Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive244

Bobrayner reported by User:Sportmedman (Result: No violation )
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies}}

User being reported: Bobrayner

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3 of my edits reverted by User:Bobrayner in less than 24 hours
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]  "However, this retraction remains controversial.    "   Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:Bobrayner reverted edit, I undid revert and asked to Talk User:Bobrayner reverted same edit again without Talk. 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Attempted to discuss 3RR and Edit Warring in Talk, but User:Bobrayner does not appear to understand Three revert rule or Edit warring. Comments:

Sportmedman (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I made one edit today. Not three edits. I have already attempted to explain this on the article's talkpage but Sportmedman seems to resolutely cling onto the belief that I performed three reverts simultaneously in a single edit. This looks more like a competence problem.
 * Sportmedman, trawling further back through the article history is unlikely to help your case, since other editors have disagreed with your proposed changes (example) in previous weeks.
 * Further discussion of disputed content on the talkpage could be a good idea. Not spurious accusations of editwarring, but actual discussion about the disputed content. Could we try that? bobrayner (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

4th revert was made by User:Bobrayner during same edit in less than 24 hours. "However, this retraction remains controversial.   "   Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talk • contribs)
 * What do you mean? Both edits that you link to were made by different people, and neither of them were Bobrayner?  3RR refers to the same person reverting multiple times - not multiple people disagreeing with your edit (by the way, the latter is the definition of WP:CONSENSUS)  the panda ɛˢˡ”  12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * How about a boomerang? Either for false accusations or for lack of competence... Thomas.W talk 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: That is a blatantly false accusation. As can be clearly seen in the page history Bobrayner has made only one single edit on that article over the past two weeks, so how on earth can you claim that he is edit-warring and has made four reverts in less than 24 hours? Thomas.W talk 11:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tracield reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: Tracield and Iracaz warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editors attempted to discuss this dispute on their individual user talk pages but no attempt was made to discuss the issue on the article talk page and the DRN filing was abandoned by this editor when it was noted that they had indeed crossed the 3 RR bright line.

The editor began a DR/N filing but refused to return to it when the discussion began. I made it clear in the filing that should either editor return to edit warring I would close the case and refer it here. The user Tracield has returned to reverting instead of discussing the content dispute where they initiated the discussion and request. It seems they attempted to wait out the 24 hrs to skirt the 3 revert rule.

I include the history here to also demonstrate that the edit war began much earlier (on April 28) and that there were quite a few more reverts that also include another editor. I will leave it up to those here to decide if both editors are guilty of the violation or if the other editors stopping has made their violation stale. This is a referral from DRN by a volunteer who gave all chance for the editor to stop and behave but it looks like they have not gotten the message.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like to report that I did not know to leave the page alone after filing the DRN. This was my first filing, being a semi-new user. I will make note of this procedure. Thank you. Tracield (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Tracield and Iracaz are both warned for 3RR violation. The next person who reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) may be blocked. The dispute is too stale to issue blocks now since more than 24 hours have passed since the last revert. It is noted that Tracield abandoned their own DRN after filing it. I recommend that Tracield return to the DRN since a compromise may be possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you ed. I purposely left the DRN open, just in case this was the outcome.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fraggle81 reported by User:86.142.250.139 (Result: no violation)
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:


 * . Simple reverts of vandalism on a BLP. Reporter blocked. Kuru   (talk)  23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: No violation)
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 needs to calm down and talk this out.

WeldNeck (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff 3 and 4 are consecutive edits. I have no idea why the editor is stating "User needs to calm down" as there is no indication of excitement or anger in the tone of my edit summaries. I began a talk page discussion, but previous to this removal the content had been taken out at least two other times and was added back with no explanation. While discussion is one way to determine consensus, editing is another natural process that determines there really is no consensus for the content. It is off topic and undue weight. While reverting is not my favorite thing, I do feel it is justified at times, but never by going over the bright line rule.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . I see three reverts, but not four. That said, it's better not to repeatedly revert. The best way to demonstrate consensus to remove the material is for multiple people to remove it. Let someone else take it out next time, and the removal will carry more weight. Tom Harrison Talk 00:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: No violation)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=605252892

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=606721642
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&diff=606725535&oldid=606725088

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=606729747#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Collins&oldid=604981085#Request_For_Comment

Comments:

This case is documented in its entirety on the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents board in full detail. The most recent example of edit warring, happening today, has prompted the discussion to be moved to this section. Please read the discussion here first. That link documents past reports, past incidents and everything leading up to this moment. The material documented in that report is being reported here as well, as it details the poor conduct of this user. This user has been reported three times: twice on the Edit Warring noticeboard, and last week on the Incidents noticeboard. That third case remains open, while the results of the first two notices can be seen in that Incidents noticeboard discussion. Today, User:Winkelvi removed an entire section of content on Simon Collins that was recently approved in a Request for Comment session. The edit history can be seen here:. One of the revisions can be seen here:. All of the content in question was approved in an RfC on that article's talk page last month (see: ). This goes completely against the consensus reached in the RfC. This user even added a "citation needed" template when no such template was required. This is unacceptable behavior and could perhaps be considered vandalism at this point.

User:Winkelvi then reverted my reversion of that user's vandalism (see: ). The comment that user submitted is: "Reverted 2 edits by Vuzor (talk): No, the content I removed wasn't "approved" and consensus can change. (TW))" This is ridiculous, considering the content was approved. Consensus has not changed, so the excuse that "consensus can change" is complete nonsense. This has become ridiculous.Vuzor (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a case of forum shopping that may turn into a case of WP:BOOMERANG. The other two instances of edit warring reports Vuzor filed are from a year ago and no one was blocked at that time.  Warnings were issued to both of us for one of the reports. Vuzor has a tendency to over-state and over-dramatize, I urge anyone reviewing this to not take his claims at face-value, but to look into diffs and page history to get the real story.


 * Today, I reverted once - that is not edit warring. Vuzor reverted three times. Two of those reverts were wholesale reverts of editing I had done on the entire article.  (1 - ; 2 - ; 3 - .  That appears to me to be edit warring behavior.  A 3RR Warning was placed on his page here: .  Please see the following I recently added to Vuzor's report at AN/I, found here: .  The report he filed days ago has received little to no attention.  There is also an RfC that Vuzor started days ago which has also received no attention.  It can be seen here: .  Both the RfC and the AN/I remain open.  It is my opinion that in order to get the punitive result he wants for me, he has come here, filing a frivolous 3RR. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You made two reversions. I made two. To avoid any further edit warring, I redirected you to the AN/I page. The first and second of my "reversions" as listed in your comment were back-to-back as a result of attempting to use the "undo" button. They count as one reversion; the second was in response to your second reversion. I told you to take your reasoning for the bulk removal to the AN/I, considering you did not comment on the talk page in response to the RfC. Your first was the wholesale removal of the content approved in the RfC. User:Winkelvi has edit warred in regards to nearly everything on a particular set of pages over the past year. The user has used abusive language, fought against consensus, and attempted to prevent additional material from being added to this series of pages (found on Template:Sound of Contact). Vuzor (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So, I'm no math genius, but it occurs to me that 2 reverts is not a violation of 3RR. Because 2 is not only not a larger number than 3, but a smaller one. Since this board is for reporting violations of either the general 3RR for the whole project, or specific 1RR violations, that makes this very easy. There is already an ANI thread about this issue, let it get resolved there. --  At am a  頭 15:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update: Sorry to comment after the conclusion was posted, but User:Winkelvi has reverted the article again. This counts as three reversions in a span of seventeen hours, including the two mentioned initially in this report (see:, , ). The user even erased additional material from the page. It appears User:Winkelvi just couldn't leave it alone while we sorted things on the AN/I. Vuzor (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was never two reversions from me to begin with, just one. The latest is only the second, and not for the sake of edit warring, but to restore the good edits I made that you reverted completely without consideration for the article. And, no, there was no "additional material" "erased" from the page. Nothing is being sorted out at AN/I, that's over with, too. I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please put on your big boy pants, comment at the article talk page, and drop the stick, Vuzor. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Winkelvi, Atama's own comment on the AN/I declares that you made two reversions initially (see: ):
 * "   I just closed the AN3 report with no violation. It was easy, since the board is for reporting 3RR (or 1RR) violations, and per your own admission there were only 2 reverts. For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors).


 * Boing! said Zebedee was correct, you need to stop sniping at each other. This boils down to a content dispute and should be handled as such. This should be hashed out on the discussion page of the article if possible. There was an RfC, and while I see there was no formal closure (the template expired and was removed by a bot) the comments should definitely be taken into account when determining a consensus. If you can't come to a decision calmly between the two of you, you should take this to WP:DRN. I can't say, however, that any solid consensus was ever hashed out on the talk page of the article; a few editors did provide input but there was nothing actually agreed to. So I can't say that either of you is violating consensus with your actions. But you need to stop attacking each other over this. -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "


 * This would count as the third. Vuzor (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what Atama was saying. What he was saying is that your report was for two reverts, not three. He never said I reverted more than once in a 24-hour period. My history at the article yesterday was editing, not reverting. Even if it was for two reverts, today only makes three. No violation. This is closed. I've started a dicussion at the article talk page. You didn't get what you wanted: to remove me from being able to edit the article and its associated articles (remember your request to have me topic banned?). Go to the article talk page and start discussing and stop fighting and sniping, as Atama suggested. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The quotation itself begs to differ. I do not understand why you would deny what was clearly said. I have proposed a solution on the AN/I report. Consider it. I am negotiating with you. Vuzor (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See Atama's clarification at the article talk page here: . Hopefully, this is the end of the discussion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned Alhanuty and Paolowalter)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:01, 2 May 2014
 * 2) 19:15, 2 May 2014

