Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive246

User:Steel1943 reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Already handled)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: *2014-04-28T18:17:34 Steel1943 (talk | contribs). . (5,654 bytes) (+16). . (Deleting a draft: Boldly updated section to include a current XFD forum to be able to nominate drafts for deletion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2014-05-17T12:55:56 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (-148) . . (Undid revision 608955114 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting bold changes where no consensus has been formed for this specifically for the "Draft" namespace)
 * 2) 2014-05-17T13:45:01 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 608959986 by Unscintillating (talk) Reverting edit based on false wording used by previous editor - not "stable text", but "editor's POV")
 * 3) 2014-05-17T20:56:42 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609001195 by Unscintillating (talk) Again, reverting controversial bold edit - already attempt WP:BRD proc. on talkpage, prev editor has yet to participate - RFC)
 * 4) 2014-05-17T23:45:04 Steel1943 (talk | contribs) . . (5,760 bytes) (+28) . . (Undid revision 609018231 by Unscintillating (talk) No, this is a "no-consensus-based" version of what you believe to be correct - please attempt to resolve on talk page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * EW case reopened
 * I am re-opening this case as a case of denialism and refusal to discuss. After providing full detail of the sequence of edits here (Diff One), here (Diff two) is the reply.  Discussion is required.  Please reread the initial report above, and you will see that there is not a word about the stable version, which is the dispute that caused the edit warring.  Note that the RfC, etc., is misdirection, because there was already an open discussion started 2014-04-16, WT:Drafts.  This is about WP:BRD, where the OPer thinks that my R is somehow a B, without providing evidence.  The same is true from studying the edit comments in Diff One.  This denialism is an idée fixe.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: This complaint was already addressed above. Two editors have been reminded that the next revert could lead to a block. The point is to stop the edit war. If there are (in fact) multiple discussions running on the same page, why not make a proposal to unify them. At present there is an RfC header over just one of the discussions, the one at Wikipedia talk:Drafts. If you wish, ask an admin to decide which discussion is active and close the others. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:27, 16 May 2014  (edit summary: "Per Baseball Buggs")
 * 2) 00:22, 17 May 2014  (edit summary: "No reason given for deletion")
 * 3) 10:57, 17 May 2014  (edit summary: "I'm still waiting for a 'valid' explanation.")
 * 4) 12:00, 18 May 2014  (edit summary: "/* Season 4 */  Per talk Page")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This report is related to a report above but concerns a different editor. suspiciously began editing List of Person of Interest episodes only after stopped editing. His first edit was a reversion to Baseball Bugs's version, as were his second and third reversions. However, his third reversion also included some vandalism (adding "f" to the end of words, joining words with random letters and just joining words for no apparent reason), and I reverted that edit accordingly. After I left the 3RR warning on his talk page he did engage in some discussion on the talk page, waiting until after the expiration of the 24hr period before reverting again. While the lastest revert is not an exact reversion, it does restore the contested dates, which constitutes a partial reversion. Despite the lastest edit summary claiming "Per talk Page", there is still no consensus to add years. As a side note, after reverting the edit containing vandalism, I did make some edits aimed at a minor compromise with all editors involved, and that was at least partially successful. However, 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194's latest edit is still obviously edit-warring. Other editors still seem willing to discuss. Only 2a01:1b0:705::121:1:194 seems intent on continuing the edit war and his comments on the talk page are of some concern. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected ten days by User:Kelapstick. It appears there is a consensus on the talk page not to add information about 2014-2015 prematurely. If, in addition to IPs, there are also registered accounts that think differently they should wait until they get support from others on talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

No need in diffs: from history you easily see it is removal of notability tag.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russian Bazaar.

