. . (45,126 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Dispute and denial) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:14, 29 April 2014‎ 113.190.46.114 (talk)‎. . (45,125 bytes) (+4,127)‎. . (I saw the history, and some of details (and the relibale source) disappeared, I revert them) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs)

This is as blatant an example of sockpuppetry as you're likely to encounter; see the SPI for details. MiG29VN is still using the same IP that got him into trouble during his previous SPI.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected three months due to apparent block evasion by MiG29VN. See Sockpuppet investigations/MiG29VN. The last complaint of this nature was closed by an admin on 27 March with a temporary block of . EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mallexikon reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: 24 hours / warned )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Revision as of 05:21, 27 April 2014 Undid revision 605988276 by 76.107.171.90 (talk): unexplained deletion of RS material

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Traditional_Chinese_medicine&diff=606113796&oldid=606054253 Revision as of 01:08, 28 April 2014 removing material not supported by the source. The source says: the most probable answer is that TCM is a pseudoscience. Please see talk page]


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 03:14, 28 April 2014 adding RS material
 * 2) Revision as of 03:49, 28 April 2014 Undid revision 606128215 by QuackGuru (talk) This is reliably sourced material. Stop edit warring and discuss on talk
 * 3) Revision as of 05:52, 28 April 2014 Undid revision 606137337 by 76.107.171.90 (talk) it's a reliable source. Discuss. Stop edit warring
 * 4) Revision as of 01:17, 29 April 2014 deleting material not supported by its source. Pls see talk page


 * Diffs of 3RR warning:
 * 1) Revision as of 21:27, 26 December 2013 3RR violation?
 * 2) Revision as of 08:54, 28 April 2014 See Traditional Chinese medicine. (Your EW against consensus.

Revision as of 01:35, 29 April 2014
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Revision as of 10:08, 27 April 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 17:00, 27 April 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 01:41, 29 April 2014
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page:


 * Comments:

User:Mallexikon has been blocked for a period of 24 hours. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . warned.  Tiptoety  talk 16:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:LazloFeelo (Result: 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has been edit warring on this article for over two weeks now. A previous report was filed (see above) three days ago has not been dealt with, but the user has continued edit warring and has now broken 3RR. This user has already been blocked six times in the past for similar behavior, but he flatly refuses to adhere to Wikipedia policies despite them being clearly stated to him. L@zloFeelot@lk 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - Even after the previous AN3 report, continued to revert multiple users. Given their history of edit warring, I've slightly escalated the duration of the block to 31 hours. LazloFeelo, you too have been edit warring and it would appear that you have been doing so while logged out using multiple IPs. LazloFeelo has been blocked for 24 hours.  Tiptoety  talk 18:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah reported by User:208.54.40.144 (Result: 72 hours--BOOMERANG style.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

This user was warned to stop edit warring and got another editor that a relationship exists with including email. Illustrated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah&oldid=606373369#You.27re_famous Here is users talk page illustrating the two having a good laugh after using each other to tag team edit war. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah&oldid=606371574# and the 3R warning at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drowninginlimbo&oldid=606369085 another editor that they both have previously edited with has now entered as well. I cannot document an email connection with third editor as first two but a previous cooperative history does exist. It does not pass the smell test. It has become harassment at this point and the third has inhored my notice to stay off my talk page which I posted on their talkpage:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvergreenFir#Cease_and_Desist All three editors have long histories of reverting good edits related to left wing articles. The first two have tag teamed to avoided WP:3R 208.54.40.144 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * IP blocked. Drmies (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A history of reverting good edits on left-wing articles you say? Lol.  Thanks  EvergreenFir (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:88.235.141.228 reported by User:Bibilili (Result: blocked 60 hours.)

 * User being reported:

This user, after being banned for 24 hours, still continues reverting the same article (2014 latakia offensive) by adding a Non-NPOV source. Some people already reverted it back to normal and warned him, but he still continues. By using WhatsMyIpAddress, you can see that its still the same location. While it's only 1 revert within 24 hours, I'm sure that he'll still continue.

Evidence:

13:52, 29 April 2014‎ Gazkthul (talk | contribs)‎. . (51,971 bytes) (-134)‎. . (Undid revision 606320487 by 88.235.141.228 (talk) Please stop reposting this biased editorial which has been removed numerous times before) (undo | thank)

12:18, 29 April 2014‎ 88.235.141.228 (talk)‎. . (52,105 bytes) (+134)‎. . (Undid revision 606031477 by Bibilili (talk)
 * Blocked. Next time, report either here or on AIV, and maybe ask for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. This isn't the only IP making questionable edits, and the article as a whole is a blatant violation of NOTNEWS with tweets posing as reliable sources for play-by-play action. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Anjaan333 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result:Blocked 96 hours + page semi'ed to avoid socking)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  Note: Possible sock editing from 111.92.13.180. Anjaan333 was blocked at the time.
 * 8)  These two edits included IP 111.92.13.180 and Anjaan333. Re-inclusion of previously disputed numerical content, and prose.
 * 9)  Again, Anjaan333 restores the 37.80 crore number. No discussion, no coherent edit summary, blah blah.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Not reporting a 3RR violation, rather, long-term edit warring. User has previously been blocked for disruptive editing at Drishyam. User continues to revert box office gross to "37 crore", which has some meaning in Bollywood. (Crore means 10,000,000). User has been invited to discuss numerous times, but fails to participate. The current 51 crore box office gross is reasonably sourced. Not sure what Anjaan's problem is, but his edits have been disruptive, and he seems to be trying to achieve consensus through edit warring, instead of by discussion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and blocked him for 96 hours. Any future blocks will be longer.  I will semiprotect the page for 96 hours to ensure he cannot sock on it while he is blocked on the offchance he would be so inclined. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User: Summichum reported by User: Md iet (Result: Article protection.)
Page:

User being reported: Please refer, there is case of vandalism this user is reinstating material  of his POV without any proper citation  with intention of maligning a community , which he claims to be a non-member.

Discussion of talk page is reproduced here for ready reference:

"* 'Raudat Tahera statement' is undid as citation medical report discuss about June 4, incident only. Self formulated POV inserted, and the same should not be re-instated without discussion. --Md iet (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The statement : ‘And that the succession ceremony in Raudat Tahera was staged using the debilitated stroke ridden body of Burhanuddin as a prop.’ is reinstated by Mr. Sumichum, inspite of warning  given above.

'There is no mention of 'Raudat Tahera' or ‘prop’ word used any where in citation  and medical reports only refers to 'june 4' incident  only,

"The Syedna suffered the stroke on June 1, 2011, and according to two of the reviews, he could not have possibly spoken coherently on June 4, when he allegedly 'loudly' pronounced his son, Mufaddal, as successor, after which sherbet was consumed by everyone." ' "It would have been impossible for His Holiness to have drunk sherbet the night of June 4... "

This fellow has not only reinstate his self generated POV, but removed material on his important visit abroad ,which was properly discussed giving 'edit request' above and further diverted as suggested by editor Anup.

Mr. Sumichum is requested to be getting restrained at earliest please.--Md iet (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Mr Sumichum has reinstated the material again in spite of my specific explanation and second warning given. This editor is removing all the well discussed well sited NPOV material added, on his wrong plea of having statement of his choice and his POV.

He has deliberately added allegation of 'staged' and presumed location of 'Raudat Tahera', which is no where mentioned in citation. He has deliberately remarked late Syedna as a 'prop' on his own without any proof or citation in the reputed Wiki, presuming that it is his right to do whatever he wants on Wiki, playing with sentiments of whole community, not being of that community.