I just reverted twice,that's it,nothing wrong here,I didn't revert 3 times,and my edits are based on a reliable source reuters,http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN0DI15B20140502?irpc=932 And I am not going to break the 3 revert rule.Alhanuty (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Alhanuty you do not properly understand the data from this source because source only said that because clashes hampered the transport links with Sayqal air bases and it makes it difficult to export the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons there because because it isolated air base located in the desert but the source does not say that it is the rebels besieged it. Also source only said that Dumayr air base, came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels but source not said about clashes in this base or around her. So you were wrong when noted these two air bases as besieged.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Based from the template,if a base comes under attack we put a ring on the base,so Dumeir needs a ring around it,and for sayqal,it say isolated and the rebels are advancing on it,but okay then for sayqal But So why did you report me then.Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are the data directly from the source: Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held. While the rebel attack appears more focused on Dumair and on breaking the military stranglehold which Assad's forces have imposed closer to the capital, the fighting has increasingly isolated Sayqal and encroached towards it. The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal, which lies between Dumair and Sayqal, and cut the road linking them. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I repeat why did you report me if I didn't the three revert rule,this page is used only if an editor breaks the rule,which I didn't.Alhanuty (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly Alhanuty broke the one revert rule (1RR) wich is in effect in the Syrian civil war template, and is not credible that he dont know that rule, wich have been widely commented on the template talk page (where he had been editing the map for many months), and also he was notified about the general sanctions, so...-- HC PUNX  KID 09:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The template syrian civil war map.doesn't state there is a one edit rule,also the situation between me and hannibal has been resolved,so stop.Alhanuty (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dont need say that the problem is solved because you have grossly violated 1RR rule but in this article is permitted to make only one revert of per day. But at the same time I admit the fact that you not have broken the 3RR rule. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Alhanuty and User:Paolowalter are warned for violating the WP:1RR on this page. Next time blocks will be issued. The talk page of this template redirects to Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War where the 1RR notice is prominently displayed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jiltsedge reported by User:Renzoy16 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "abs cbn fakcrupt"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This has been the IP that I reported before who was adding non-factual information in various Philippine-film related articles. He keeps bugging me, telling me that I am bias towards a film outfit called Star Cinema which is owned by ABS-CBN. I don't know what's with him. He keeps starting to make an issue, but I decided not to entertain him. I just want to stop his behavior, that's all. A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Proof of his behavior while still being an IP:
 * Vandalism in my talk page
 * Gave him a warning. He was blocked after
 * Previous history of vandalism in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013
 * Comparison of edits showing that IP and Jiltsedge are one: Jiltsedge's edit and IP's edit
 * Aside from these history, he keeps adding a twitter search result as a reference. We don't allow that in Wikipedia.-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See his behavior below (he created a new section with full of allegations).-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

you started it im just stating my side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like both of you should be blocked for WP:3RR. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Well, I didn't knew there was such WP:3RR rule. But thanks for letting me know about that. However, one thing is clear. The reported person keeps adding false information and that is why I keep reverting his edits. Personal attacks? False accusations? Repeated vandalisms? Doesn't that deserve more weight for a block than blocking someone who was only protecting an article from having false information?-- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

that's fine as long as he gets block as well you don't want a company mole in your site his spying on all of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Renzoy16 is a fancrapt of abs cbn i have some evidence
 * Television programs
 * Survivor (TV series)
 * Survivor Philippines
 * Survivor Philippines: Celebrity Doubles Showdown
 * Pinoy Big Brother
 * Pinoy Big Brother: Unlimited
 * The Biggest Loser
 * The Biggest Loser: Pinoy Edition
 * The Biggest Loser Pinoy Edition: Doubles
 * The X Factor Philippines
 * The X Factor Philippines (season 1)
 * List of The X Factor Philippines (season 1) finalists
 * The Amazing Race Philippines
 * The Amazing Race Philippines 1
 * Pilipinas Got Talent
 * Pilipinas Got Talent (season 1)
 * Pilipinas Got Talent (season 2)
 * Pilipinas Got Talent (season 3)
 * Pilipinas Got Talent (season 4)
 * Kanta Pilipinas
 * The Voice (TV series)
 * The Voice of the Philippines
 * The Voice of the Philippines (season 1)

He created all of this TV shows are from his favorite channel abs cbn his using his position to spread lies especially in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013

i want him to stop edit warring the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 with his bias figures in favor of Abs Cbn's movie outfit Star cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Judging by the edit history on List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 and the warning you've just had on your talkpage, looks like you'll be blocked, and quick. You need to raise issues about the film article on the talkpage.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wondering who will take the block? You, me, or both? Let's be real here. Everybody knows who deserve the block, its you. Senseless rationales. Bad behavior. -- A R E N Z O Y 1 6 A • t a l k • 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

obviously his been planted by his station abs cbn so that he could promote and campaign for his company you have a mole cant you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Renzoy16 is a company mol
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. Jiltsedge, if he is also using IPs, is warned about the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:109.188.125.133 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:, probably other IPs


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

One IP-hopping user is insisting on going against long established talk page consensus. Recommend page protection to prevent further disruption. Charles (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. If he moves on to other articles a range block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Miraclehr1 reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: 48h)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

23:22, 29 April 2014
 * Ligi Ndogo S.C.

22:54, 29 April 2014
 * 2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Ligi Ndogo S.C.
 * 1) 11:38, 3 May 2014
 * 2) 16:38, 2 May 2014
 * 3) 09:21, 2 May 2014
 * 4) 13:19, 30 April 2014


 * 2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season
 * 1) 11:46, 3 May 2014‎
 * 2) 16:43, 2 May 2014‎
 * 3) 09:13, 2 May 2014
 * 4) 13:52, 30 April 2014
 * 5) 13:14, 30 April 2014
 * 6) 12:32, 30 April 2014
 * 7) 12:29, 30 April 2014
 * 8) 12:27, 30 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:23, 2 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:54, 30 April 2014

Comments:

The user constantly reverts my clean-up edits for no apparent reason like he owns them. His diffs clearly had clutter, poor grammar and formatting mistakes which I've been trying to correct but he doesn't want to accept my contributions. Also refused to reply to my messages on his talk, and even after notifying him of the report he continues with the reverts. Please handle this ASAP. Davykamanzi &rarr; talk  &middot; &#32; cont ribs  12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is no one looking into this? Reports around mine are being resolved and mine isn't?? Davykamanzi → talk  •  cont ribs  14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . This is not as straightforward as many AN3 reports, but there are definitely ownership and communication problems. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User:009o9 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:24 hr )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ 300 is the confirmed munber by BLS spokepersn Jessica Kershaw, BLS had 11,621 Permanent  employees in 2012 according to official Wiki page"
 * 2)  "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Becket Adams is professional journalist, Beck/Blaze already sourced elsewhere in article"
 * 3)  "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Daily Caller is in the White House rotating press pool"
 * 4)  "/* Bureau of Land Management actions */ paste revert, references are fine Glenn Beck/Blaze already in used in artilce"
 * 1)  "/* Bureau of Land Management actions */ paste revert, references are fine Glenn Beck/Blaze already in used in artilce"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  by User:Tiptoety.


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly warned not to remove tags inserted by other editors without consensus on the talk page.

I disputed his use of sources and tagged them as questionable. He removed those tags in the "paste revert." I reinserted them and advised him that it is inappropriate for the user whose sources are being disputed to unilaterally remove the tags. He has, once again, reverted those tags out without discussion or consensus on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep, good faith edits. Out of the half dozen inline tags that editor posted in a few paragraphs, I am double checking each for paid journalism and notability of source, I am also in the process of providing additional sources. Editor's section tag will remain until consensus is reached.009o9 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So you admit that you intentionally violated the 1RR. OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the panda ₯’ 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Twittspiral reported by User:SuperHamster (Result:24hr )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606854172 by SuperHamster (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 606852410 by SuperHamster (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 606849921 by SuperHamster (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 606847618 by ClueBot NG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Havergal College. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Recent edits */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Attempted to assume good faith with user's edits, and tried to resolve issue on user's talk page. User never replied or attempted to correspond ~Super Hamster  Talk Contribs 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the panda ₯’ 00:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:122.168.177.36 reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is not vandalism. And Summichum go join your KQ firqa."
 * 2)  "this is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "this is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "this is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "this is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "this is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "this is not vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user is disrupting Bohra articles by removing content Summichum (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing Admins I don't know enough about Islamic issues to be able to express an opinion on who is right or wrong in their editing, but I will suggest that Summichum's edit history warrants some close scrutiny. He/she has a history of EXTREMELY bold editing that includes a lot of mass redacting of material with which he/she disagrees and sometimes labeling edits by others as vandalism. Recently I had to remove CSD tags he/she had applied to a number of articles after gutting them down to a stub. An examination of his/her contrib log showed a number of articles had been speedy deleted at his/her prompting. FreeRangeFrog subsequently reviewed these and concluded that they had been nominated under highly improper circumstances and reverted the deletions. See the talk pages of all editors/Admins mentioned in my comment for more details. On another note this editor has demonstrated a grasp of WP policy, which has been quoted in support of their very aggressive editing, that I do not normally encounter in such a new editor (only a little over 600 edits). This is true going back as far as I was able to in their contrib log. Finally the history of aggressive editing and its narrow focus suggests an agenda. But again I don't know enough about intra-Islamic sectarian disputes to be able to express any informed opinions on the merits of the editing conflicts. Anyways I thought anyone reviewing this matter should be aware of some of the deeper background. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No violation The edits are certainly not vandalism, as Summichum claims; this is a content dispute where both sides have reverted equally. I have watchlisted the article and will protect it if further edit-warring occurs. Use the talk page or use WP:DRN. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:009o9 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This is not a complex case, obvious WP:COI from users' actions and from user page. Editor cannot support claims, dictates acceptable references (i.e. in one instance Glenn Beck (already ref'd in article) acceptable for his Left viewpoint, same source is not acceptable for Right viewpoint)009o9 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've been trying to tone down some contentious racism accusations against a living person, but two editors insist the indecent belongs in the lede. (There are redirect to this article using the mans name.)

Example of what I'm dealing with, I added Balance:

This edit -- adding balance -- to the lede no less After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist. Ben Swann examined Bundy's comments in broader context and found that Bundy was not given a truthful representation, the American Thinker revealed that Bundy was speaking to the consequences of Government welfare on black families and stated, "He is no more a racist than is E.W. Jackson, Thomas Sowell..." David Brock of Media Matters for America confirmed that they themselves were the source of this news.

 Becomes this in mere moments -- I have no idea how many sentences have been rendered useless like the Ben Swann one below--the entire article is going to have to be read over with a fine tooth comb. After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was widely condemned in mainstream media, and was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, many of whom forcefully condemned his remarks as racist. Ben Swann and the American Thinker defended Bundy's comments as being truthful.
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes arguments. Just as we do not go into extensive detail about the statements made about Bundy's racist remarks in the lead, neither we do not go into extensive detail on the counter-claims about those remarks - which are made by, at best, fringe organizations - in the lead. I did not revert your edit (which would have involved a wholesale deletion) - I edited your edit.
 * As I have noted, "The Gateway Pundit" is not an acceptable source for any contentious statement about a living person, and it cannot stand even for a moment. Please see the biographies of living persons policy for information about sourcing claims about living people.
 * I also reject any claim that I have a conflict of interest - I do not work for the agency involved in this dispute. Unless the above user is asserting that all 4.1 million federal employees automatically have a conflict of interest, which is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

tried to provide reflist, collects all refs on page, no good009o9 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No violation. Not only are the diffs provided not all reverts, but some are correct within policy (i.e. negative statements supported by blogs or opinion pieces). Suggest WP:DRN as the correct venue here. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another admin has already determined that the clear prohibition against any reverts was violated. Edit warring notice board isn't just 3RR and an experienced editor like yourself should have recognized that. 184.241.11.124 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting that a random IP shows up to comment on this... block-evasion by User:009o9 perhaps? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:23.115.148.21 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It's Not True!"
 * 2)  " None of this legal difficulties ever happened its false information! Please delete it!"
 * 3)  "/* Legal difficulties */"
 * 4)  "None of this "Legal Difficulties" Bullshit is true! This is Peter Lemongello, Jr. I think I would know!!!!! Whoever is doing this better cut this shit off before I take to the police for harassment!!!!"
 * 1)  "None of this "Legal Difficulties" Bullshit is true! This is Peter Lemongello, Jr. I think I would know!!!!! Whoever is doing this better cut this shit off before I take to the police for harassment!!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor claims to be Peter Jr. and has repeatedly deleted sourced information despite warnings. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest no further action (see my comments on the IP's talk), and would prefer to see this report speedily closed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. No problem with that. Sorry if I was overzealous. Seemed like a notable and well-documented series of events and I felt like it was described in proportion to the third-party coverage on it, but I can understand your rationale I think. EricEnfermero  HOWDY! 06:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some references to RS's, and if this wasn't a BLP issue, I'd say they suffice, but when considering due weight, BLP, and what sources we currently have, both their small number and little depth, I'd say leave the section out. And yes, there was edit warring here (from all sides), and the issue would have probably been helped with less semi-automated edits and blanket reverts (from all sides), and more discussion (and more experience in the way Wikipedia works from the IP, but newcomers lack that by definition, unfortunately), but we are where we are, and I think this should be settled now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected. The IP continues to add promotional text in spite of Martijn's reasonable advice. It would be best to get a talk page consensus before anyone re-adds the material about legal problems in Florida. The article can probably do without it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Haldrik
URGENT. Assistance of more than one admin needed.