At first I thought the user requires edit summary. So I reinstated tag with edit summary "nodability questioned". HOwever the user insist on removing the tag. IMO it is a blatant violation of wikipedia policy about tags, which cannot be removed without discussing its merits. PLease intervene. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Here is the diff in which the OP began edit warring, although it satisfies 3RR. I issued a "notice" of EW on the OP's talk page, here, which I closed with "FYI", meaning I didn't need a response. The OP responded here, escalating with both a 3O and this 3RR. Unscintillating (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is generally considered a bad idea to remove a tag from an article without resolving the issue or explaining why the tag was unwarranted. User:Unscintillating did neither.  Upon further review, I not only agree with User:Staszek Lem's tagging of the article as of questionable notability, I have gone ahead and nominated the article for deletion.  I would also note that this is User:Unscintillating's second edit war this weekend, a disturbing trend.  p  b  p  22:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action, since the article is now being considered for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion/Russian Bazaar. User:Unscintillating removed the notability tag a total of four times starting May 12 and he was risking a block. User:Staszek Lem finally opened a discussion on 18 May but it would have been better to do so at the beginning. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmargi and User:Favre1fan93 reported by User:Baseball Bugs (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: and

What we have here are a couple of users who are systematically reverting anyone who tries to put (2014-2015) into various TV show articles. The fall schedules have been announced, yet they insist on preventing posting of the obvious, going so far as to post hidden comments ordering other editors not to add that info. I want an explanation from one or both user ID's as to why they're doing this. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to know why this user has used a. my talk page and b. this venue but not the article talk page to address this issue.  I'll address this matter there.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't answer my question on your talk page, so I have very little confidence you will do so on the talk pages of the various articles you're trying to take ownership of. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I concur with Drmargi. First, neither of us were edit warring. Second, you should have taken this up on the article talk page, not both of our talk pages, and then here, when I didn't even have a chance to respond to you. As well, wouldn't you think if there was a hidden note there, it's there for a reason? If you actually read WP:CRYSTAL, it states that an article on the 2016 Olympics is fine, but even though we have confirmation that the show will premiere in the fall (again, only fall), there is still a multitude of potential setbacks that could prevent it from airing: Writers strikes, cast disagreements, a presidential speech, (God forbid) a cast member's death. As well, this has been discussed by the Television project and it has been agreed upon that years should not be added until episodes actually air in the television season. If you see it on other pages, then they are in the error, not this page. That is what I would have said to you if you took the proper channels, but since you haven't, I am no longer contributing to this discussion here. If you want to bring it up on the article's talk page, be my guest. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If that isn't a crystal-ball-based argument, I don't know what is. You could make the identical argument about any future scheduled event. Sorry, your argument doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * How does the above provide an excuse from edit-warring? You can edit-war after a single edit, as I'm sure you know.  The process is WP:BRD - which does mean that Bugs should have been the one who started a discussion on the article talkpage, but then again, Drmargi refused to provide a valid reason for removal of Bugs' edit, so Bugs could be excused for believing that Drmargi had reverted in error  the panda  ₯’  20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your response. Drmargi did provide a valid response to Baseball Bugs's question, explaining both that there was a hidden note in the article, and that the "source says returning in 2014, not 2014-2015". How then could Baseball Bugs believe that "Drmargi had reverted in error"? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * DP, did you actually read my response on my talk page? I refused nothing. The edit had been reverted once already (by Farve1fan), and I reverted a second time.  There wasn't a lot more to say than what the FF's edit summary and the hidden note said already.  Bugs left a message on my talk page, and I answered the question he asked clearly and directly, as anyone who took the trouble to read my response can see.  The trouble is, Bugs wants an answer to a question he didn't ask, and seems to be nursing some old grudge or pissed off about something long ago forgotten by everyone else.  No one is edit warring aside from Bugs.  This whole situation is utterly farcical, frankly.   --Drmargi (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The two editors are edit-warring against anyone who dares put the obvious (2014-2015) in. And by the way, the guy who said this should be on the article talk page still has not posted on the article talk page. As I had predicted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm still waiting for a valid explanation. The fact that it's not yet September ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