I request admin to immediately inter fare with this type of vandalism done by a single element against a whole community. This is a pure vandalism and I don't want to break 3RR rule, although I am supposed to be allowed in this case.--Md iet (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I request Anup to immediatey remove this as he is closely watching this and further request admin to take strong action on this.--Md iet (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)" --Md iet (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll gladly take some action, but where to start. First of all, this report is malformed. Diffs are missing. Why you would copy the talk page is not clear to me; it's just confusing. Then, the history shows such edits as this, where you apparently revert yourself, calling yourself a vandal after you had reverted yourself (no kidding). The real problem here isn't just the edit warring, it's the completely unencyclopedic way of editing--in poor English, with a bunch of text added to an image caption, with talk page discussions where editors seem to be talking right through each others' comments, etc. In short, it's a mess, and I can't tell who to block. For example, "poor English": "I request Anup to immediatey remove this"--what is "this"? I think I'm just going to fully protect this trainwreck of an article and hope that any edit requests on the talk page can be handled by a knowledgeable admin of good will. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Drmies, Sorry for being part of 'a mess' and a culprit for ‘poor English’. My intention was to remove "this"-- the statement : ‘And that the succession ceremony in Raudat Tahera was staged using the debilitated stroke ridden body of Burhanuddin as a prop.’". I also apologise for not putting notice in standard format as I am not used to do complains and was in hurry to get rid of statement "this", not having patience to understand the correct method.

The act “this, where you apparently revert yourself, calling yourself a vandal after you had reverted yourself (no kidding)." was a foolish act done by me to save my self unnecessarily from 3RR, but not of intention to creat a vandal then allege other for the same, never. I was not kidding, nor  trying to fabricate case, as I know that I am here working on Wiki, for which I care. Please have the time to read my explanation below, as I am not able to sustain the  things, you have described.
 * 1) User: Summichum was insisting to insert false non reported statement : "succession ceremony in Raudat Tahera was staged using the debilitated stroke ridden body of Burhanuddin as a prop." ..
 * 2) I have clearly warned him that the citation mentioned by him do not refer to any ‘ceremony  staging’ and medical reports are related with some other instance, ‘Raudat Tahera’  ‘prop’ words no where used,  no ceremony described and 'medical reports’ refered are related with altogether different London incident and not for ‘ceremony’.  . While doing insertion of his ‘statement’, this fellow was reverting my other information ‘on foreign minister/ tour’ etc. intensely.
 * 3) I wanted to reinstate my information on ‘tour’, but didn’t want to remove his insertion as he was adamant in inserting his material and I didn’t wanted to got traped in for 3RR. So I did addition of my information, but not removed  Sumichum false statement  at : 07.34 Hrs:.
 * 4) Then I thought that this fellow may trap me for putting my ‘tour’ information also back, as I was also reinstating  my ‘tour’ information back and back. Although nobody was objecting to it, but Sumichum was removing my material also in the name of adding his false statement on ‘ceremony’. Hence on fear of 3RR for my ‘tour’ material, I removed my true material just after 3 minutes. At : 07.37 Hrs: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=606295017&oldid=606294796].
 * 5) But again after my lunch, I examined  Sumichum revised statement, he inserted last. It was different, but still on ‘ceremony’ and same medical reports  which was nowhere related with ceremony not covered in citation, hence  I boldly removed his false statement, without fearing any 3RR, and  simultaneously added my material on ‘tour’, at 09.56 hrs:.

This was the case and was very much upset by user:Summichum actions of vandalism of adding false self fabricated,complet OR statement again and again, trying to malalign complete community feelings. Hence wanted strong action, as he is using Wiki platform for promoting his personnel POV, since Feb 14, after succession issue of Dawoodi Bohra. He has joined intentionally for creating propaganda. He claims that he is not from this community, still comments rigorously on minor points. Only like to have, research, and add fabricated matters favourable to one claimaint. Remove material on other caimaint ruthlessly  and trying to make false baseless allegation on Bohra community as whole( self innovated religion, not accepted by main stream etc. etc.). Wiki keeps individuals above the wiki harassment, but this fellow harassing complete community. I request thorough observation for this user and strict action accordingly.--Md iet (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Indefinite block )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:30, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "This is the objective text for the Heleen Mees article. The other text is a vicious character assassination.")
 * 2) 12:36, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 606171326 by Tutelary (talk)")
 * 3) 12:44, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "This is the objective text for the Heleen Mees article. The other text is a vicious character assassination.)")
 * 4) 12:53, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "This is the objective text for the Heleen Mees article. There is NO CONSENSUS on the other text, which is a vicious character assassination.")
 * 5) 12:58, 28 April 2014  (edit summary: "This is the objective text for the Heleen Mees article. There is NO CONSENSUS on the other text, which is a vicious character assassination.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This is the latest that I left. There are several more on her talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After I reported her on 22 April 2014 (see this report) was blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring at Heleen Mees. She was subsequently blocked for another 48 hours when she resumed edit-warring after release from her block. After the expiry of the second block she did not return to the article but engaged in meat and sockpuppetry in an effort to restore her edits and an SPI case was opened. (see Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm) I requested pending changes protection be applied to the page and this was done by. All was then quiet for more than 12 hours before IPs started unsuccessfully changing the article. I left a warning at User talk:122.248.140.29 explaining the situation with the article, and there was quiet for nearly 9 hours before Bmwz3hm finally returned, no doubt because it was now the only way she could get the article edited. In the short space of 28 minutes she breached 3RR again. Unfortunately, before the article could be restored to the version that only Bmwz3hm& and her puppets don't like, fully protected the article with Bmwz3hm's vandalism in place. has attempted to get Bmwz3hm to rationally dscuss her edits but her response was "I'm not willing to leave the article as promoted by Theobald Tiger as is". Given Bmwz3hm has now breached 3RR three times, has a COI issue with the article, has engaged in meat and sockpuppetry and has indicated she is unwilling to leave the article as is while discussing it, I believe a significant increase in the block time is warranted. When she is blocked, the full block should be lifted so those trying to improve the article can continue to do so. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I was pinged to this report, let me just give some short thoughts: Bmwz3hm has certainly violated 3RR here, and they definitely don't seem to be understanding how Wikipedia works on issues like this. However, they also appear to be arguing for conservative treatment of a BLP, and discussion on the talk page seems to mostly be of the "nope, I'm right, reverting" type from both sides of the dispute. Given that, I decided that forcing the users to discuss (by making them unable to revert each other) was worth a try before dropping any more blocks (which haven't worked thus far). As long as the article is protected, there's very little point blocking any of the warriors, especially given that blocking just seems to bring out sockpuppets/meatpuppets. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, what happened was that Bmwz3hm made a series of edits, without any explanation on the talk page or in edit summaries. Many of these were self serving and contentious in themselves. Another editor then went through the article, cleaning it up, explaining what he was doing in each edit summary. However, Bmwz3hm reverted the edits without explanation, insisting on her version of the article. Both of those editors received warnings for the subsequent edit-war. I decided to independently review the article, which had been a mess since two IPs had started edit-warring before this. When I reviewed it I came to the conclusion that this version was the most reasonable version, although I did make one minor change. However, Bmwz3hm is demonstrating ownership over the article, as the most recent revert demonstrates, allowing only her preferred version of the article. Bmwz3hm didn't even want to discuss the edits. Since release from her last 3RR block two days ago, Bmwz3hm has made no attempt to discuss anything on the talk page. Even after breaching 3RR again she has made no attempt to discuss. There have been numerous requests on her talk page to discuss but she refuses to discuss. Numerous editors have now become involved in the article and the only opposition to this version has been from Bmwz3hm and her sock and meatpuppets. There haven't really been any "nope, I'm right, reverting" comments. I believe Fluffernutter made the wrong call. Instead of protecting the article, he should have blocked Bmwz3hm for the obvious 3RR breach. While her edits are the protected version of the article, there's even less chance that she's going to discuss. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note has just confirmed that  &  were blocked as socks of Bmwz3hm at nl-wiki. If we factor those into this discussion then we have several more diffs to include:




 * 1) 20:34, 26 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605941033 by Theobald Tiger (talk) The original text is more neutral. See talk page.")
 * 2) 00:41, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "This the more neutral text.")
 * 3) 01:00, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605968205 by TheCockroach (talk) As you can see on the talk page, Vdullemen, 113.28.12.161, Bmwz3hm and I find the original version better.")
 * 4) 01:17, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 01:41, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605972098 by AussieLegend (talk)")
 * 6) 01:49, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "")




 * 1) 11:30, 27 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 606008920 by 49.181.236.70 (talk) the iriginal text is both more objective and has more support than Theobald Tiger's edit.")