I filed a report against Bloodofox for violating the Three Revert Rule.

On 10:49, 2014 May 6 in the History, this report was deleted without notification by User:Spike Wilbury (improperly?) (to cover up the wrongdoing by Bloodofox?) (is Spike Wilbury a sockpuppet or buddy of Bloodofox?).

To admins: Please look into this matter to make sure proper proceedure is being followed, and the results against Bloodofox follow through.

Here, are the posts that were quitely deleted.

User:Bloodofox reported by User:Haldrik
Bloodofox appears to have a history of edit warring, where he pushes a POV corresponding to a modern idiosyncratic Neo-Pagan religion. He is currently violating the Three Revert Rule here in the Elf article. See history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elf&action=history Haldrik (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that has come out of the woodwork again and up is to his usual pattern. This time he seems to be inappropriately refactoring sourced text and removing portions at whim and without explanation. Last time we saw him he was around August of 2013, where he was attempting to impose all sorts of "dwarfs are medieval vampires" stuff on the dwarf article. After all sorts of abuse from Haldrik, this eventually got him [blocked for 32 hours]. We saw no more of him after. I recommend an administration step in or other users simply revert him when he can't abide by policy. I have no idea what he's going on about regarding "Neo-Pagan religion"; a major scholar on the topic was just editing the article, which is what I reverted it back to (see talk). I guess this is just some sort of attack on what he suspects is my religion. Nice! Anyway, I didn't violate WP:3RR and in fact I tried to get Haldrik on the talk page, but he hasn't responded there. He simply calls me a vandal and reverts without further explanation. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Metalmicah reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed misreported information. Added to the end of Christianity section."
 * 2)  "/* Timeline */"
 * 3)  "associated acts are not where they only share one musician, so there would be no associated acts. Need reference as to why band is on hiatus. No agreement between members as to why. Band never said they were going on w/o Tim. It's a new band"
 * 4)  "corrected outdated information from incorrect and speculative articles. Replaced with new references."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 607101563 by 3family6 (talk) Former members is the reason. Only one related actual member"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 607102774 by Winkelvi (talk) The ex-band member themselves refer to AILD as their previous band in the interview sited"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607101563 by 3family6 (talk) Former members is the reason. Only one related actual member"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607102774 by Winkelvi (talk) The ex-band member themselves refer to AILD as their previous band in the interview sited"


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


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


 * Comments:

I apologize for not taking the time to fully understand the policy. I didn't know until recently that there was an edit limit and that the way I was editing came across the way it did. I also don't fully understand where to even go to respond to the warning I received. Hopefully this is step in the right direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalmicah (talk • contribs) 02:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Persistent edit warring despite warnings

Seems to be "timing" his reverts to avoid 3RR.


 * 1) Revision as of 20:00, 2 May 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 20:15, 2 May 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 20:10, 3 May 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 21:20, 4 May 2014

Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

From my perspective, the edit warring on this article is being perpetuated by other editors (including user:cwobeel) who continue to restore content to the article without engaging in specifics on the article Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It might also be useful to inquire how user:cwobeel became involved in the dispute, since he/she has no prior history of involvement with the page.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made two edits and stopped due to the persistent edit warring. Cwobeel (talk)
 * # of times user:cwobeel has engaged regarding the specific issues that have been posted (repeatedly) in article Talk = 0.CFredkin (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've extended my edit intervals in order to give the editor who posted/restored the bulk of the content the opportunity to respond in Talk, since he/she appears to be on another continent. So far that has been mostly in vain. In addition I recently posted a RfC in an effort to engage other editors who might actually be willing to discuss specifics.CFredkin (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is great that you have done an RFC after I posted this; it is much better that editwarring. I and others have requested multiple times that rather than delete content, which seems to be your way of editing, that you place citation needed or other content-related templates. That is much better than deleting long pieces of content multiple times and will allow other editors in different time zones to improve articles. Cwobeel (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There appears to be no actual "edit war" here, though it is evident that POV claims are being made which are not supported by reliable sources for fact (a number of opinions are given great weight in Wikipedia's voice, alas) (that the pact is primarily aimed at aiding corporations). To that extent, it is clear the proper noticeboard is WP:NPOV/N where eyes may be added to the morass. I know the topic is "dry as dirt", but spicing it up with opinions is not how to deal with it. Collect (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that the fourth listed revert was more than 48 hours after the first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Lokie Dokie reported by User:331dot (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606785405 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606785405 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606785405 by 331dot (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Harassment of other users on Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user is continually trying to reopen closed discussions, including the linked-to one at the VP, but also on the ITN pages. They have also indicated that they are on a crusade to get their point across. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

331dot is continually trying to close sections which are complaints about him. That is quite obviously completely improper. And his accusations of harassment are nothing short of a disgusting smear. As such, I have raised my own complaint about this, and other things, at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I will point out to others that read this that I am not the only one who has dealt with this user, or closed their posts. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And in case anyone doesn't read that noticeboard, 331dot has informed Rambling Man and Doktorbuk about this, but if they turn up here to talk shit about me, be advised they are also the subject of my complaint over there, so I of course reject anything they have to say, unless they have a change of heart and start speaking openly and honestly about what they've been doing to me today. I shouldn't have to point things like this out, but it's becoming clear to me that some people on Wikipedia (specifically Doktorbuk), will sometimes exploit the fact that perhaps not everybody is aware of what the relation is between various users, before trying to influence things as a supposedly neutral observer (I guess I'll have to spell it out though - I have specifically used one of Doktorbuk's comments as an example of what's aparently going wrong with how "consensus" is assessed at 'In the News'. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

To avoid this discussion taking place in several locations, I am willing to allow this to be closed and the discussion confined to the page this user started(and linked to above). If that is not desired, that's OK too. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As his contribution history shows, LD is being a curious nonsense across numerous pages, despite his complaint being involved with an issue in one specific part of Wikipedia. I closed a discussion for getting into a circle of insults and counter claims with no constructive purpose. Lokie has showed almost no civil behaviour in any of his recent edits, and I wager he won't start any time soon. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, so, you saw a section opened at Village Pump, and before anyone (not already involved) had even commented, you decided it had no constructive purpose, and shut it down. Even though it was only there because the exact same counter-productive approach had been taken by Rambling Man at Wikipedia talk:In the news? And that's what you class as civil behaviour is it? Interesting. Most people would think the civil thing to do in that situation, would have been to take some step that would actually resolve the dispute (and of course, to disclose your connection with the person whose section you were closing, if you felt you couldn't stop yourself from getting involved at all). Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and "How sad, oh dear, never mind" is civil is it? Do you think the outside world would agree that this is how someone claiming to be a paragon of ciivlity would say when shutting down someone else's complaint before anyone has even answered it? You've got a real nerve, talking to me about civil behaviour. Although I have to say, your approach looks pretty normal for Wikipedia to me - completely and totally hypocritical. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So a new guy heads straight for ITN/C with his first batch of edits? Someone do a WP:SOCK check on this "newbie".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. But if Lokie Dokie is conducting a crusade, it's going to run out of ammunition soon. See WP:STICK. And all this excitement from a brand-new editor such as Lokie Dokie raises questions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Lokie has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility and DeadHorse doktorb wordsdeeds 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And now blocked indef for being a sock account. To quote Joe Cabot - "You don't need proof when you have instinct".  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: Reporter blocked for 2 weeks )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607130787 by (talk) . Vandalism Content"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607023477 by Summichum (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Qutbi Bohra. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is threatening me, and has also changed my user talk page , he is trying to remove well cited content Summichum (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reporter Blocked for 2 weeks. Was warned on earlier AN3 report (see above) and this is the third time in a short space of time. Black Kite (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by QuackGuru (talk): Unsourced - removing per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Dougweller: No, the category description does not trump WP:BLP, which says that this must be "explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source". (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Pseudoscientist category */ cmt"
 * 2)   "/* Pseudoscientist category */ EW has to stop"


 * Comments:

This editor was blocked (and reversal denied) for 48 for the same behavior and resumed this exact behavior almost immediately. Talk page editing seems tenditious, possible sock/meat puppetry. Same activity on multiple articles. Propose topic ban. MrBill3 (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC) See previous report. Similar behavior in other articles diff, diff, diff and diff. See also SPI with multiple examples on several articles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, these are three edits, which doesn't break 3RR. Secondly, this is a recent addition, so it should stay out of the article until there is consensus to include it. Thirdly, the allegation of sock/meat puppetry is completely false - what actually happened is that there was an IP editor who happened to agree with me. Fourthly, I removed the category Category:Pseudoscientists because it was unsourced, and as such must be removed from the article immediately, per WP:BLP. Fifthly, it was I who started the talk page discussion. Sixthly, not one source has been offered on the talk page that supports the addition of the category. Seventhly, those arguing for inclusion are doing so on the basis that it is "implied" in (unspecified) sources, but WP:BLP demands explicit sourcing. Eighthly, the whole category is problematic, and as such I have nominated it for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Fully protected for one week. StAnselm, after the previous one can I strongly suggest that you leave this category alone until the CfD has concluded? Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Markdrows reported by User:Summichum (Result: reporter blocked for 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607130787 by (talk) . Vandalism Content"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607023477 by Summichum (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Qutbi Bohra. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is threatening me, and has also changed my user talk page , he is trying to remove well cited content Summichum (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result of this and  complete notice was removed intentionally by a new editor ( probably sock puppet)being restored by me. This editor has removed material from this page earlier also to hide his activities. Result of this notice is well discussed in the next complain booked by me.--Md iet (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Md iet (Result: Already blocked, warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This editor has deleted the material 3 times above using one or other means even after giving clear advice at. A third party Lurente also intervened at and edited the article having same inclusion at. Which was again reverted by sumichum at #, Sumichum then agreed with user:Lurente and matter was added by him at. Some further well sourced material were further added by me to complete the article.

This fellow has again deleted complete material, including earlier material edited by user:Lurente

4. 5.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: #
 * 1)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments:

Regarding Raudat Tahera ceremony enough material covering  complete incident available. Sumichum wants to add OR correlating medical reports material with ceremony. Medical reports were clearly comments for London incident with specific dates of 4th June and stated his blatant false OR that in 'Raudat Tahera' ceremony Late syedna was used as 'prop'.

Here in this article also he is doing similar thing, mixing Mumbai ceremony with hospital reports. He has reported that 'such incapacitated condition of Burhanuddin was used to mastermind a fake succession ceremony, fooling the thousands present'. This is completely fabricated statement, there is no mention of these points in citation refered. Reports just mention that "Syedna suffered a debilitating stroke in London in 2011"...'It is inconceivable that someone his age and with neurological deficits would have such a profound, yet transient recovery'. These reports were described for London incident, nowhere related with Mumbai ceremony which was done after a long period. He has deliberately used Wiki to make propaganda of his POV, blaming complete community and its faith. How can he use words like 'such incapacitated condition', 'mastermind a fake', and 'fooling' words by his own. While adding his OR part, he is removing other well related complete well sourced material(which was even edited by third editor Lurente), to push his POV only.