from an outsider: can't this be resolved peacefully with a compromise? Say, leaving 2014-2015 in, but adding a qualifier such as "predicted"? Because it does seem like a fairly sure prediction, barring exceptional events. — Yerpo Eh? 09:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is not a valid edit-warring or 3RR report. Neither editor has breached 3RR and hasn't demonstrated evidence of edit-warring. This is a content dispute so this is not the appropriate venue to discuss. To clarify though, adding "(2014-2015)", "(2014-15)" is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The addition of years is based on a recent renewal notice and assumption that episodes will air in 2014-15. However, a renewal notice 6 months prior to the next season does not guarantee that episodes will air in a particular year. An examples of this is Hotel Hell, which was renewed in 2012 but did not air any episodes in 2012 or 2013. Episodes have only just been scheduled to air in 2014, 2 years after the renewal. There are many things that can happen between when a series is renewed and when episodes do eventually air. Two and a Half Men was expected to air for a full season in 2010-11 but production was halted twice and the season ended nearly three months before it was expected to end. The Playboy Club, Last Resort and Alcatraz were all expected to air for full seasons but were cancelled during their first season, The Playboy Club after only 3 episodes had aired and while several more were scheduled to air. Because of the uncertainty regarding TV series, including years in the section heading when episodes have not been scheduled to air is widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL and we do not add years because of this. This is why Drmargi and Favre1fan93, as well as other editors (including me) have been removing years from future season headings. It is, unfortunately, something we have to deal with every year around this time when the American TV season finishes. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Your argument is not valid. CBS has already said it is on the "fall schedule", which translates to sometime during the fall of 2014. What you're really doing is granting ownership of a number of articles to those two editors. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Being on its fall schedule is no guarantee that the series will premiere this year. There is too much uncertainty with TV programs. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty ignorant comment. But not as ignorant as the user who fell into that copycat troll's trap and claimed I was socking. I've reported user Desk Ref to ANI, and I would assume that any foreign IP's are also copycats, if not actually socks of that user. So their arguments can all be crossed off, and you can continue to own the page. And since it's obvious no one here is going to do anything about this page-ownership situation and the ignorance that's driving it, feel free to close this section. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling other editors ignorant is, at best, uncivil. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * False accusations of sockpuppetry are worse than uncivil. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. There is a difference of opinion as to how much evidence is needed before we announce the 2014-2015 season for the Person of Interest (TV series). A typical revert is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Person_of_Interest_episodes&diff=609104889&oldid=609103980 here]. Consider an WP:RFC or use one of the established methods of WP:Dispute resolution. If announcement of a new season when episodes have not been scheduled to air is indeed "widely considered by the TV project to be WP:CRYSTAL" then User:Drmargi should be able to document it by linking to past discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, it as FavreFan1 who initiated the removal of the dates, and added the hidden note. I came to the party later.  BB just made a target of me because he's still pouting about some ancient conflict or another, the specifics of which I've long forgotten.  AussieLegend provided the link, and Bignole, who wrote the policy at Project:TV added his comments, so it's quite thoroughly documented.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A policy that defies common sense ain't much of a policy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ), could you point me to this documented policy? From what I found on the talk, pointed to previous discussion with three editors. (This discussion also brought up that this is not to do with WP:CRYSTAL.) Also, I did not see the results of discussion integrated into MOS:TV. From that, it doesn't look like a "policy" per-say. Is there a different location I'm not looking at? It seems to me, if people disagree with the the old discussion, it's fair game to start a new one and reach consensus. Kirin13 (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably preferrable to let FavreFan or AussieLegend respond to your request. They're active on Project:TV whereas I'm not.  I'm sure one of them can satisfactorily address your concerns.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I was the one to possibly bring the "policy" claim into this. I do see what you are seeing, that same discussion that I in fact started on the project talk page. I, however, did feel that this was stated somewhere in our MOS, as for as long as I have been working on articles in this project, this has been the case: years are not added to the headings until episodes air, or you can unequivocally source that episodes will air in that calendar year, per all the reasons myself and AussieLegend have been stating here and at the discussion over at the article talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I listed them alphabetically. If I ever had any dealings with either editor at some point in the past, I don't remember it, and would just as soon keep it that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. ashlee g reported by User: Hafspajen (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Editor doesn't discuss the topic on talk page, that is well sourced but keeps removing sourced material. Also was warned for edit war and still continues. Hafspajen (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) @Hafspajen: According to the edit history of Talk:Miniature Pinscher,you haven't been discussing on the article talk page, either. Have you discussed on the editor's talk page, at least? Epicgenius (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I will take back notice. Hafspajen (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * by User:Barek. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Kumarila reported by User:Maunus (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (Undid revision 609300289 by (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Undid revision 609195360 by Vanamonde93 (talk))
 * 2)  (Undid revision 609298245 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Lead talks about complicity of Narendra Modi,. This line does not say that. Don't show your bias in editing.)
 * 3)  (Undid revision 609299750 by Maunus (talk))
 * 4)  (Undid revision 609300289 by Maunus (talk) Why did u remove it before discussing then ? It is properly sourced, u r the one playing edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Comment - First above diff isn't to Kumarila's talkpage. Second above diff simply says "I have reported you." This diff is the warning:
 * 1)  (Warning: Removal of content, blanking on 2002 Gujarat riots. (TW)) Jsharpminor (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - First above diff isn't to Kumarila's talkpage. Second above diff simply says "I have reported you." This diff is the warning:
 * 1)  (Warning: Removal of content, blanking on 2002 Gujarat riots. (TW)) Jsharpminor (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2002_Gujarat_riots