 * This consistent pattern of edit-warring is unacceptable by any standard. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Bmwz3hm blocked indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:LazloFeelo (Result: Both users blocked per another report)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Further revert/edit warring since this report was made: and again:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: No actual 3RR violation (yet) but certainly an ongoing edit warring problem over the past couple of weeks with this editor who is perpetually added unsourced material to the article with regards to its box office performance. At first another editor correctly removed an "adjusted for inflation gross" figure from the infobox and User:Ring Cinema reverted it. We do not use "adjusted grosses" for film article infoboxes as an adjusted gross is simply a hypothethical figure that loosely estimates what an old film might have made in today's market. WP:MOSFILM clearly states that we should only be using the gross, not the adjusted gross, and this was even discussed on the MOSFILM talk page. User:Ring Cinema then persistently put up another figure which was unsourced. Neither myself or two other editors can find a valid reliable source for it anywhere. The only reliably sourced figures for this film's gross we can find are for the domestic gross (i.e. North America) only. In lieu of finding figures for a worldwide gross that pass WP:RS, we have used only the domestic gross, but Ring Cinema keeps reverting it. Discussions on User:Ring Cinema's talk page have had no effect and s/he has also refused to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It also appears that this user has a vast history of edit warring and has been blocked on several occasions in the past for similar offences. I feel a longer block may be warranted to prevent further repetitions. L@zloFeelot@lk 20:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no edit warring, except perhaps by LazloFeelo. The consensus on the content of the infobox extends back to 2009 and he is not respecting it. Instead, he substitutes a box office figure that is outside of the guidelines because it is a domestic box office number where an international box number is called for. Of course I am open to updating the number if one is available. In the meantime, the current consensus obtains and that is what I am restoring. I have added a call for a citation on the current number. I have participated in discussion and quoted the relevant guideline. Perhaps LF is not aware that, according to wp:consensus, a new consensus is required to make a change like this. It would be helpful if he would provide an international box office figure that satisfies him, but he has not. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out to you on more than on occasion, you cannot add unsourced material to Wikipedia articles. It is up to you to find a source for a figure that you want to include as per WP:BURDEN, and any source that you do add has to pass WP:RS. If you can't do this, the figure cannot be added. Please provide a link to the alleged discussion in 2009 where a consensus to do this was supposedly reached. L@zloFeelot@lk 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This idea of "consensus" merely because something has not changed for some time gives thought to just what is it that is being done. When an addition has been made to an article and no other changes are forthcoming for some time, maybe even years, is not consensus; it may be a matter that no one cares to change about the article. How many articles are there that are not viewed by someone that if they wanted to change it could and do not? Something may be found to be wanting merely because someone has brought attention to that article and then others get involved. So, to say "X" years "consensus" is the justification is just plain irrelevant. Too, many times has this "consensus" justification been thrown into the mix to basically bully others. It does not matter how long something has been in an article because things change. Especially when it comes to movies since they are a major entertainment of people today, this and that list comes out based on whatever criteria and is included in the article only to be found irrelevant for the new current time because a new list has come out yet the citation is not amended and sometimes people attempt to jumble both facts only to create something that makes sense only to that person. Too many times has it been that what someone has championed based only on their own perception is to be found out wrong. How many contractions are presently in articles that do not belong? Their continued existence is a consensus and deserves to remain? And the idea that a consensus is ALWAYS needed to change something again irrelevant when some articles are changed w/o any talk page activity because no one could care less. When there is a disagreement about what has been changed then there is need for a consensus but that consensus really should not be based on longevity because it could be wrong. No one cares about a change if they do not get involved and if they get involved the longevity of its existence is not a credible criteria for it to remain. For how many years has the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel been interpreted by these renowned art historians based on how it looked before restoration. Looking at it today, it's a Technicolor extravaganza right out of the movie studios. What was said before about technique, coloring etc remains valid? Not every film receives the same attention in all its aspects so to put a policy of excluding something because everything that in the past about that portion is not available is just a plain waste of time and effort. Qualify what you have and then move on.