There are pending case for disrupting against this fellow: .

This fellow has unnecessary blamed genuine editor to humiliate them:  .

And doing disruption continuously and blaming others and trying to make such a mess that admin to protect the articles :  .

This fellow is disrupting the editing in all related article to push his partition view. He has recently joined Wiki in Feb after this controversy incident, is blocked twice, reminded several times, discussed in COI NB. Strong action requested please.--Md iet (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Summichum received a two week block in the report right above this one. Liz  Read! Talk! 12:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This punishment seems to be very small, he has already faced two such block and no effect, we have to face him again after two weeks? He is humiliating complete community (claiming himself out of community?) and genuine editors by his mischievous activities rather 'nuisances'. He has no patience in forcing his POV. Please read my report above and suggest what can be a strong action to make things (?) straight.--Md iet (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I just left a note on your talk page unaware that you were already on top of this. For the record I think the sanction is reasonable though I would add a caveat. Given his very aggressive editing and apparent recidivism I suggest Summichum be put on notice that any further disruptive editing will result in a topic ban. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Md iet, the blocks are escalating, first 24 hours, then 1 week and now 2 weeks. It's likely that the next, if it occurs, will be for 1 month. I think what is important is to have more eyes on this editor to catch future problems, should they occur. I think that is likely now. Thanks for the note, Ad Orientem, I responded on my talk page. Liz  <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Summichum is already blocked two weeks per an earlier report. He is now warned that, if he will not wait for consensus on Dawoodi Bohra topics, he may be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Freshacconci reported by User:SunlightWriter (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sid_Dinsdale&oldid=607225098

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

<I have attempted to engage user Freshacconci to resolve disputed inclusions on the talk page after carefully detailing rationale for all changes/inclusions in the article. Rather than engaging on substance, the user continually reverts to a highly problematic version of the article full of NPOV and WP:BLP violations. The content I added was all sourced and relevant. The removals were of unsourced material that should be removed unless sourced, per WP:BLP.>


 * Using watchdog.org and redtstate.org as sources for a BLP and reverting to keep those edits may lead to sanctions on BLP grounds. SunlightWriter may consider themselves warned that reversion to poor sources of that kind may lead to sanctions.''  Acroterion   (talk)   22:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SunlightWriter reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: No violation, SunlightWriter warned on sourcing )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607227357 by Freshacconci (talk)Changes were all explained. This is not a campaign page (NPOV). Material must be sourced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607226855 by Freshacconci (talk)Articles should be campaign-issue related here."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607237439 by Freshacconci (talk)Freshacconci please see detailed explanation on talk page. Your preferred version of this article violates NPOV and WP:BLP"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607237439 by Freshacconci (talk)Freshacconci please see detailed explanation on talk page. Your preferred version of this article violates NPOV and WP:BLP"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Sid Dinsdale. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sid Dinsdale. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Major Changes, 5/5/14 */ comment"


 * Comments:

I have reverted twice now myself but this is a BLP issue and the controversial material should be reverted <b style="color:#000000;">freshacconci</b> talk to me  21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * However, the use of watchdog.org and redstate.org, and reverting to keep such sources, is concerning.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/109.60.4.85 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (not the same IP, not the same day, but from same country!)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:109.60.4.85 (multiple diffs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Swami Maheshwarananda (long discussion, many diffs)

Comments:

BLP issues, violates 3RR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * for severe BLP violation, this is not edit warring. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:Anarchangel (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Collect has been unresponsive to reasoning on the issue of section blanking on the Donald Sterling page, and with little resistance, has given little consideration at all to other editors on Michael Grimm (politician). That is the background, and like most disputes, it is somewhat equivocal. Honestly, out of the two issues the content removal is the most important, but life is short and the other is far easier to show.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

26th: Michael Grimm (politician)
 * 1) 21:26, 25 April 2014 -pending
 * 2) 23:26, 25 April 2014 -Collect removes one of the sources that multiple editors have provided as a citation for something that they have all complained of Collect removing- "fucking" used, by Grimm, as a curse word rather than a description of an activity.
 * 3) 00:24, 26 April 2014‎ -removal of same source. It is sad to see Collect in the edit summary instructing the editor he reverted to take it to Talk, while simultaneously subverting the consensus on Talk
 * 4) 02:32, 26 April 2014‎ -true, funny, even, but yeh, VIO. This convinces people we need Collect, but really, anyone would have caught it
 * 5) 21:56, 26 April 2014 -5th, but on the next day by half an hour. & a good call-charges not yet filed. Shame; if C had not spent two edits on C's own personal vision of what the Talk page consensus was, this would have been a good edit and a 3RR instead of 5

28th: Turns out it was 5RR
 * 1) 12:15, 28 April 2014‎ -typos?
 * 2) 15:32, 28 April 2014 -FBI incident removed
 * 3) 17:39, 28 April 2014 -FBI incident removed, one guess in a hurry: now reads, "not released to release". WEIGHT invoked; this rule should be renamed LIGHTWEIGHT, to reflect its purely subjective nature. Illraute warns him of 3RR in the next edit summary
 * 4) 02:07, 29 April 2014 -District 13, once 11. True, and location certainly matters to the voters, but the district post is by number, and succession thereby
 * 5) 12:01, 29 April 2014 -11/13

In the summary of this edit, Collect mistakes the rules for article deletion of BLPs for the rules on editing articles :
 * "the discussion on the talk page shows no consensus for this edit - and thus the onus is on you to gain consensus first here".

In point of fact, all that is required is RS to make the edit according to IAR and CCC and BOLD, although it could be considered tendentious rather than BOLD to make one. I did not look to see if there were any, just saying
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Pretty much everything in and after Talk:Michael Grimm (politician)/Archive 1; it seems Collect has been battling here since February, and warring on the 23rd of March, 25th, 26th, 28th and 29th of April. Discussion on and after the 29th of April still pursues this issue, and the RFC is marred by Collect attempting to create policy out of thin air, putting quotes and bold type on this invention that makes it look like it is quoting existing policy, and finally belittling the opponent as much as their argument.


 * Ana Having had some experience with Collect before, where I once found C had made over 10 nonconsecutive edits on one article, and did at least 5 N-CE on the same day C got someone blocked for 4RR on that same article (I think C had done 14 or 18, I have a bad memory. Enough edits that I remember after all this time, though), I switch to Collect's own Contributions, to look for previous instances of 4RR. Finding two, I point out to him he was at 4RR at Michael Grimm (politician) on two previous days
 * Col-No apology, well, ok. But denial? And an accusation of stalking.

In short, Collect's edits are just as they were years ago: Vague waving of BLP at the noobs to scare them away, more waving of BLP, WEIGHT, the erroneous reading of BLP article deletion rules as editing rules, etc in the face of refutations of the poor or outright erroneous interpretations of BLP, ignore the building consensus, and then onward! to revert the consensus, and react with outrage and scorn...and more reverts, when others presume to roll it back. Taking C to task is met with more waving and ignoring of points made, then threats of administrative action.

I made one edit on Donald Sterling. Been waiting since then to see how things pan out, and for some kind of sign that Collect and TwoHamsFighting, or whatever his/er name is, are willing to address my Talk page points. Ok, you caught me. I just wanted to say TwoHamsFighting. Anarchangel (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits which Anarchangel deems improper two weeks ago were in accord with WP:BLP.  The desire to insert "FUCKING" into a BLP has been repeatedly dealt with now, and still remains an improper edit, and several admins have concurred.  This user has been WP:HARASSing me for some time now.    I had pointed out to him  which is the SAME ARTICLE and SAME EDITS  he now harasses me by repeating as a complaint now.  I find reopening a "declined case" to be harassing behaviour from the get-go.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:HARASS#What harass is not: "Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

On the other hand, I do retract the report. There were six of ten edits in the previous report, which would have stopped me proposing this had I known, but much more importantly, Wikipedia it seems has not yet made the distinction of bad behaviour in service of good rules. BLP currently mandates edit war. No wonder Collect is still here. I wonder, is there anyone here who has used the phrase "magnet for disruptive behaviour" before, and would care to compare that phrase to this situation? Have fun, everyone. Again, I retract this report. Anarchangel (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Filing a report which had already been filed and acted on two weeks before is the epitome of WP:Harass. And your seeming desire to make ad hom charges against me personally is also a symptom of that activity.  It appears, alas, that the "disruptive behaviour" is on the part of the person who does not even yet accept that he has filed something which had already been discussed.   Your "on the other hand retraction" ain't much of one if the upshot is you personally attacking me for whatever reason. Collect (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that your editing in general, and this editing also, harms the encyclopedia. That is quite separate to abiding by the rules. I do not respect the rules when they are wrong, as they are in this case, but I abide by them. My report was not in line with the rules, and I have retracted it. Anarchangel (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There are BLP issues with the Michael Grimm article, as discussed here two days ago.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Zeijani, User:GorgeCustersSabre, and User:Freemesm reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Zeijani adds some entries
 * 2) Freemesm removes them
 * 3) Zeijani re-adds the entries
 * 4) Freemesm removes them
 * 5) Zeijani re-adds the entries
 * 6) GorgeCustersSabre removes them
 * 7) Zeijani re-adds the entries
 * 8) GorgeCustersSabre removes them
 * 9) Zeijani re-adds the entries
 * 10) GorgeCustersSabre removes them
 * 11) Zeijani re-adds the entries
 * 12) Freemesm removes them
 * 13) Zeijani re-adds the entries

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:    plus various warnings the participants dish out to each other via edit summary and on their user talk pages

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam

Comments:


 * Looks like this edit war is a continuation of the previous one already discussed on the article's talk page. All parties above seem to be edit warring without any discussion except via edit summaries and warnings (often immediately removed) on user talk pages.  I have no idea whether or not the entries Zeijani is trying to add are correct, though Freemesm's stated rationale for removing them is clearly specious. (That is, whether or not an individual is a war criminal is irrelevant; what matters here is whether or not they are a "modern-day Muslim scholar of Islam".  There's no reason someone can't be both.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * for one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

-- Hello all. I have stopped. I just wanted evidence that these people were indeed scholars. I am not a Bangladeshi and I do not know and do not care if the individuals are "war criminals". Are they modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam? Where's the evidence? Anyway, I repeat: I have stopped editing this page. I want to see if an editor consensus will emerge. My regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

-- Hi, they are well known as islamic scholar. Only some people of bangladesh think that they are war criminal. Why are you removing their names. So do one thing, delete Hasan al banna, Siraj ul Haq etc..., also they were known as criminal, even though they are not. Zeijani (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This report is primarily to call your attention to edit-warring, have it stop and move the content discussion to the article talk page (that is, not here). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Psychonaut, thanks for bringing this issue here to resolve. Actually I am passing very busy time in my real life. That is why I was just reverting Zeijani's edit, with specific reason. But every time Zeijani undo my edits without stating any valid reason. My point of removing few names from that article is, Zeijani is trying to push few controversial people's name in this article. Form Psychonaut's revert list I count 7 reverts were done by Zeijani without stating any reason, but I reverted only 3 of them with proper warning and edit summery. Now User:Callanecc protected the article with Zeijani's revert, including those controversial names. In a quick review from those controversial names I checked Abdur Razzaq, Abdul Quader Molla, Motiur Rahman Nizami Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed and Muhammad Kamaruzzaman's article, where a single sentence or reference was not stated about their Islamic Scholar identity. So it fails to provide wp:verifiability policy. I am requesting User:Callanecc to cancel Zeijani' s last revert, where he put these unverified controversial names.