Comments:

Talkpage show User:Kumarila's history of problematic editing. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) -->

by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

User:31.220.238.96 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Other views */"
 * 2)  "Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal."
 * 3)  "You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material.  The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is.  Furthermore, please refrain from making threats.  It isn't helpful"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

We have gone over this material on the talk page. This editor refuses to use the talk page and continues to revert these edits. I warned the editor in the edit summary. Still continues to edit war. TMD (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking back on the history of this IP, every single edit that this user has made has been a variant of the quote "William Lane Craig believes that God has the moral right to commit genocide." This has been discussed on the talk page, and we have decided against this wording. This IP user has made no other contributions to the page, but has continued to insist on this wording since March of this year. 11:56, March 15, 2014 (diff | hist). . (-22)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎Other views) 14:09, March 16, 2014 (diff | hist). . (-66)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ 07:26, May 17, 2014 (diff | hist). . (+28)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (→‎The Resurrection of Jesus) 05:18, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist). . (+27)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (Reinserted factually correct material - no reason given for its removal.) 20:27, May 18, 2014 (diff | hist). . (+30)‎ . . William Lane Craig ‎ (You have still not provided a good reason to remove a factually correct material. The fact that he may think the term is not justified does not affect whether or not, objectively, it is. Furthermore, please refrain from making threats. It isn't helpful)

Every one of these edits has been for the same thing. This editor should be blocked from the page.--TMD (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 1 week. The IP has been warring since March to claim that Craig is defending 'genocide' by God, referring to the deaths of the Canaanites at the hand of the Israelites. This puts the word genocide in Wikipedia's voice. The cited material by Craig does not defend genocide as such; he uses other words. The same IP has also received three warnings for vandalism since March. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:B88 reported by User:Hafspajen (Result: 36 hours)
Sigh, what am I doing on this page two times in 24 hours... I can put my (non-existing) Doctoral hat on that this analysis is completely wrong. Hafspajen (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC) 
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Would you please include some diffs, or even the page you're referring to? As it stands this is a malformed report. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is one, it is Paul the Apostle. Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been three reverts in total done by three different editors -- two one way, and one the other.
 * There have been three reverts in total done by three different editors -- two one way, and one the other.