How many times will it be that only a portion of a subject can be cited according to policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimeyCinema1960 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is correct that to make a change requires a new consensus. It's only common sense, since the alternative is that correct information could be removed without a consensus. For five years the current draft has been verifiable. I don't see what's changed in the last month, but I'm certainly prepared to update the number when a better one is available. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema has just done it again on the same article, despite this report being made:. Furthermore, he is trying to claim that his preferred version of the article has been in place for 5 years, but this is not true. The material that was originally changed a couple of weeks ago was the adjusted-for-inflation gross, which we do not use on Wikipedia articles. I then tried to find a worldwide gross but couldn't find one with a reliable source, so I then inserted the domestic gross instead because that is well sourced. Ring Cinema then kept reverting to the adjusted gross, purely because it looks more impressive (as stated above, the adjusted gross is just a hypothetical estimate, not a real figure). After a couple of reverts, he then added a completely different figure as a "worldwide gross", but did not add a source. So claiming this is how the article has been for 5 years is utter nonsense and there is no consensus as he claims because I have been through the article's talk page history to check. He just likes edit warring, something for which he has been blocked for seven times in the past couple of years. 88.104.28.251 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact he's just done it again on the same article suggests that he doesn't care about being blocked which in turn suggests this may be one of multiple single-purpose accounts by one user. L@zloFeelot@lk 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Edit warring at this and other movie articles Ring Cinema edits and protects is not new. Frankly, he has ownership issues.  He uses excuses to revert changes introduced by those not in his circle that usually involve "Doesn't improve the article" or "Goes against consensus".  Doesn't matter that consensus was reached years ago or may have never been reached.  Ring's reasoning regarding consensus on content never being reached is along the lines of "It's been this way for a long time and that's the same as consensus".  That reasoning behind his rationalization of edit warring behavior and article ownership is now being expressed in his edit summaries: "returning to the status quo".  He's been playing this game for a few years now.  He's been brought to this noticeboard and AN/I for this very thing (as well as civility issues) time and again.  I've brought him here and AN/I for it and learned, sadly, that he seems to be one of the teflon untouchables: someone who gets a way with a lot because he never gets called on his negative, unproductive behavior.  Getting away with a lot produces editors who engage in article ownership, more incivility, and edit warring.  All definitely unproductive and uncooperative behavior that should be, in my estimation, prevented.  What will be done about it?  Anything or nothing (again)? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  22:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, here we go again.......Yes, it is true that a review of Ring Cinema's record with article development seems to end in some level of disruption that this person alone seems to sustain and reuse every time that conflict emerges. And this seems to be with film related articles only. It has clearly been set out by Ring Cinema that the opinion and views of others is irrelevant. It would seem that Ring Cinema believes that this type of conflict is absolutely necessary in every single article development. Having seen many other articles developed why is it that those articles involving Ring Cinema come to this level of conflict and disregard for the views of others. From a quick think back to three articles there was relentless unnecessary and uncivil actions. First if something does not agree with Ring Cinema, Ring Cinema will amend it on the criteria that it is wrong and if Ring Cinema believes that something should remain then it is kept based on having been there since Adam copulated Eve. The movie No Old Man Country? a vent was the entire united from pump to wall outlet. Remembering train trips in the English countryside where people's windows had circular vents cut in the glazing for the inside moist air to escape; how can a satchel or anything of bulk fit in that thin area of space. That somehow a satchel had to be hidden in the motel room vent, not the air duct. Motel room vent? Then what is a vent in a coat or jacket. How can a satchel, a bulky item fit into such an opening? No it had to be "vent" and there was no change of the mind even when there was an article on vents and duct work in WP. Other people has to provide actual proof whereas all that Ring Cinema had to do was change it without opposition. Then there was large land parcels in China Town described as tracts of orange grooves; yet absolutely not one mention of that land to be irrigated was described as such. Then in The English Patient, there terms long in the article at the time Ring Cinema became involved that were paramount to remain until it was found in a dialogue transcript that they words had never been said.
 * It seems to be the emphasis of Ring Cinema that EVERT SINGLE CHANGE in EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE H A S  to be changed after TALK PAGE discussion. If that were the case WP would be little more than what it was years ago. Again, a change does not require a consensus if no one cares about. The number of articles and the number of changes shows that. So don't go off with tisk tisk tisk because it is not true. If it were true then every RALK PAGE would be longer than every article. Then  there is the Ring Cinema move to in the course of article development for what has been put down in the article by that person so that if there I any change then it changes what Ring Cinema has contributed rather than the group. So as the article gets developed it the work of Ring Cinema so if you back o change anything there is absolutely NOTHING that remains without Ring Cinema sanctioning. That is just part of the strategy. I would not be surprised that the SOCK PUPPET accusations soon are issued. Ring Cinema seems to have a propensity of raising the sock puppet accusation SO MANY TIMES to cloud and attempt to thwart others. I cannot remember the article but put forth the accusation of sock puppetry occurring with a number of "similar" styles as if every single person in the world writes and speaks differently that there MUST be some type of collusion. Then have the audacity to say that the accused is the one that brought it up sock puppetry. Well, for what other reason would Ring Cinema attempt to cause such a commotion? All this energy and time over what? An article that if electricity were to disappear from the face of the earth there would be absolutely NOTHING left of WP as long as it was never downloaded on to paper sheets or metal plates. At least the ancients had clay tablets, vellum and papyrus.
 * This reminds me of an aunt's parrot that when it was sunny and dry outside it's cage was put either under the lemon tree or on the patio. That fat last aunt from wherever she was on the property she commanded someone to get something for her and would rather yell out for my cousin to tend the bird rather than go to see and say hello to it. Instead, you would know when the bird wanted attention or needed something because in the absolute same pattern the bird to speak-up, "Gilbert! GILBERT!! GGILLBERTTT!!!!"
 * Now will this be viewed as a personal attack just because it has mention a pattern? God save us. If you do not want your personal patterns to be the topic of conversation then change your strategies. All I know is that there are people in this world that just do not work well in groups. Some people are so certain of their perception that they are totally unable to reason with verifying their facts and instead insist on something that is not correct and potentially look the fool. If all that can be verified at this time is one subset who exactly is championing that when the full spectrum of the facts are known then they should not be included? No one has and what changes that occur later can then become part of the article. Someone has to learn to move on. There is plenty of volunteer activity to go round.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Additionally, removing unsourced material from an article does not require a consensus at all. It is simply Wikipedia policy. L@zloFeelot@lk 05:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well. Let us review the short post of Ring Cinema:  "Actually, it is correct that to make a change requires a new consensus." 
 * If this is correct then as has been stated earlier every TALK Page would be of larger volumn than the actual article(s). No one would be changing articles because all the changes would have to be made on some "test" text on the TALK Page.
 * RC continues:  "It's only common sense, since the alternative is that correct information could be removed without a consensus." 
 * Well, not every change in WP article history has been made through consensus because it may be just a stub. Also, What are we all to be wired up to every article so that instantaneously we will be made aware of any changes as a group, only? I believe that is rather cumbersum and unlikely to occur. Not all changes have been made through consensus because not every one is on the back of each article as if they were about to give birth.
 * RC continues,  " For five years the current draft has been verifiable." '
 * Well, aparently there has been a review in order to determine if what was there was verifiable and it was not. That only a partial result was and thus according toi the WP policy that which is citable warrents inclusion in the article. That seems simple enough to understand but
 * as RC continues,  "I'm certainly prepared to update the number when a better one is available." 
 * Does this mean that this is an expression from some unknown WP policy that states that every update of this article HAS to be posted by RC? If it is then let us know so that we all can function under the same rules. I doubt that there would be any person designated as the vehicle by which changes come to WP articles. And as the verifyable subset has been identified they why not have it appear until that time when the desired information comes to light. It really does not matter how long information appears in articles as to whether it is appropropriate merely on longevity, although longevity or better yet "neglect" allows something to persist regardless as to truth, citability, etc.LimeyCinema1960 (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside the ad hominem attacks, I'm baffled why none of these editors want to follow the guidelines or, more importantly, have the correct dollar amount in place. It's obvious that the proposal of LazloFeelo is not the correct international box office amount. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one not following guidelines, and you have blatantly ignored Wikipedia's policies in relation to WP:VERIFY. There is no reliable figure for the worldwide gross of this film and trying to insert your unsourced guess is not acceptable either. We have the domestic gross and guidelines at Template: Infobox (Film) clearly state: If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount. Now leave the article alone. 88.104.25.107 (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet the edit war continues:

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

 Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Both users blocked by User:Tiptoety per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=606479981#User:Ring_Cinema_reported_by_User:LazloFeelo_.28Result:_31_hours_.29 another report]. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Aimperator reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:   etc.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Aimperator has been waging an edit war on Yardley of London for about two years. He just came off of the second of two recent blocks for this (see previous reports at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive242 and Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive242) and has resumed the edit war with the above-noted diff. As noted in the previous report here, Aimperator had already announced that he intends to continue editing the article in defiance of policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Talteori reported by User:Permafrost46 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

This user was warned on 15 March 2014 to stop edit warring on hockey player bios. As suggested, the issue was taken to the WikiProject Ice Hockey talk page. There was no consensus on changing European players heights and weights to metric. The user waited a few weeks then began making changes again. I have warned him, and despite this he continued reverting without giving edit summaries. Permafrost46 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Even though I have given a warning specifically concerning Daniel Alfredsson, the revert pattern is the same on Erik Karlsson among others. Permafrost46 (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an ongoing dispute over if all hockey players in all countries should be measured in united states customary units. Even though all other Swedish Olympic athletes, persons and the Swedish hockey league uses metric and the international ice hockey federation use metric. This is the way the wikipedia manual of style recommends that we write on wikipedia and the way all other sports handle the issue. Even though there dispute hasn't been resolved people have changed back the Swedish player's statistics to united states customary units. I have been editing the pages so that they look the way they did when the dispute started. Other users are changing every ice hockey related article to be united states customary units first even though the player has never been in north america and calling it editwarring to revert them back to their proper format.Talteori (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * When making a claim which is not true, one risks having it being pointed out. The NHL is,indeed, in North America, and players in the NHL perforce play in the United States.  The examples given here do appear to be a matter of making a "point" which is rarely recommended on Wikipedia.  Collect (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The players won a Olympic silver medal two months ago for Sweden, won an Olympic gold in hockey for Sweden 2006 and will in a few weeks compete in the world championship in hockey for Sweden. They have also played professionally in Sweden. I could accept a rule that we use the system that is commonly used in the country that they are currently playing in. But that means North Americans in Europe use metric. Not that the entire world of hockey uses united states customary units. Some of the players which have had their stats reverted have never played in North America. This issue is currently debated and my stance is to keep the pages as they where when the dispute started until it is cleared up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talteori (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Talteori is warned that they may be blocked the next time they change a hockey player's height or weight into the metric system without getting a talk page consensus first. If WT:HOCKEY did not reach a consensus you should be asking on the individual talk pages of the affected players. The steps of WP:DR are available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Gtfjbl reported by User:Qwertyus (Result:No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606453150 by Qwertyus (talk): for impact of the software, see list of citations on Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=16996072155402675000"
 * 2)  "clarified applicability"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 606205958 by Qwertyus (talk): the point about the software license describes its effects and impact on where the software is applicable"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 606205879 by Qwertyus (talk): software is used as base for many other projects, making it notable"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606205879 by Qwertyus (talk): software is used as base for many other projects, making it notable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