 * I really don't understand why we really need this article? I share my concern in that article's talk page check here. I cant manage time to bring it to article for deletion notice board.-- FreemesM  (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place to discuss the content of the article. Please do so on Talk:List of modern-day Muslim scholars of Islam instead. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Please check here.-- FreemesM  (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

In two of these, he blanked my comments of a perspective he disagreed with.

Warnings were ignored. See edit comments and comments below.

Comments:

It is very hard to discuss the issue when my comments keep getting blanked. Much the same complaint as with Mark_Miller above. Same page even. Recklessly reverting both a disputed action and the comment accompanying it, with total failure to read the warnings posted to the page, the warnings in the edit summary, or the admin who said "Any editor please close this discussion." Jsharpminor (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My removal of comments was inadvertent, as I only meant to undo the close. Apparently Jsharpminor doesn't see the comedy in the statement: "do not revert editors' actions" (emphasis in original), when he himself has six times "reverted editors' actions" on that page. As that old dame in Mister Rogers' Magical Land of Make Believe used to say, boomerang, toomerang, zoomerang. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * First, an admin specifically requested editors to close such discussions, when she imposed a moratorium on such discussions for twelve whole months. Secondly, I did not revert anyone's comments, as I was fastidious and did not carelessly revert without even looking at what I was reverting. Third, I am completely aware that 3RR is not a license, nor is reporting a license to keep reverting. When I saw that the war was developing, I stopped reverting and posted here. You will not find a single revert to that page from myself that comes after my report about Mark Miller report here. In fact, as far as I am aware, the discussion remains unclosed. StAnselm tried to close it, but you reverted him, too. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. And unicorns are real, elephants can fly, and I'm Vice President Of The World!! This is the price-tag of "anyone can edit". Joefromrandb (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So is vandalism. But this is why there are ways of dealing with disruptive and tedentious editing. Such as this noticeboard. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod reported by User:Thenub314 (Result: Both notified of DS)
Page: and

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (here he changed a bit in addition to the revert)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The connection between the two disagreements can be found in this diff. I would like to report general edit warring by Scalhotrod at the above pages. It started as a disagreement at the first page, which he was warned about a 3RR violation, and so he opted instead to move and rename a second page without discussion and which cannot be undone without admin privileges because of the redirect left behind in its place.

I admit my own frustration and looking back at diffs, I may too may be over 3RR, depending if adding the same material with a different source to try to satisfy objections counts as a revert. I leave that up to the admin to decide. I did try to resolve the issue, but when it came to moving pages to retitle articles without discussion, I thought it had escalated to the point I should raise my concerns here. Thenub314 (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I'll admit that I'm not very well versed in ANI procedure, but it looks like my accuser is trying to string together several subject (but not in the same article) related edits to make a case of 3RR. So far the conflict over these edits has involved, , and myself regarding a topic (gun control, gun politics, and legislation) where quite a few topic bans were assigned recently. The absence of the previous corps of editors has allowed other editors to make edits that would have been reviewed with more scrutiny, but now are left fairly unchecked. My efforts have been with the intention to provide balance and reduce POV editing. I will admit that progress is being made even with regard to highly charged and controversial topics, but its being done by at least one Editor who has openly stated their bias toward the subject matter. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a pain when the OP conflates two articles in order to arrive at 5 reverts. When correcting a "see also" link to go directly to a page instead of through a redirect, the concept of "revert" is tested -- there is no reason to deliberately use a link which is a redirect instead of to the article title directly. The blame for such foolishness should be shared -- including Scslhotrod, Lightbreather, and Thenub314 who played it here. The Arbitration case is just over -- and it is clear that some now think they have cart blanche to play games. They ought not. And protect the pages in a rational state,please. shows the problem clearly -- while an RfC is ongoing, making a unilateral move is less than wise. And an aside to Lightbreather -- dominating the edit count list on an article is not all that desirable a position to be in -- to some it may look like you are running roughshod there. Collect (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)  Collect (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I think Thenub is making a valid report, regardless of how it's counted. I warned Scal yesterday (nicely, thinking we would BRD) and today  (more tersely - the last one is a 3RR warning) about a number of edits. Instead of editing in a spirit of cooperation, he's just removing things - repeatedly. The move/rename of the "Assault weapons ban" article because he didn't want to include a "See also" to that article (he removed the "See also" reference 3 times) with that title in the Gun politics in the U.S. article was especially bad form, whatever it's called in WP lingo. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thank you very much for succinctly confirming my comments above. The "rename war" while an RfC was ongoing is especially troubling to any outside observers.  RfCs are intended to stop the changes until they are settled as there is no "deadline" on Wikipedia.  Collect (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to, and I can't imagine how anyone else reading this - or what you wrote above - could either. Also, the unilateral move was Scal's when he decided to make a move/rename that he knew would be controversial before discussing it, in violation of WP:MOVE. Lightbreather (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict with above) Um... not so sure why Collect is here, as (s)he wasn't part of any dispute discussed here, but I thought I would clarify (s)he has his/her facts mixed up. The RfC was started here a good 5 mins after the last rename.  From my perspective this seemed to be Lightbreather's attempt to work things out as opposed to constant renaming back and forth. For what it is worth, I personally stopped editing the articles for a while to let things cool down, and I am awaiting some responses at the talk pages about the last edits of mine that were reverted.  Finally, Collect commented that I "conflates two articles in order to arrive at 5 reverts," looking back I instead said I was reporting a pattern of "general edit warring" and not specifically a 3RR violation.  Thenub314 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check my history, you would discover I am a denizen of a number of noticeboards, and my "appearance" here is not a big surprise at this board, AN, AN /I, NPOV/N, BLP/N, AE or several others - I even drop in at Refdesk from time to time. My watchlist is way too big -- currently just under 3,500 pages after I trimmed it back.  And again -- my general impressions as essentially being outside this fray is clear and seems to be made clearer with each post.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've alerted both users to the discretionary sanctions in affect for this topic area. As well as the discussion above I hope this will be enough rather than blocks or other sanctions needing to be placed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Miller reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: No action needed for Mark Miller)
Page:

User being reported:

I'm not sure whether this belongs here or at the plain ANI, but here it is.

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1) Edits a closed discussion  - VQuakr tells him to take it to WP:AN if dissatisfied.
 * 2) Attempted to reopen the closed discussion with the admin directly:
 * 3) Admin closes already-closed discussion, but this time on her page:
 * 4) Admin closes the discussion again:
 * 5) Mark Miller attempts to reopen:
 * 6) Admin closes again (Which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you?)
 * 7) Reopens discussion on article talk page anyway:
 * 8) Previously-uninvolved editor points out that the discussion had been closed by an admin:
 * 9) Mark Miller reverts this:
 * 10) Reverts again:
 * 11) Blanks another editor's comments:
 * 12) Reopens discussion on article talk page again:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning 1:

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

Comments:

The 12th move discussion for Genesis creation narrative in 3 years was closed by BrownHairedGirl, with instructions to all editors to drop the subject and find more productive things to work on for the next year, rather than this. This decision was highly lauded on WP:ANI. He took the discussion to BrownHairedGirl's userpage where she closed the discussion, he reopened it, and she closed it again.

He then reopened the discussion on the article talk page, claiming that he simply "wanted consensus" for the moratorium.

I at this point voted to close as tedentious, and he [| removed my vote] not once but [| twice].

At this point, when he is even reverting talkpages, I think this is the very definition of disruptive editing. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to make claims be more honest with the claims. I didn't reopen BHG's closure on her talk page, I added a comment below it and then she removed it, which is her right, but she never asked me to stop posting on her talk page. If she had I certainly would not have made another post.
 * Actually, she closed it and you posted again, hence her comment: Which part of "discussion closed" was unclear to you?" Jsharpminor (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I opened a !vote discussion which you promptly closed and another editor reopened as you cannot single handedly decide what discussion can and cannot be on the talk page. You closed it again and I re-opened it.
 * The closures you're referring to were not actual closures, they were my opinion that the discussion should be closed. I have now gone and closed the discussions now per BrownHairedGirl's instruction that any editor may do so. If you feel the need to continue the war, feel free to do it on the relevant section in WP:ANI. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I accidently removed the !vote thinking they were attempting to close the discussion again after leaving multiple templates on my page (going by the red notification alert only and having a number of edit conflicts) and left a message apologizing after I realized what it was that your were doing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should be quicker to WP:AGF. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Mark Miller made a further revert on the same page here. StAnselm (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Added. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. I re-opened a non admin closing on a controversial discussion that goes against policy and procedure and has the perception of tag teaming.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it has escaped the two editors who appear to be working together on this report in what I see as a clear tag team...you are showing multple pages and on BHG's talk page....nothing was reverted and I don't think either of you are clear on the concept of what a revert is. While it is always better not to revert...yes, I can agree with that, I am also allowed to revert when my posts are deleted which was done several times and when an editor goes against policy and guidelines which was the case by closing the discussion to simply shut down talk which was clearly the case in this instance. The crux of this report is these two filing editors that seem to have been attempting, over and over again to edit war out a discussion that was started within the guidelines and policies of the project. This isn't a content dispute. This is two editors who have reverted and deleted against policy and guidelines to shut down a discussion.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also no revert section in this filing.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, they are mistaken on point #8 above. No admin had closed the discussion. Just these two editors, one who has just returned from a block for similar behavior. User:StAnselm .--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So, points #1-#8 are not even reverts. I also feel that it actually looks as if at least one of these editors seriously do deserve a boomerang here. For instance, please note point #11 above. Seems very dishonest to use that here when it was a mistake and was immediatly self reverted .--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. As I said, this may not be the appropriate noticeboard for it, but all I did was 1) comment that the discussion was closed by an admin, 2) restore my comments which you deleted twice in clear violation of every policy on it (deleting another editor's comments on a talk page because you disagree is NEVER acceptable and highly disruptive behavior), close the discussion, watch that closure get reverted by yourself        and another editor, then I left it alone to raise the issue here. Another editor came to the same conclusion and tried to close the discussion per the closure notice by the admin and he was reverted too. So it stays open. I would encourage you to show good faith and close it. Jsharpminor (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I came back to change that(and did), while you are clearly incorrect here, you may not need a boomerang. Not saying you don't for sure, you have been way off with this filing, but perhaps that can be chalked up to over reaction, but StAnselm just came off a block for this sort of thing and it appears they didn't get it.--Maleko Mela (talk)  07:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you do understand that the only discussion that was closed by an admin was the discussion on BrownHairedGirl talk page? Posting underneath that closing is not a revert nor an edit war. Also, you may not understand this but...no, my mistakenly thinking you were closing the section, yet again (against guidelines) is not a "clear violation of every policy on it" since, when I figured out what you were doing I made sure they were put back and then apologized directly to you on your talk page. Again, that consensus discussion was never closed by an admin. I don't understand why you keep making that accusation.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * While this is only an essay, you may want to review WP:BADNAC. Both you and StAnselm are simply not impartial enough on that talk page to be closing discussions.--Maleko Mela (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The discussion has now been closed by an admin. Obviously, I carried out a non-admin closure because it seemed the best thing to do (the discussion was unhelpful to the point of disruptive) and that I did not consider myself involved - I have no particular opinion about the moratorium. My recent block has nothing to do with this as far as I can see. StAnselm (talk) 07:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Before I performed my closure, I checked with the main participants: User:Joefromrandb and User:Mark Miller. Joefromrandb replied with, "I was just opposed to an editor closing a discussion in which he was involved. You're probably right about people staying on topic though." Mark Miller simply reverted my post without comment. StAnselm (talk) 08:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * After a message on User talk:Mark Miller I don't believe any action is needed against this user so I'm closing discussion in this section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk): Not supported in the article. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Theroadislong (talk): That implication must be made in reliable sources with respect to the subject himself. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by MrBill3 (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ken Ham. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Repeated removal of pseudoscientist category */ new section"