No warnings on talk page given, but my edit summaries contain clear references to the policies violated by the user's edits (mostly WP:SOAPBOX). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I now see that I have violated 3RR myself. I would like to state that this edit resulted from an accidental clash with Gtfjbl's edits, but I'll accept the one-day block. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No action taken. Given lack of clear warnings and admitted fault on both sides and the fact that more positive & collaberative discussions seem to now be taking place, I don't think blocks are called for. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Chealer reported by User:FenixFeather (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Continuation of edit warring on Memory Management in Heartbleed Edit warring on LastPass in Heartbleed
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Behavior */ flag dubious part" – this one was during the middle of a discussion explaining to him why that part of the article makes sense.
 * 2)  "/* Behavior */ restore request for reference about the vulnerability resulting from custom memory management"
 * 3)  "/* Behavior */ clarify the part in need of sourcing - thanks User:FenixFeather"
 * 1)  "LastPass: flag as dubious and fix reference"
 * 2)  "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager and request for specifying which versions would be affected (see Talk)"
 * 3)  "reword LibreOffice to show affected versions rather than fixed versions"; Note that in this one, he hid his revert behind a seemingly innocuous edit summary.
 * 4)  "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager. request specifying which versions would be affected"
 * 5)  "LastPass: Fix syntax and restore request for reference"
 * 6)  "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager (not a request for a better source, just a source about LastPass Password Manager itself. LastPass != LastPass Password Manager)"
 * 7)  "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager (not a request for a better source, just a source about LastPass Password Manager itself)"
 * 8)  "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager"

The resiliency of his editing on LastPass, including, leads me to suspect there is a WP:COI at work here. The rest of the requesting for references, on the other hand, especially the ones on LastPass (after he had "lost" his edit war on the Heartbleed page), seemed to have been aimed at making a point.

Edit warring on LastPass:
 * 1)  "restore request for reference on bookmarklet"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ You don't own this article. In case you haven't read the sentence, I will post it again: "'''If the memoory had been properly returned via free, it would likely have been handed to m"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ I just did. "Crashes in malloc, calloc, realloc, or free are almost always related to heap corruption, such as overflowing an allocated chunk or freeing the same pointer twice.". So if"
 * 3)   "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ Then I fail to see your problem. That source supports the entire passage."
 * 4)   "/* Proposed move to "Heartbleed bug" */ Closing - no move."

Also see these discussions:


 * Discussion on LastPass in Heartbleed, during which he also reverted in the middle of the discussion
 * Discussion on memory management, in which he once again refuses to listen to other editors and reverts during the discussion
 * Dispute resolution (in which Chealer notably declined to participate, in favor of continued edit warring)


 * Comments:

Chealer has clearly violated the 3RR rule, adding a "dubious" tag back into the article after we were in the middle of a discussion about why that part of the article is not dubious. He refuses to listen to logic or repeated explanation of the situation from multiple authors. This type of edit warring behavior has occurred before. Previously, he also edit warred over a tag about LastPass both on the Heartbleed page and on the LastPass page. This editor does not understand the concept of tagging, engages in serial drive-by tagging, and then edit wars when people explain to him why the tag is not needed. This is especially egregious when he claims he is the "de facto maintainer" of the article. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's some evidence that he's engaged in drive by tagging: He indicates his refusal to actually work on any problems. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 14:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Having problematic content flagged while it's under discussion is the least you have to accept. The content could have been tagged disputed, or even removed.
 * If you consider my edit on LastPass as edit warring... what can I say, don't listen to uncle Sam?
 * You might want to explain my alleged "refusal to actually work on any problems". --Chealer (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on deleting access dates in references probably doesn't belong here, but if you want that to be included too, why not? As for your editing style, that is not within administrator jurisdiction. The point is that you should stop pretending you are "de facto maintainer" of the article and stop making changes repeatedly against consensus that add no useful content to the article. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh - I fail to understand to understand how the first 2 sentences of your reply and your opinion on my status relate to what I wrote. I have described myself as the article's de facto maintainer once, BTW.
 * Of course, I have not made and will not make "changes repeatedly against consensus that add no useful content to the article".--Chealer (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The diffs speak for themselves. And your rhetoric on the talk page clearly demonstrates that you don't understand WP:OWN or WP:CONSENSUS. Even something as trivial as keeping access dates is worth you beating the dead horse over. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't hear the same from the diffs.
 * If you think something I said demonstrates a lack of understanding, please reply to that rather than complaining about it here. What "dead horse beating" are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment by uninvolved DRN volunteer: The other editors working on the page made a good-faith attempt to resolve this at WP:DRN, and Chealer was notified and encouraged to participate, but chose to not participate. There is nothing wrong with that -- participation at DRN is voluntary -- but it does raise the question of what the other editors are supposed to do if they want help in resolving the underlying content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may be confusing to imply that the issue discussed at DRN is the same as this one, but to set the record straight, I have not chosen to not participate to the DRN - except in so far as I preferred to start by discussing the issue, which allowed to solve the issue before participating to DRN was needed. --Chealer (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't pretend to understand this fully myself, but I'll do my best to help.

If what's reproached is the number of reverts, I am guilty. Although I don't remember resorting to rollbacks much, I did have to revert many changes. If what's reproached is the frequency of reverts, I am also guilty. Although I've only been maintaining the article for 2 weeks, the topic is hot (currently top 100). I recognize that a certain contributor has gotten adversarial in the last days, and we've seen lots of reverts (often pedantic). In fact, for the last week, a few editors have been editing pretty "boldly", to say the least.

If what is reproached is a 3RR violation, I could also be considered guilty, as it is not technically incorrect to view edit sequences 1-4 or 2-5 as violations, if 3 is interpreted as a revert, and if metacontent changes are taken into account. I acknowledge I did brutally solve an edit conflict in edit 3 ( "reword LibreOffice to show affected versions rather than fixed versions"; Note that in this one, he hid his revert behind a seemingly innocuous edit summary.) I did not salvage the lost changes (mere tag removals) later.

I can't say what "point" and what "lost" edit war FeatherFenix refers to.

FenixFeather has a problem assuming good faith and a strong tendency towards personal attacks, but nothing unprecedented. He is certainly guilty of edit warring, but sanctions may not be needed yet. He was already warned about his 3RR violations. These might have been his first. I also explained to him that reversions need to be justified.