 * Comments:

Clear 3RR MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC). Sources provided diff. Explanation and quotes given diff. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) This behavior is getting out of hand. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

This user behaves as though he WP:OWNs all articles related to his religion. He was warned about WP:ARBPSCI, but that doesn't seem to matter to him. jps (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48h. WP:BLP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card unless the BLP violation is unambiguous.  Not only is the editor warring with multiple editors who are providing reasonable explanations of why BLP does not apply here, sources have been provided on the talk page.  StAnselm should have followed BRD or gone to BLP/N.  Neither was done and six reverts on such a shaky basis are not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

User seems to indicate that they will continue to act this way and have even asked to be unblocked because they believe their actions to be unambiguously correct:. This will only get worse, I'm afraid. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (AKA jps) has a block log 45 entries long. It is less than two months since his/her last block.  On 30 March 2014 he went to 4RR where the total time elapsed for his/her four reverts was 26 minutes.  Less than a week later he was brought to ANI for "slow motion edit warring".


 * Three weeks later he/she has started the current dispute. He/she has not participated in the talk page discussion, diff.  Category:Pseudoscientists specifically states, " 'Pseudoscientists'...may be a contentious label."  There is no mention of the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientists" in the current revision of the article.  About unsourced material, WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (bold in original).  With this diff he restored contentious material identified as a BLP violation.  WP:BLP states, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
 * Quote from WP:BLP:

Update As soon as the user was unblocked the edit warring continued. It's brazen. I suggest further admin action.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

jps (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Further action should be considered. I agree please also see SPI here. Continued unabated EWing without waiting for consensus. Does another report need to be started? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * for continued edit warring and socking. The IPs listed at the SPI are obviously him, and editing in a way designed to create the appearance of additional support for his positions. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:009o9 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

User breached general sanction (1RR). User was notified of restriction on 29 April 2014 : Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions


 * 1) Revision as of 19:35, 1 May 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 20:26, 1 May 2014

Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The second listing above is indeed a reverted revert. The first entry was restoration of my Op-ed template and the removal of some POV content that had been inserted into the lede. see Talk:Bundy_standoff


 * If both edits are to be considered reverts, we also need to examine the 24 hour period for the removal of my (Oped) tag. Thank you. 009o9 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is two reverts of same content in the span of less than an hour, and a breach of the 1RR sanction. Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User:AliceAlice reported by User:NeilN (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606431513 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607384955 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607389249 by Kirin13 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 606431513 by NeilN (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

See Talk:Kim_Yuna  Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  22:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that in light of this I want to make it clear I have one revert. -- Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  22:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment:

User:Kirin13 is also up to 5RR: Jsharpminor (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * I will discourage any restrictions against Kirin. AliceAlice was editing against talk page consensus and not engaging at talk pages. There really wasn't anything else to do than to revert her; lest those who ignore talk page discussions and consensus are to get their will. I will also note that it doesn't seem Kirin has reverted after the warning on his talk page. Iselilja (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Simply assisting in factfinding. I have no opinion on the matter. However, I did place a warning template on Kirin's talkpage, as making more than 3 reverts in any 24-hour period is usually frowned upon except in cases of blatant vandalism, BLP vios, and the like. I did not study the page, but it did not appear to me that AliceAlice's edits were disruptive in intent (although they certainly were disruptive in effect). Jsharpminor (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear 3RR, was warned, second block. Consecutive reverts do not count; Kirin13 is only at 3 reverts, not the four needed for a 3RR. So noted that Mr Neil has only reverted once. :)  Kuru   (talk)  00:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rebelrick123 reported by User:Amortias (Result: no violation )
Page:History_of_WWE

User being reported:User:Rebelrick123

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_WWE&diff=607115997&oldid=607105404]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_WWE&diff=607263170&oldid=607262237]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_WWE&diff=607262237&oldid=607261848]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_WWE&diff=607261848&oldid=607261603]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_WWE&diff=607261603&oldid=607115997]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebelrick123

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a dispute between myself and the user but between himself and another

Comments:

User is repeatedly changing edits made by another user within the timescale of the 3RR Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . These are four consecutive changes, and would only count as one revert. Kuru   (talk)  00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:220.85.138.27 reported by User:Thomas.W (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:

Comments:

IP edit-warring over dubious/hoax edit, as a direct continuation of edits made by IP 119.205.190.155, which, since they geolocate to the exact same area and make the exact same edits, I consider to be the same user (per WP:DUCK). Thomas.W talk 11:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . The page was protected by Mr. Ranger. Kuru   (talk)  00:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Jazz&Rain reported by User:Tiller54 (Result: 24 hours)
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 article talk page:

Comments:

Despite intervention and requests from myself, NazariyKaminski, 69.181.253.230, Arbor8, Cwobeel and IDangerMouse, Jazz&Rain continues his ceaseless edit war, refusing to engage on the talk page or stop, despite several final warnings. Tiller54 (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Continues to edit war with account and IP after warnings. Kuru   (talk)  03:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bernardwoodpecker reported by User:Zefr (Result: 96 hours, suggestion to pursue alternative forum if issues continue )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version of Citadel spread reverted to:

Previous version of Plumpy'nut reverted to:

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

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

Plumpy'nut Talk page dispute: The user has strong personal opinions and one-sided editing preserving only his/her edits. The user has also confessed personal involvement or "hero-worship" of one author and resource which cannot be directly studied (Amazon book), stimulating a new article which is heavily edited with only his/her edits --

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I believe user Bernardwoodpecker is in a COI and too personally engaged with these two articles to provide unbiased editing. He states on his user page that he is specifically interested in RUTF and appears to be personally linked to an older author source that shapes his editing while preventing reasonable edits by others,.

I feel Bernardwoodpecker's narrow topic interest leads to an unbalanced presentation of the two articles in question. S/he appears to be unaware of how many times s/he reverts the input by others, example where as stated: "Just a heads up: there is a bright line of behavior - the 3-revert rule which trumps pretty much everything else in ordinary editing. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, I don't think I have every done more than two. Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR explains that 3 reverts on any article content in one day violates the rule. Yesterday alone, you reverted more than 10 times on the Plumpy'nut article and 3 times on the Citadel spread article. You are clearly personally invested in these topics, and probably have useful information to add, but you are not WP:NPOV and are certainly violating WP:COI. You should take a break, and give sincere editors having a majority interpretation that appears different from yours an opportunity to balance the Plumpy'nut and Citadel spread articles. --Zefr (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

User Bernardwoodpecker seems to have a personal vendetta against the manufacturer of Plumpy'nut and a) is making the case that defence of patents held by Nutriset is causing malnutrition and morbidity among starving African children and b) that the Plumpy'nut formulation (which has been issued several patents in France) is mainly the same as the hiker's energy mixture called Citadel spread which was devised by a gentleman named Ed Garvey: "I was trying to continue the playful sarcasm he use when he claimed my idol Ed Garvey "died of congestive heart failure" on my talk page, but I guess I missed the mark." Bernardwoodpecker (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

--Zefr (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This dispute raises bigger issues that would best be dealt with at another forum. At the same time, it's a clear (drastic) 3rr violation, so I'm happy to block on that, and suggest the bigger issues be raised at an alternative forum if the dispute continues. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:203.17.215.22 reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: 1 week + edit filter)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 606472197 by GaryColemanFan (talk) consensus!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607431816 by TheEpTic (talk) consensus is this is not notable"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607431943 by Vanamonde93 (talk) the csonsensus is that this list is not notable - numerous articles have been deleted by AfD"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has reverted significantly more than 3 times; 4 at last count, with more reverts earlier this week. I came here from recent changes patrol, and found the IP pushing changes against consensus. Has been blocked previously for edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that my edit is correct. Vanamonde is yet to prove the list is notable and yet to explain why feds that had articles have been deleted by AfD. Vanamonde is against concensus here, not me. 203.17.215.22 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to prove anything; I came there from recent changes patrol, and found that you had made 4 reverts in the last hour or so. You were not protecting a BLP, and therefore 3RR is a red line you crossed. I know nothing about the article, and do not need to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For some of these articles, the editor is at it since December 10 (diff of 05:37, 10 December 2013, diff of 07:16, 7 May 2014. I've blocked the IP therefore for 6 months - this has not a lot to do with 3RR anymore, this is long-term edit-warring.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor already found out: see Special:Abusefilter/612. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Shortened the block to 1 week - the block was prone to give collateral damage (there seem to be other editing from it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:wuerzele (Result: no violation)
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 on user's talk page: which was immediately reverted with the argument 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * response to first revert
 * response to second revert ,
 * response to third revert ,

Comments:

User Volunteer Marek reverted numerous edits unreasonably, without interest in discussion. i found the same comments in edit summaries he made to me on other sites: "willful misrepresentation". "misrepresents source, misattributes quotes" Sarcasm as in the comment to me: "(1) There's a perfectly good place to discuss these issue. The talk page of the relevant article. 2) Can you good folks pick a different day to annoy me?)" I found in   as "Let me check ... oh, of course he doesn't!". etc.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Some of the above are simply consequent edits rather than reverts. The text Wuerzele is trying to insert does misrepresent the source, by cherry picking a quote out of context which does not reflect what Paul Krugman is saying. And to that extent WP:BLP applies. I have actually discussed the edit (see also another users thoughts on the matter ) although there really isn't much to discuss except "stop trying to misrepresent the source, Wuerzele". Does anyone in their right mind, who has ever even glanced at a Paul Krugman column, book, or scholarly article really believe that Paul Krugman is an opponent of fiat money? I hesitate to call these edits "vandalism" as that would imply they are some kind of mindless defacement. Instead, here, it's actually quite mindful ... misrepresentation of a source. So actually it's even worse. Anyway, there's been no 3RR violation.
 * As far as removing his comments form my user talk page, of course I have a right to do that. And I have no idea what my clean up of Thomas Piketty's article (another WP:BLP concern) has to do with the issue.
 * Annoyed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Some of the reverts listed above are consecutive edits; these only count as one revert for the purpose of this policy. At this point, it would be most helpful for you to address your addition on the article's talk page, and stop adding it until you have consensus to do so. Kuru   (talk)  11:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Anjaan333 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607468786 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)fanboy"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607463490 by Anjaan333 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607434451 by Jayakrishnan.ks100 (talk)unexplained rvt"
 * 4)  "poorly sourced, promotional"
 * 5)  "provide proper source"
 * 1)  "poorly sourced, promotional"
 * 2)  "provide proper source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Attempting to encourage user to participate in discussions."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Reliable sources: new section" (Note: this was submitted in the previous edit warring report. It's not a NEW attempt to resolve, but I don't know how/if that's required. The offer to discuss still stands.)