Thanks --Chealer (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm guilty of edit warring? Can you provide these diffs? I've always gone to the talk page, and here, after you revert me back. I'm well aware of 3RR. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I won't be digging each revert you've performed on that article, but I can provide a few:
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * --Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * None of those constitute edit warring, or even reversion. The only time I reverted you was on the cn tag, and I went to the talk page afterward anyway. Many of them are just modifications that accept your edit. In any case, it seems like the issue on the article has been resolved. Whatever the outcome of this report, it seems like you've realized your mistakes. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * They do constitute reversion. Your edits revert changes from the following edits (numbers corresponding):
 * If you think my edit on LastPass constitutes edit warring but none of the above does, you have double standards.
 * I recommend you save yourself from "modifications that accept your edit" if you're going to deplore your colleagues' misunderstanding of WP:OWN. --Chealer (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chealer, those edits are, at worst, partial reversions, and are not edit warring. You did not have an issue with any of them at the time. You can't just take all my edits on that page and claim that they constitute edit warring. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think my edit on LastPass constitutes edit warring but none of the above does, you have double standards.
 * I recommend you save yourself from "modifications that accept your edit" if you're going to deplore your colleagues' misunderstanding of WP:OWN. --Chealer (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chealer, those edits are, at worst, partial reversions, and are not edit warring. You did not have an issue with any of them at the time. You can't just take all my edits on that page and claim that they constitute edit warring. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think my edit on LastPass constitutes edit warring but none of the above does, you have double standards.
 * I recommend you save yourself from "modifications that accept your edit" if you're going to deplore your colleagues' misunderstanding of WP:OWN. --Chealer (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Chealer, those edits are, at worst, partial reversions, and are not edit warring. You did not have an issue with any of them at the time. You can't just take all my edits on that page and claim that they constitute edit warring. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I did have issues with your reversions at the time.
 * I didn't say they were all "complete reversions". Some of them being partial doesn't mean they don't constitute edit warring.
 * I didn't take all your edits on that page, I only took your edits from a 4-hour period (2014-04-29T16:15:17 to 2014-04-29T20:03:48 ET). All of them happen to be reversions. --Chealer (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Use common sense. Slightly adjusting your edits is not reverting nor edit warring. It is normal collaborative effort to improve the encyclopedia. Nor was it repeated behavior, unlike what you demonstrated, clearly reverting over 8 times on one issue, then asserting your status as "de facto maintainer". – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What common sense tells me is that repeated "complete reversions" and "slightly adjusting" other people's edits are 2 different things.
 * Maintaining an article doesn't grant an editor any privilege; nobody can 'assert status as "de facto maintainer"' on Wikipedia.
 * "reverting over 8 times on one issue" is not something I remember seeing any single editor do since I started watching the article. It is certainly not something I have done. --Chealer (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The eight diffs I posted above beg to differ. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh. As this comes from someone attacking its colleagues' technical competence, I'm first tempted to advise a revision of elementary maths. Over 8 and less than 9 are exclusive in discrete land, unless Math 2.0 is out. On second thought, I could also advise reflection before action. But in the end, it's probably myself that I should advise. I'm afraid I erred assuming good faith for so long. --Chealer (talk) 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Chealer, relax. The conflict is resolved now, and the edit warring is no longer occurring. I'm not interested in seeing you blocked, either, so let's not argue more over this and get back to editing. The admins will do what they decide to do. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're free to resume your editing. We know you can contribute positively; you've demonstrated it in the past and I hope you will in the future. You didn't even need to stop editing... just edit-warring. --Chealer (talk) 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Though User:Chealer has been less than 100% cooperative there is not enough reason to issue a block. If there are more disputes about single issues, I suggest that someone open a WP:Request for comment. Chealer avoided the DRN by refusing to participate, but if an RfC reaches a consensus and somebody reverts against it, they are edit warring and admins can respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. I agree with your verdict, but would like to reiterate that I did not "[avoid] the DRN by refusing to participate", I simply did not participate until the content discussion ceased to make progress, at which point the DRN had already been closed. Had the issue not been solved and had the DRN remained open, I suppose I would have cooperated. My apologies if the reasoning behind my behavior was unclear. --Chealer (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Suryasingh31 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

(newest first)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 1
 * 13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 2
 * 13:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 3
 * 11:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 4


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


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


 * Comments:

Single-purpose account making repeated attempts to whitewash the article, removing a controversy sourced to multiple reliable sources. Thomas.W talk 14:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * After I filed this report against Suryasingh31 another SPA, a brand new account named, has popped up, continuing Suryasing31's "job" of removing sources etc in the article. Thomas.W talk 07:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Mr. Thomas W seems like maliciously trying to insert hyperlinks to defame a person. The purpose of biographical pages are to provide information about a person and references for users to form their opinion rather than write de-famatory statements basis news paper articless. Mr. Thomas W intentions seems malicious and driven by for profits rather than providing information about a person. He has not contributed any thing in the article, but a single line defamatory statement. User talk:Suryasingh31


 * Comments:

I would like to request for credentials and expertise of Mr. Thomas W. He should clearly mention his research on the topic, their source and his own personal efforts. I have been an employee of Airtel since last 3 years and have performed thorough research on the topic. Mr. Thomas W shall mention his credentials and intent for writing defamatory statements in an informative page. User talk:Suryasingh31

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.10.182 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What I have done is revert your repeated attempts to first remove all mention of Mr.Menon's quick exit from his previous employer, and then to rewrite it along the lines that he left because he wanted new challenges, totally ignoring what the reliable sources in the article say. A quick look at the page history will also show that I have previously reverted attempts to make that passus read that he was fired from his previous employer, so my reverts have gone both ways. But I'm not the one who added that passus to the article, I'm just "defending" it since it's properly sourced and doesn't say more than the sources say. Thomas.W talk 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryasingh31 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)

Your comments are primarily driven by conflicting articles in various public newspapers instead of any real data point. By making unverified changes, you are violating wikipedia rules - Shortcut:WP:ELBLP It clearly states that in biographies of living person, material available solely in questionable sources and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

In biographies of living people Shortcut: WP:ELBLP Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. User:suryasingh31] talk' 10:33, 1 May 2014 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryasingh31 (talk • contribs)
 * Are you saying that The Economic Times, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu Business Line and the multiple other third-party sources that say the same thing about Mr.Menon's exit from Bharti Airtel are not reliable sources? The source you repeatedly replace them all with, to support your whitewashing, the only source I have found that supports that view, is a short interview with Mr.Menon himself, without editorial comment, and thus a primary source. Thomas.W talk 07:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel happened in December 2013. Only anonymous sources say there was any problem with his departure, even though reputable newspapers did print what they said. Is there really nobody who will go on the record about Menon? Have there been any charges or lawsuits filed? Menon was known in the business world outside India. Did any publications outside India comment? If not then it seems that WP:UNDUE should limit the prominence of these reports in our article. Consider asking for advice at WP:BLPN if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a slightly odd case. I've looked everywhere but haven't found anything about charges or lawsuits, and Menon seems to have kept a very low profile, even though every major business paper and business site in India carried the same story, saying that Menon was sacked for violating Bharti Airtel's code of conduct by giving profitable contracts to companies that he had a personal interest in. And the only comment from Bharti Airtel has been a short note about Menon having "exited" the company. Because of WP:UNDUE I have reverted edits that said that Menon had been fired, but given the wide coverage in reliable sources I have felt that Menon's hasty exit from Bharti, and the story surrounding it, was worth mentioning. Providing of course that the WP article didn't say more than a multitude of reliable sources did. Unlike Suryasingh31 who has repeatedly tried to remove every mention of it. Thomas.W talk 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:2605:a000:f2c0:a400:cd9:4b89:6296:f4f6 reported by User:Collect (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  (one of his four earlier reverts/edits but a day earlier)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  16:40 30 April consecutive to 16:17
 * 2)  16:01
 * 3)  14:23
 * 4)  15:55 29 April
 * 5)  15:06  (Five reverts in 25 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:32 30 April

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

Comments:

This IP is rather insistent on material which, in some cases, does not remotely supports the claims made, or is not cited by others. Edit summaries like '''TRY TO DELETE THIS ARTHUR RUBIN. THAT'S SEVEN REFERENCES. AND THERE WILL BE MORE.)' seem a tad clueless as to why WP:EW exists and what it covers. "Deal with it bro"'' in any post also appears uncollegial. Collect (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

User notified of this post at 17:05 30 April. Collect (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Reverts 1 and 2 were as, and there were some previous edits as other 2605:a000:f2c0:a400:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx; I don't know enough about IP6s to determine whether blocking all of those would produce collateral damage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In regard Collect having 4 reverts and I (Arthur Rubin) having 3 reverts in the past 60 hours, both reverting this IP cluster, that's true. (The IP had 6 reverts in that time period, under a number of previous IPs.)  And, it's also true that few attempts, either by me or by Collect, have been made on the article talk page.  Although, there was a dispute in 2012 about a similar issue which seemed to result in a consensus that the US should not be added as an example, except with the caveat "in the opinion of some scholars/politicians/journalists/.../whatever".  Some attempts had previously made to resolve the dispute on the IP's talk page, but he had probably moved on before he saw them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , user seems to have found something else to do with their time. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: similar to what is being reverted to. -->

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plutocracy&diff=606494263&oldid=606492651

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

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

United States again[edit] A floating IP is adding the United States to the list of plutocracies, quoting a probably unreliable source, even though linked. It's claimed to be forthcoming in Perspectives on Politics, a "peer-reviewed journal". We need to wait for it to appear, and then we could note that it is not a majority opinion, so it shouldn't be in the summary. Per WP:FRINGE, we should report the mainstream journals which do not assert that the United States is a plutocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) It is completely corroborated by the peer reviewed charts at [7]. After several days of asking at other higher volume article talk pages, nobody has produced any sources to the contrary of the Princeton study's conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC) It is not required to "prove" any study to be false - the onus is on those who wish to include a study to show that it is widely cited and accepted in the area of study. Collect (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) My apologies for not knowing how to use the talk page. If the United States does not belong in examples then why is half of the plutocracy page dedicated to talking about the United States? Do you want to delete half of the entire article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Nope -- what is needed is material which directly relates to the topic and is found in WP:RS reliable sources, and has wide acceptance in the area concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC) You wanted references? I got your references. The string of numbers is longer than the four words added. Deal with it bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Deal with it bro" is scarcely a convincing argument that the sources are widely cited and relevant. Perhaps you misapprehended the statement? Collect (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Well at least I have an argument and references. Whoever deletes this, please state why all seven references are invalid instead of bashing talk page humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Give cites that your refs are widely cited by others, that they make specific claims that the US is a "plutocracy" and that they are not WP:FRINGE views. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC) For what other page or statement is it required that one has references for their references? You want an article to prove another article is an article? You would need to delete 99% of Wikipedia based on that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC) I also must point out that not a single one of the other governments named in that list have a single reference, and you are not going about deleting them.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC) United States 3[edit] The United States section consists of (IMO, excessive) quotes, without adequate context to verify that they are relating to what we call "plutocracy". Furthermore, they are form a minority, if not WP:FRINGE, opinion, and should be balanced by reliable opinions which deny the claim that the US forms a plutocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Is New York Times a fringe source? Feel free to add sources stating a counter-argument.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I have added the United States to the list of examples of Plutocracy. It seems reasonable given that the majority of the page indeed talks about problems with the United States. Collect and Arthur Ruben continue to delete my edits. I have attempted to make the changes they wanted. I have added sources and more sources. They continue to delete it stating that I need sources stating that my sources are good. I know of no other place on Wikipedia where one needs sources for sources. Collect has reported me despite making no logical arguments on the talk page. I feel that the person making the deletions should also have an argument for why they can delete contributions. By his logic one would need to delete 99% of Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that he is not actively deleting things in the same paragraph that clearly have no references associated. 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2014‎ (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) What a jumbled mess of comments. I've fixed it. And by the way, you should not add   , as it is hidden comment markup, and ensures that your comment is hidden from view. Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is just a continuation of the above report, likely in retaliation. I have adjusted it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * IPs do not receive Echo/Notify messages; the ping above was wasted. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not previously know that; my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmorrison230582 reported by User:SSHamilton (Result: Both warned)
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=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606364381&oldid=606360462
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606373163&oldid=606371844
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606437220&oldid=606375911
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606498712&oldid=606497450
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606512848&oldid=606512469

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmorrison230582&diff=606519314&oldid=605297047

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606499090&oldid=606219547

Comments: Following the addition of a fully cited paragraph describing an interchange of letters between the Convener of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the Vice-President of the European Commission (Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606344210&oldid=606286368 ) Jmorrison230582 started removing large sections of the article including much properly cited material, without any prior discussion or consensus. In particular, the actions of Jmorrison230582 distorted the factual reporting of the exchange of letters, suppressing key information unless the references were followed. Each time the deleted material has been replaced, Jmorrison230582 has reverted the replacement.

Jmorrison230582 is conducting a similar war at Scottish independence

SSHamilton (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments: the first two edits were more than 24 hours ago and the first of them was not a revert. The later edits are not full reverts either, as significant material was added by me in the interim period. User:SSHamilton also appears to be operating a sock puppet account. I attempted to discuss the changes at the article talk page, but User:SSHamilton used his apparent sock puppet to create a false consensus against my edits. I have reported this at WP:SPI. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that I have attempted to include the material added by User:SSHamilton (and his apparent sock puppet) in a way that gives the article an easier flow and puts it in the context in which the event happened. User:SSHamilton (and the apparent sock) refuse to accept any editing of the material they have added, even in terms of style or flow. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that SSHamilton has raised this, but it should be noted that the passage which Jmorrison230582 is so desperate to distort was added by me to both articles. It is my only contribution to these articles.  The passage is a simple factual report about an important exchange of letters which are part of the public record and properly cited.  Jmorrison230582 apparently wishes to control (own?) the article and insist on reframing the passage to remove items of obvious significance, the effect being to disguise the actual content of the letters, and the position held by the Christine McKelvie.  Jmorrison230582 has also been distorting the chronology, showing speculative comments from political commentators, made before the definitive letter was written, in a way that (to a casual reader) modifies the meaning of the Reding letter.  Such blatant political spin as is being practiced by Jmorrison230582 is surely not compliant with WP policies?  ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jmorrison230582 displays a great tendency to make assumptions. There is nothing in my user name to indicate gender, yet Jmorrison230582 refers to me as a male, why would this be?  For the record, I am a woman.  We are not such unusual creatures, after all, both of the parties in the exchange of letters which form the subject of ElectricTattiebogle's post are also women.  Then there is Jmorrison230582's crazy assertion that ElectricTattiebogle is my sock puppet - why?  The history shows that the passage which Jmorrison230582 is so intent on hiding or distorting was added by ElectricTattiebogle - my role in this is just an attempt to prevent such manipulation.  ElectricTattiebogle and I were at the same meeting here in the US (he has, I think, now returned to Scotland) and were discussing the very low level of the Scottish independence debate and the way that it is reported.  He used Jmorrison230582's attempt to suppress his posting of some facts as a typical tactic, I responded by reverting Jmorrison230582 myself.  Jmorrison230582 needs to stand back and assess their own behavior in this.  How much other misrepresentation and bias has been introduced into these articles by partisan editors?  Unfortunately I do not have the time to investigate further. SSHamilton (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If it walks like a sock, talks like a sock, and edits like a sock, usually it is a sock. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Both parties warned. They are steadily reverting each other since April 29 about how to correctly present the statement of Viviane Reding on behalf of the EU. There is a thread on the talk page about this in which only the two of them have commented. The next time either of them reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) they may be blocked without further notice. The advice at WP:Dispute resolution explains how to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rondonvolante reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:Indefinite block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop undoing the entire contribution. As said before, you have been reported for vandalism of this article. If you have any questions, use the talk box otherwise removing text is a violation of the Terms of Use."
 * 2)  "The original article was properly referenced with appropriate sources. Please review the sources before deleting anything that you question."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 606522261 by Mosfetfaser (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 606520872 by Mosfetfaser (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Single-purpose account repeatedly re-adding tons of material that has previously been deleted as BLP-violations. The user is also edit-warring on a related article, Muddy Waters Research. Thomas.W talk 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I filed a report, not realising this ones' existence, at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard requesting an indefinite block due to this being a single-purpose account. Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely in light of persistent edit warring and BLP violations. Sole purpose account not here to work collaboratively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already warned and blocked various times.

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

Comments: I've been involved in an awful edit conflict with the user AbelM7 for the last month now, not only in the border war article, but in several other articles, , , the edit history of the article "Battle of Parral" offers a simple example of what he does on every one of these articles: this is, he ignores what the sources say and changes the ourcome providing a small word summary of why he personally considers it must be that way, then i revert him telling him that if what he wants to add isn't sourced it can't be added, but he ignores and repeat. I've started multiple discussions on his talk page and he have removed many more, last week we seemed to finally have reached an agreement regarding how the outcomes should be, but two days ago he broke it and started to remove information again. He claims that he didn't knew what i added to the articles until now even though i clearly advised him and he agreed and even wrote over that information after. he is also currently adding unreliable sources to the article (from sites that mirror wikipedia and that are user generated) and seems to not understand even though there is already other editor (Moxy) telling him that what he is doing is wrong &. He have had similar disagreements with other users before &  I really don't know what to do anymore, he simply don't wants to understand and shows no signs of going to recapacite and stop, he have been blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3 revert rule before  and he just did it again as the main diffs above show, i think that more serious measures are necessary with this person. HMWD (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am concerned with the level of competency here. I find it very odd the editor is not aware of any scholarly publication for there changes. Using travel and software web sites and the like for changes to military articles that by definition have lots written about them. -- Moxy (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @Moxy I already told you that information about the 1910–19 Border War is scarce. Most of the results I get are about the 1846–48 Mexican–American War which is a different war. Most of the books I read have information that are already included here.
 * See here - lots out there. If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found at some random website, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may be a fringe theory.-- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@HMWD Hold on, I thought of a compromise that might be able to solve all of this. I will discuss it with you in your talk page. AbelM7 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Moxy Of course I have already check Google books. Those books aren't about the 1910-19 Mexican-American Border War. First results are Border War: Fighting over Slavery before the Civil War, South Africa's border war, 1966-1989, Border War (2007), The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars: Drugs, Immigration, and Homeland Security, Border War (2006), The Border War on Drugs, From Fledgling to Eagle: The South African Air Force During the Border War, Border War: A Tale of Disunion, Quantrill and the Border Wars, and Border War (1985). Those books are either fiction or have nothing to do with the 1910-19 Mexican-American Border War. AbelM7 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected one week by User:Black Kite. Please use the article talk page to reach consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is another report below about the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Billbowler2 reported by User:Darouet (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Today:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