 * Comments:

Short story: Anjaan333 is engaging in long-term edit-warring on various articles including the one cited above, and others like Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja (film). User has previously received a 96 hour block for their behavior. I believe they created a second account and used IPs  to continue their war during their block. Both I and TheRedPenofDoom have attempted to get the user to engage in discussion.


 * Drishyam:
 * Kerala:

They've also been accused of sockpuppetry: Sockpuppet investigations/Anjaan333 and Sockpuppet investigations/Mealwaysrockz007/Archive. User has not once engaged in any meaningful discussion about their edits, preferring to drop typically brief and sometimes seemingly random comments into edit summaries. User apparently has a POV and is forcing it into various articles. Bollywood films are a tricky area as there is a lot of competition and a lot of shady operators who both inflate box office numbers and reviews to make one film/actor/company appear more successful, then deflate the competition to make them look less attractive to potential viewers.

At the very least I believe the user should be blocked again for edit warring, but my guess is that they'll eventually get indeffed for the sockpuppeteering. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr Marmilade reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Per Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions, on the Syrian Civil War pages, editors are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. User Dr Marmilade was warned by two different editors that his source could not be used (per WP:SELFSOURCE), but he just ignored them. Coltsfan (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Previous version (before EW): here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) dif1
 * 2) dif2

Comments:


 * . Clear 1RR breach; was warned previously. Kuru   (talk)  11:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Remember to log it at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder; will do so when I get off a mobile device. Kuru   (talk)  18:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser reported by User:BlueSalix (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

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

Comments:

I had never participated in editing Albuquerque Police Department but, when I visited it, found it to be a laundry list of a number of chronologically related scandals, which is not best practices as per WP:UNDUE. After visiting talk and looking at the edit log, I determined there were no active editors and made a WP:BOLD decision to create a single "recent controversy" section (as I noted in the Talk page, this itself is not WP:UNDUE, however, since there was no substantial general 'history' section this was preferable as a stop-gap to having an article on a government agency with 8 sections, 6 of which were about different scandals it's encountered in the previous 4 years. Following my edits, reported editor made 3 fast reverts. When I tried to engage with editor on Talk, editor responded in an aggressive manner by redirecting my WP:UNDUE concerns back at me and declaring I was trying to "stir it up" and 6 separate sections were necessary to "expose [my] version for what it was" and that his edits were needed to "neutralize [my] story." At this point I determined, based on that wording, that editor was a new editor engaging in Wiki-Activism and decided to raise the 3RR issue here for administrative correction, which I don't believe requires a block but rather an explanatory note from a non-involved admin. BlueSalix (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I take back my last sentence. I don't mind working on re-building this article off from stub status, which is probably the only thing that's going to keep this from being a recurring issue, given current events and the fact the subject of this article is being heavily reported on at the moment. A twenty-four hour "safety buffer" block would be helpful to accomplish that. BlueSalix (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Update - editor has again made a unilateral revert, this time to replace my text to the form it was in prior to the edit war beginning. I would still like to request administrator review of this issue. There is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed and corrected and that has become more apparent in the ensuing Talk discussion since my initial filing of this ANI. Clearly other editors cannot contribute to this article as long as the above editor feels empowered to make fast, unilateral reverts; a state of affairs that continues even with his most recent revert. This article still needs lots of work but I'm reticent to devote the time, and I suspect other editors will be similarly reticent, as long as one editor is exercising effective ownership rights over it. BlueSalix (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm no admin, but I've looked at it and here's my opinion:
 * BlueSalix, you might want to review WP:BRD. It seems that Mosfetfaser is really interested in this article and helping it to grow. The wording In 2010, the Albuquerque PD became the subject of intense scrutiny seems to be a lot less neutral than the alternative wording that Mosfetfaser replaced it with. I haven't read the whole thing.
 * Also, Mosfetfaser seems to be showing good faith here by undoing his own revert. Saying that "one party is edit warring" seems wholly inappropriate here.
 * Finally, since you both seem to be using the talk page, I am going to recommend close as resolved through talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Mosfetfaser didn't replace it with substantially alternative wording; I'd invite you to read it again. He accepted my alternative wording but split it into 6 separate sections. You are welcome to advance the opinion that an article on a government agency that has 8 sections, should include 6 separate sections on a series of closely related scandals, I would disagree. (As for WP:BRD, editor only chose to engage in discussion - instead of edit warring - after this ANI was filed and used a series of bizarre phrases, such as he needed to "expose [my] version for what it was" and "neutralize [my] story" typically indicative of a novice editor here to push a POV or play BattleWiki). Ultimately, however, that's not the topic of this ANI. What we're discussing here is a 3RR issue, which is a technical question that doesn't require subjective analysis. Three reverts occurred in violation of 3RR. That's all; cut and dry. BlueSalix (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Actually, four reverts are needed for a 3RR, as he self-reverted one of them, there are only two. Such is the technical answer. Concur with Mr. Minor's assessment; resolve your content dispute on the article's talk page, please.  Kuru   (talk)  23:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

User:216.86.82.43 reported by User:Ians18 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link To User Edit Warring Notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link To Cyberchase Episodes Talk Page

Comments:

We have tried to reason with the Anonymous IP, but he or she does not respond and keeps editing both the List of Cyberchase and Cyberchase mainpage wikis. There are no sources that are cited and no comments for each edit.

Ians18 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:74.66.11.71 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607306057 by 74.73.232.21 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607424315 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607564877 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 607564877 by Winkelvi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Shael Polakow-Suransky. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Shael Polakow-Suransky. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

POV edit warrior at a BLP; single purpose account. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts, previous history of edit warring. Was warned.  Kuru   (talk)  03:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:99.226.206.83 reported by User:Paul Erik (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Appears not to be adhering to neutral point of view. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Well past 3RR; was warned. Kuru   (talk)  03:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:106.220.111.86 reported by User:Gparyani (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Electromechanical */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Buzzer. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning notice on Buzzer. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps removing categories and damaging links. Has reached fourth level warning (levels 1 and 2 were added by others) Gparyani (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User: NBAkid reported by User:The Rahul Jain (Result: No violation/later blocked 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:

Comment by JJ: What a nonsense! NBAkid did not break the trhee-revert rule; he reverted three times, not four. He provided acceptable sources, where-after he was warned for "disruptive editing". Shame! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   12:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He did broke 3 revert anyway. Even after multiple warnings. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He stopped at 3, the first one isn't a revert. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a revert, he reverted this edit made by User:Fowler&fowler on 2nd May. Can you reconsider? --Rahul (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked after continued edit warring. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Not sure this is the right place for this. Skookum has a long history of spamming talk pages (he says "spamming" is wrong because it means advertizing, so, what? baiting? trolling?), which half the time he hasn't bothered to read (or, as he puts it, he "speed reads and speed types", but whatever it is, it's clear that he often doesn't actually read it, as much of the time he can't tell one person from another), and his diatribes make it difficult for anyone else to follow the discussion. (He objects to the term "rant" when other editors call them that. Maybe "diatribe" is better?)  In this case he changed one of my comments by adding some words of his own and signing it with his name halfway through. That could have been an error (if we were at a point where good faith still counted for anything), but when I deleted his comments from mine, he put them back, and when I warned him and I removed them again, he put them back again with the comment that "spamming" was the wrong word for what he's doing, and that I should sign his comments for him – though it's removing his signature that's the issue. It's hard enough to navigate a discussion page buried in Skookum's diatribes without him highjacking others' comments. — kwami (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Can you give a few more examples - because from the edit history I see your removing his comments as seen here - because there misplaced? Why no just fix its position over deletion? There must be more of a problem no? -- Moxy (talk) 03:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted him twice, and didn't want to go further than that. Usually I do move his comments out of the way – he plasters conversations with his comments, often off topic; gets angry at people for attacking him when they were talking to someone else and didn't mention him even obliquely, etc.  It's fairly ridiculous.  Someone tried mentoring him after his last block, but evidently that failed.  I'll move his comment down; since this is already at ANI, let's hope he stops.  — kwami (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like he's leaving it alone. I'm willing to close this complaint.  — kwami (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The "more of a problem" is that things are not going well for his agenda at WP:NCL. He has inserted comments within other people's posts himself; I signed that post clear enough; he complains on my talkpage that I didn't.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment there is no 3RR, I have only reverted his deletion of MY post twice. Deleting someone else's posts is not acceptable other than on your own talkpage; trying to get me banned for disputing him is the game here; that's not AGF, it's straightforward fact.  Ongoing obstructionism at NCL has included accusing others of what he does himself, as well as confounding and misrepresenting what others have said.  Should I document the many diffs over the years where this behaviour has been seen before?  If he deletes my post again, I would have to 3RR to restore it.  This ANI is disruptive and counter-factual.Skookum1 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've notified Skookum1 of the discretionary sanctions active for this topic area. As Kwamikagami has already been notified, Skookum1, you can take this to WP:AE if you wish and present evidence on their general conduct in this area which you have referred to. Kwamikagami, if Skookum1's behaviour is below par you can either wait and see if they continue now that they've been notified or you can take it to ANI. Either way there doesn't seem to be a lot to be done at ANEW. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Since when is restoring my own posts from hostile deletions "disruptive"? Interjecting signed replies within long multi-paragraph replies is not uncommon.  I may get around to that AE procedure you have told me about, but I dislike procedure and compiling more than two years' worth of obstructive and baiting activity and more is a lot of diffs; I've been busy making articles, as you can see from my user contributions, when not continuing to point out the lack of logic and various non sequiturs and more at WP:NCL, where Kwami has been edit warring over that guideline's needed changes, and attempting to block consensus variously.
 * This ANI, as I've pointed out, is baseless as I made NO 3RR violation at ALL, and is part of a pattern that I'm all too familiar with; in fact, this ANI is something very much like FORUMSHOPPING, and is an attempt IMO to shut me out of the NCL discussion; if you can't delete the truths I bring forward, then get me blocked; same as with the host of RMs where similar disruptive behaviour has been very obvious, including direct personal insults and name-calling. Ah, to spend a day or two compiling diffs to make my case, or to keep on expanding the encyclopedia and making sure that guidelines are cogent and coherent with POLICY.  Not really a tough call, but at least AE gives me some breathing room to get all the various diffs together.  I'm not the problem, as I said in the ANIs, but I'm sure being scapegoated.Skookum1 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you erroneously place your comments in the middle of someone else's, you're refactoring their comments. Yes, the best option is for someone to move your comments to where they should be (ie below theirs), but it's not always good to assume where they belong.  As such, removing them is appropriate, which gives you the opportunity to add them where they belong yourself  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:114.179.18.35 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

See also Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism submitted by User:Solarra


 * None of the edits took place after the posting of an edit warring warning. (The diff given above, labelled "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning", does not mention edit warring.) There have also been no attempts to discuss the issues or explain to the editor why his/her edits are considered unacceptable, either on the article talk page or on the IP talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:124.180.170.151 reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queensland_Brigade&oldid=604222379]


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)
 * 1)  (partial)