27-28 April:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

At Casualties of the Iraq War:

(User:Billbowler2 admitted here and here that the IP edits were his own, making the sock puppetry apparently accidental, but violation of 3RR purposeful despite my warning).
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - 1st warning - 2nd warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Iraq_War Talk:Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Comments:

Every other editor except User:Billbowler2 has been able to engage in this disagreement, editing on the main pages of Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War and discussing on the talk pages, without going over the 3RR bright line. Bill is clearly editing against consensus at Iraq War, and while only he and I are disagreeing at Casualties of the Iraq War, in both cases he insists on breaking 3RR despite my repeated warnings. After my first warning he logged out and edited as an IP, violating 3RR at Casualties of the Iraq War, so I reported him as a sock. When he stated that he'd logged out accidentally, I took him at his word, but he refused to self-revert and instead broke 3RR again, this time at Iraq War.

The disagreement in both cases is over the nature of body counts versus survey estimates of violent deaths due to conflict. Bill is adamant that the distinction is an arbitrary one pushing a POV. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Billbowler2 has clearly shown a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality about consensus drawn at Talk:Iraq War, with a similar dispute at Casualties of the Iraq War resulting in another 3RR violation. The edit war has persisted for over three days, so a brief block has been placed on Billbower2's account., I should point out that the editing history at Casualties of the Iraq War suggests you have also violated the three-revert rule. I realize that dispute is similar in nature to the other backed by consensus, but it's best to wait for preventive measures to be put in place and revert only when necessary. Despite the violation, I trust that such preventive measures are not needed in your case. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you MusikAnimal . Regarding my own edits - I thought my first edit wouldn't count as a revert, since I was making an original edit (not reverting to a previous version)? Though I understand that "edit warring" isn't necessarily just breaking 3RR, and I fully acknowledge that I went on to defend the initial edit with three reverts, and talk page discussion. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked for a month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "international box office"
 * 2)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Back to edit warring behavior almost immediately after block expired: same disputed content put back in, same article, same rationalization and incorrect interpretation of policy as before (on his talk page: ). While not 3RR, to me, this is definitely edit warring behavior and smacks of WP:GAME and WP:POINT as well. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The complaint in the past was that the disputed figure wasn't sourced. So I have a source. Presumably, other editors are happy about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source that you have added does not pass WP:RS and you have already been told that. The fact remains that you are yet again totally ignoring the issue of consensus and are just doing whatever you please. 88.104.17.77 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the source, its methods, or its numbers. Although that's not really germane to this accusation anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The source does not pass WP:RS. It is an amateur site that states it uses IMDB as a source, which itself is not a valid source for Wikipedia as it is user generated. The fact still remains you are again ignoring the issue of consensus and have continued edit warring on the same article the moment your block expired. 88.104.24.157 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm editing the page normally but you seem to be involved in some kind of vendetta and dragging content issues into this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone buy a pint.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The argument over sources is irrelevant, as edit warring is unacceptable whether the edits are "right" or not. The editor has been blocked for edit warring, and on the expiry of the block has returned to continue the same edit war: that is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HMWD reported by User:AbelM7 (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (The last edit before HMWD started to edit the page)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Already blocked before

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several times   (this is was when we agreed on the outcome)

Comments: HMWD has been edit warring in the Border War (1910–19) aricle ever since he started editing and particularly only seems to have created his account specifically for the Border War (1910–19) article and other articles that includes the Border War such as List of wars involving the United States, List of wars involving Mexico and Battle of Parral and seems to be a single-purpose account. He has been edit warring with me through several articles    and won't stop. He seems to have a personal issue with the way the Border War turned out. The Battle of Parral has had United States (or American) victory since it was created and he changed it  and reverts every time I restore it   He removes information that have been there before he started editing that we doesn't want  claiming for it to be "original research". Last week, we agreed on the outcome of the Border War but then he started to add more information which we didn't agree on. I didn't paid too much attention since I was just relived we had come to a conlusion and I took a break from Wikipedia. After returning and seeing the changes he had done, including the amount of results he had added,  (including removing a sentence that has long been there since the article was created), I later restored  and removed the extra information  but then he added them again. The amount of results that he added is ridiculously too much for a minor early 20th century war like this one. Not even the Seven Years' War, World War I and World War II, which were much bigger wars, have that many results listed. We agreed on the outcome and he goes on adding more results and giving the outcome a ridiculously long term "Mexican Carransista/American Victory on Villista rebels" (it would be the equivalent of having "Allied Victory on the Axis Powers" for every country that participated in World War II "list of wars" aricles) He has been blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3 revert rule before  and continues to edit war. I've tried talking and reasoning with him but he won't stop. He even said he "won't go away". Something must be done with HMWD. AbelM7 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48h. Persistent edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is all messed up ...pls read over Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Protected instead. The wider issue wasn't apparent to begin with. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:204.108.244.86 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not breaking news. This is part of a pattern of corruption at Apollo Group and University of Phoenix.  Should we have a specific section about how Apollo Group buys off politicians and hires people to do "damage control"?"
 * 2)  "Including important legal and consumer information.  Posters appear to be systematically whitewashing article so that the public is unaware of Apollo Group's  systematic abuse of government funds and exploitation of potential students."
 * 3)  "Posters are systematically whitewashing key legal and consumer information about Apollo Group and University of Phoenix.  Be advised, all of your edits are being monitored."
 * 4)  "Key legal and consumer information. If removed, this puts Wikipedia's credibility into question.   Is this eventually going to be an advertisement  for University of Phoenix?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not assuming good faith on University of Phoenix. using TW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on University of Phoenix. using TW"


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Yuvaraj Poondiyan reported by User:AntanO (Result: 24h )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Rajsiva. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rajsiva‎. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Removing templates Anton Talk  17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User:ElectricTattiebogle reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also Sockpuppet investigations/SSHamilton WCM email 18:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:43, 27 April 2014
 * 2) 11:56, 28 April
 * 3) 15:48, 28 Apri


 * ( Non-administrator observation ) I think this is too old. Blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, not to punish users, so I don't believe blocking is needed now.  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong it was a few days ago. And I insist on taking action in respect of this editor because the editor Amensnober91 has been blocked several times for such actions. He also provokes the war of editors. Also this editor was warned that if he again violates the 1RR rule when editing this article it will be blocked indefinitely. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously, a block 5 days after the fact is punishment, not prevention. If this is "persistent behaviour", then an WP:RFC/U may be in the cards.  3RR or 1RR reports must be CURRENT to obain action  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fireydash21 reported by User:Immblueversion (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

( Non-administrator observation ) Of course this made it to AN3. Just a reminder: Immblueversion, you are required to notify a user by adding to the user talk page.

Anyway, I think it's subsided. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and I think this edit war has already ended.

Personal comment: If you study the reversions carefully, you may notice that it caught a change in cleanup templates ( to ), which was added by a certain user after consensus   Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * for escalating edit warring, harassment, and refusal to discuss conflicts on the talk pages. Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)