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

None, but see User talk:Mendaliv.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Reporting for simple edit warring (3RR does not appear to be violated). Will add diffs momentarily. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs added. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith report. The categories added were not appropriate to the subject and in one case insinuated incorrectly that an article could be created on said subject. One redirect category was correct and it was left there. I do not believe Mendaliv understands the subject matter, and appears from the debate on his talk page that all redirects have to be categorised when this is not the case at all. It's optional only, and needs to be appropriately applied as well. This has not been done - with the one exception as I said. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Should note that only the four most recent reverts were related to redirect categorization. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bandy boy reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

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

Comments:

Bandy boy is the same editor 90.233.138.0, who edit warred over the same change last month. They are also probably socks of an earlier puppetmaster at the same article; see Sockpuppet investigations/891 mm.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I see it, Cúchullain is the person edit warring here. Bandy boy (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And now with this edit you've broken WP:3RR.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from uninvolved editor: Bandy Boy does appear to be in textbook violation of 3RR and has continued these edits after multiple warnings. I added a further one onto his usertalk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Your warning is the first one I've got. Bandy boy (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two diffs of warnings to you up there. One is to an IP editor, which might not even be you. But this one clearly was.
 * In any case, since you've apparently agreed to take it to the talk page rather than continuing to edit-war about it, I am going to recommend close as resolved. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Verdad reported by User:Dougweller (Result:31 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "A start... Most edits are to the Lead and History sections. New source included in History section.  Notably removed Yale Law Review material.  It conflicts with itself and the sourced material.  Help with photos, anyone?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 607728941 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 607735692 by Dougweller (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 607736532 by Dougweller Don't cause a revert war.  Let's talk this out.  I've posted to your talk page.  Let me know your concerns."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Segregation academy in the lead yet again */ A7 doesn't exempt schools from notability requirements, although this is a red herring"
 * 2)   "/* The circumstances */ Verdad needs to gain consensus"


 * Comments:


 * . No 3RR breach but pretty egregious edit warring, used in the service of tendentious editing. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Discospinster reported by User:Buffbills7701 (Result: Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Khalil Mack */ Reply"


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


 * Comments:

This is my first time at AN3, please tell me if anything is wrong. :) Disco repeatedly reverts edits stating that Khalil Mack has been drafted by the Raiders, and even after shown that there was evidence that he was drafted (on Disco's talk page), he still proceeded to revert these edits. buffbills7701 01:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Buffbills7701 continued to add information to various articles without citing a reliable source, even after being asked to include proper references. For example:

... disco spinster   talk  01:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jake_Matthews&diff=prev&oldid=607711850
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalil_Mack&diff=prev&oldid=607712482
 * User talk:discospinster. Both User:Yankees10 and User:ZappaOMati gave valid reasons on why you don't need a source for every single edit that you make. buffbills7701 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Other editors have added conflicting information to articles, for example:


 * this says that Jadeveon Clownley was drafted by the New England Patriots
 * this one says that it's the Jacksonville Jaguars
 * and here he's with the Houston Texans
 * ... none of which are accompanied by a source. Were they all watching the same draft? ... disco spinster   talk  01:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Common sense says to do a google search or look at something like this and revert false info not factual info. I am with you, we need sources, but your edit warring and reverting everything does nothing to help. --Yankees10 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In some cases (such as Jadeveon Clowney), even when the correct information was added, a Google search did not bring up anything to verify it. That is why I removed the information here. I had checked the news sources and did not find anything. How many times is a reader expected to look for sources, when it is the one who adds the information who has the onus of providing them? ... disco spinster   talk  01:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I hate to tell you this, but there's a fine line between an AGF edit and vandalism. Surely you know what side the first two edits are on. buffbills7701 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know whose side they are on. I don't follow football. ... disco spinster   talk  01:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The main concern here is that you didn't even bother to check to see if there were any sources. Instead of spending 10 seconds going on ESPN, you decided to revert the edits 6 times. buffbills7701 01:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. I did check for sources. There were none at the time. Again, whose responsibility is it to verify the information? The reader who is questioning it or the one who is adding it? WP:Burden tell us it's the latter. ... disco spinster   talk  01:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jsharpminor. You're first edit might have been reasonable, but that doesn't give you any reason to revert others 5 other times in just 10 minutes. buffbills7701 02:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me to be worth observing that the talk page is empty. So apparently neither party has made any attempt to resolve it on the talk page? Or is it being discussed on someone's userpage? A link would be helpful. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Discospinster and User talk:Discospinster. ... disco spinster   talk  01:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Discospinster, it looks to me like after your initial edit you did revert here here here here and here, which at very least, is 5 reverts within 10 minutes, and a clear violation of 3RR. I'll just give you some friendly advice: don't do that. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT3RR: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... 7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." From WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emphasis original)
 * As I said earlier, there were unsourced edits that added (later discovered to be) false information. Then there were unsourced edits that added (later to be discovered) correct information. The fact that conflicting information was being added about draft picks made it contentious. So I removed it, and continued to do so until sources were provided. ... disco spinster   talk  02:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy exists for the purpose of protecting Wikipedia from vandals who would invent scandals about rich, powerful, and well-lawyered folk and perpetuate them, opening the community to lawsuits. From what you posted: Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Changing his sports team to something that is rumored to be true hardly seems to qualify.
 * The purpose of any actions taken from this noticeboard is to ask, how likely is the user in question to reoffend? Even a clear offender who realizes his mistake and asks to be allowed to go on contributing, now aware of how the community works, may possibly avoid a block if they are going to try to work with the community.
 * I suppose then, that the relevant question is, given the same situation, would your actions then be the same or different? In other words, are you going to try to justify yourself, or have you learned something today? If the latter, then thanks for contributing and we'll meet again I'm sure. If the former, then, you could read this article. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The BLP policy says that unsourced or poorly sourced and contentious material should be removed immediately whether it is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. (emphasis mine) It doesn't matter whether it's about a subject's eye colour, their favourite type of tree, or that they had an extramarital affair. If it is contentious and not accompanied by a source, that's all it needs to be in order to "qualify". I'm not sure how much clearer you need it to be. The policy is my justification. ... disco spinster   talk  02:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pondering whether I should apologize for my tone, just in case it had come across as condescending. Then I looked at your contributions page and got a bit of a shocker when I saw your user rights. I have to give you some major credit for not throwing weight around here. That's big of you.
 * More on topic, however, it seems that, regardless of 3RR, if I were to go at it back and forth with an editor or group of editors, reverting a page hundreds of times within a day, it would accomplish absolutely nothing except wasting time and server resources. Surely there's a better way to handle it? Actually, that's a really good idea: I should ask you that question. You're absolutely right, and it doesn't matter if it's the person's favorite tree, any BLP stuff should be reverted at all costs. Say I were fighting a vandal who were constantly inserting inaccurate BLP material, though, and he didn't stop. What would be the best way for me to handle it? Jsharpminor (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This issue does not involve my administrative "powers", so I didn't think it useful to bring it up. I wasn't planning on blocking anybody. As to your hypothetical, I would expect that if it's clearly vandalism, you would revert and report the edits to the WP:BLPN or WP:ANI. If it's not clearly vandalism, but still contentious and without a source, you don't need to report but explain your reverts in the edit summary. ... disco spinster   talk  15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Are we overlooking the contentious part of the policy? I can't see the statement in question causing much disagreement or controversy. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The edits don't seem libelous, and WP:NOT3RR says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It's unfortunate that multiple reverts of the same information didn't provide a tip that a discussion was a preferable alternative over continued reverts, especially when the editor admitted that "I don't follow football."—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * They don't have to be libellous. They just have to be contentious. The situation started when I noticed conflicting information being added to football player articles regarding the draft. That's what made it contentious. Should I have left up the false information on the Clowney article just because I don't know much about football? ... disco spinster   talk  15:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, any time I see one of our fine articles on the myriad characters of General Hospital, episodes of Dragon Ball, or number of RBIs and jersey number of Sammy Sosa come up in Huggle, I quickly click "Next" unless the edit involves replacing page content with "LOL BUTTS" or "MY CLASSMATE JESSICA IS AWESOME." The only serialized TV I know anything about is Star Trek, and I don't follow sports either. If the data is wrong, I'll let someone who is interested take care of it. They'll fix it before the deadline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsharpminor (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 May 2014‎ (UTC)
 * @discospinster: I trust you had the best intentions, and everyone is encouraged to be bold. However, as it's controversial what does and does not qualify for 3RR exemption, it's best to step back and start a discussion when you find yourself reverting the same information. I can see how it might have been cumbersome to tag Cn on multiple fields in an infobox, but continuously reverting information on a verifiable, though incited, current event (i.e. 2014 NFL Draft) is not constructive either.  Not sure what the ideal solution is, but warring was not it.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

&mdash; User cautioned about edit warring behavior. Issue regarded a draft in progress that has now ended. Longtime user in good standing; should not present further issues. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Aimperator reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Three months)
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:

Resumed edit warring immediately after expiry of the third edit warring block in as many weeks. Previous reports: —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive242
 * 2) Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive242
 * 3) Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive243


 * A rather unusual report, and I thought at first the OP had nothing, with only one diff. But that diff reinstates yet again the text that the user was previously blocked for trying to war into the article. While it's not the kind of edit warring you can measure by any 3RR yardstick, it shows a long-term and extreme determination to get a promotional and non-consensus change into the article. (It's been going on since September 2012, even though the text was slightly different then.) In consideration of the length of previous blocks, and of the fact that the user does very little else on Wikipedia than push for having the first sentence of the article read "Yardley of London is the oldest cosmetics, perfume and toiletry company in the world", I have blocked for three months. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC).


 * And 3 months and 1 day from now, they'll be back doing the same. Good work.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

User:66.225.161.37 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: 7 days)

 * Page: - under a 1RR sanction
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Bundy's worldview: please see Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable_sources"


 * 1)  "/* History */ sourced statement derisory w ref to BLM page, and tied the figure to the footnote"
 * 2)  "/* History */ add footnote for claim about BLM"
 * 3)  "/* History */ fixed it for Juan.  No sense to deny reality."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring original research/opinion/synthesis material. Blocked previously for 1RR violations on the same page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Also see this edit - yet another revert. This user has gone way, way beyond 1RR. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the 1RR incident was not a violation see User_talk:Tiptoety, and I'm sorry that NorthBySouthBaranof misunderstands the 1RR policy, and that NorthBySouthBaranof attempts to smear me by association.


 * The 'east of mississppi' statement was later approved by another user


 * NorthBySouthBaranof is a federal government employee, see User:NorthBySouthBaranof, and may or may not be paid for his/her contributions to the Bundy standoff page, which deals with a standoff between the _federal government_ and Cliven Bundy. So NorthBySouthBaranof may well be an unreliable source in this case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.161.37 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the claim that is yet another revert is mistaken.  NorthBySouthBaranof never addressed my concerns that the Southern Poverty Law Center was a FRINGE group, and did not represent FRINGE. The SPLC is an unreliable source, and attempts to associate the subject of the sentence with fringe groups.  Is wiki about fringe beliefs painted by fringe groups?  66.225.161.37 (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely it was a revert - you reverted Famspear's replacement of your earlier removal of the information. That is, Famspear reverted you — his one revert — and you then reverted him... which puts you at four reverts within an hour. Your assertion about the SPLC is irrelevant to the fact that you were indisputably edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a newbie shall we say, but my experience today with attempting to deal with the edits of User:66.225.161.37 lead me to agree with User:NorthBySouthBaranof. Juan Riley (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 7 days, as a second violation of 1RR on the same article. Claims that the SPLC is a fringe source are of course nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)