 * Also, this is a seriously malformed report. Please use the form for these reports, that's why it's there. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the so called malformation, not used to report here. told me that it was three, not four so, I figured... He is a respected administrator, he should know.  Hafspajen (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If the first edit is a removal--but their first edit was the addition of that, ahem, information. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Anyway, not a very polite editor. Hafspajen (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (cur | prev) 02:16, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (121,833 bytes) (+2,702)‎ . .(I don't discuss with hypocrits) and 3.
 * (cur | prev) 02:05, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (120,935 bytes) (+1,804)‎ . . (undo | thank)this is 2
 * (cur | prev) 00:28, 20 May 2014‎ B88(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,221 bytes) (+90)‎ . . (undo | thank) This was 1, I thought, readding someting removed,.
 * (cur | prev) 01:07, 19 May 2014‎ ༆(talk | contribs)‎ . . (119,131 bytes) (-90)‎ . .(Undid revision 608002981 by B88 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * Now, is it 3 or 4? Hafspajen (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I see--and that's why it's important to follow the proper formatting of these reports. I hadn't seen that +90 edit: technically, I'd say, that puts them at three, yes. But you know what, this really needs ; I'd still let this go by. By the way, I warned them on their talk page for this edit warring and the OR/SYNTH. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was no good report, I agree. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's neither 3 nor 4. Edit-warring is edit warring regardless of how many edits have been made, and can be as little as 1 or 2. More than 3 is what we call a bright-line rule, and is usually sufficient evidence that a war is occuring.
 * It looks to me like he, (which may or may not be revert 1 depending on if he just added the same stuff or not), then reverted the 1st or 2nd time, depending on your count, . Jsharpminor (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit -- I hadn't analyzed that thoroughly.  The +90 was part of a string of edits by B88, and a string of edits is counted for 3RR as one edit. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was my fault. Hafspajen (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the +90 was putting back this, removed  exactly the same content, here 00:28, +90 - string or not. That will be one edit, with all the edits after, yes. Than came the different 02:05, and later 02:16. So it is three alright. Hafspajen (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , no problem. They just reverted again, and I blocked for 36 hours. Thanks to all, Drmies (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, now he is back with a new account... . Five. Hafspajen (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And he's been given a new block by Drmies. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hate being right, seven or? Hafspajen (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * With the page now semiprotected so only auto-confirmed users can edit it, that should stop the rampant sockpuppetry. Jsharpminor (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Einsteinbomb reported by User:Betty Logan (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 article talk page:

Comments:


 * &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 15:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Windersteinburg reported by User:Zmflavius (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609328447&oldid=609323165

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (add cause of war)
 * 2)  (re-adds on Tunchow Mutiny)
 * 3)  (no edit summary)
 * 4)  (adds Tunchow Mutiny)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASecond_Sino-Japanese_War&diff=609309640&oldid=599655685

Comments: For some four reverts, Windersteinburg has persistently attempted to re-add material with a dubious source with relation to the Tungchow Mutiny to the Second Sino-Japanese War page, including extremely lurid, dubious, and undue degrees of detail, blatant POV pushing, and poor grammar. The added material also bears a strong resemblance to content which another user, Banzaiblitz, attempted to repeatedly add to the Tungchow Mutiny page, for which he was eventually banned for a combination of edit-warring and sockpuppeting (in fact, the "source" used is the same which he used), and who thereafter repeatedly engaged in sockpuppeting in relation to this topic. However, while the content is similar, the posting style of the two is fairly dissimilar. In any case, despite opposition by another editor wrt to further attempts to add this content (for the above stated reasons) on the talk page, Windersteinburg has continued to edit in this material without concern for the other editor's concerns. Zmflavius (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

In the upper comment, User Zmflavius couldn't show the details of his expression "dubious". He repeatedly erase and rewrote my edit with such poor reason. Windersteinburg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 15:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:75.177.156.78 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: IP warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: It is AGAINST POLICY to refactor others' talk page comments)
 * 2)  (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Don't change the heading as I ORIGINALLY wrote it.)
 * 3)  (Undid revision 609261110 by Elizium23 (talk) Header as ORIGINALLY posted.)
 * 4)  (→‎melissajoanhart.ning.com: Flyer22, please be thorough enough to look at the ENTIRE edit history; Elizium changed MY header and moved MY comments.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  (Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (→‎WP:RSN: new section)
 * 2)  (→‎Order of comments on RSN: new section)

Comments:

This anon IP claims to have nine years of experience editing Wikipedia, and yet has remained bellicose and incivil throughout this entire dispute, while not having a single shred of evidence to bolster his case. I have requested that this user stay away from my user talk page as discussions are not productive at all. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Summary by uninvolved editor: Elizium23 and the IP editor got into it over whether melissajoneshart.ning.com, a fansite, is an official site published by the celebrity, and if so, if it is a reliable source or not. On, Elizium took it to WP:RSN. The IP editor created another section for basically the same discussion at , exactly 12 hours later. Elizium23 merged the discussions at . The reverts are the IP attempting to break the discussions apart. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Elizium removed my header and (without discussing with me and another editor who commented) moved my and another editor's comments out of their original section. I invite any admin to also carefully review Elizium23's edits. Not that his edits justify any of my edits, but there may be a case of WP:BOOMERANG. Elizium appears to have a vendetta here because I justifiably challenged one of his sources as unreliable and he simply can't let it go even though other editors agree with me. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you and Elizium were basically discussing the same issue, why would you have an issue with Elizium moving the comments? Also, why would you start another section to discuss the very same thing? In fact, it seems to me that the third opinion did not agree with that, or moving it back to its own section.
 * Whether or not the fan site is valid is its own question, and I think I'd have to agree with you on that point. However, that's not what we're discussing at AN:3. Here, we're discussing whether or not someone should edit war. The answer is almost always no. And it looks like you decided, for whatever reason, to edit war over the placement of your comments. I think that's a candidate for WP:LAME. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am the third party. Why I reverted the IP should be clear from the edit history; I also noted why on the IP's talk page. The IP placing his or her comments at the beginning of the merged section, and changing the original heading to the heading of the section that was merged, was completely unproductive. Like I told the IP, "Elizium23 merged your section with his or hers, which is allowed...per TALK. Your order is not the original order, and you are making a mess of the section. STOP IT." The IP has now stopped reverting. It is a WP:LAME edit war indeed, but at least Elizium and I had very valid reasons for reverting the IP on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: IP warned. If they try to refactor again (without getting consensus) they may be blocked. See WP:REFACTOR for a help page on this topic. It makes no sense that the IP would revert more than once to put the posts out of date order. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: # diff

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

Comments: A month ago I requested User:Der Golem to be blocked. But User:EdJohnston merely locked the page for a month. Unfortunately, even after a month, he keeps vandalizing the page. I therefore request the vandal to be banned for a long period to stop him for good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liongrande (talk • contribs) 10:21, 20 May 2014‎ (UTC)


 * I would like to add a note here to make the situation little more clear: the user Liongrande is categorically against inclusion of any sort of Jews in the article about the nation of Czechs. Have a nice day everyone.--Der Golem (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not categorically against anything, I'm just responding to your blatant vandalism and disrespect of community consensus.--Liongrande (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors warned. The next person who reverts the article may be blocked. Liongrande gets special mention for reverting the article while his own 3RR report was open, and for using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly. See WP:Dispute resolution for the steps you can follow. I'm also notifying both parties under WP:ARBEE since this is a dispute about nationality in Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Massyparcer reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (unsourced/outdated material and original research cleaned up)
 * 2)  (reverting unexplained revert)
 * 3)  (I don't think you have looked through the sources when you wrote that message to me. They're dead and unverifiable, I have removed them as per violation of WP:Verifiability. The last list is a self-created list, significantly violating WP:OR.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Comment from uninvolved editor: The "diff of edit warring / 3rr warning" above is the AN3 notice. The original edit warring notice chronology follows (a cute little edit war in its own right):
 *  - Placed by ZH8000  (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
 *  - Removed by YJAX  (Undid revision 609258317 by ZH8000 (talk))
 *  - replaced by ZH8000 (→‎Stop edit warring - Rail usage statistics by country: new section)
 *  - removed by Massyparcer (Undid revision 609374531 by ZH8000 (talk) please do not repeat the same message.)
 *  - replaced by ZH8000 (Reverted 1 edit by Massyparcer (talk) to last revision by ZH8000. (TW))
 *  - removed by Massyparcer (Again, would you stop starting an edit war on my talk page please?)
 *  - replaced and added to by ZH8000 (Talk, explain, prove your position!)
 * - removed by Massyparcer (I have no interest in talking to you.)
 *  - replaced by ZH8000 and added AN:3 notice (Undid revision 609384629 by Massyparcer (talk) an3-notice)

Jsharpminor (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

His last comment was: "I have no interest in talking to you." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Massyparcer&diff=609384629&oldid=609383564
 * Comments from same uninvolved editor as above:
 * It seems to me to be very much worth noting that the last comment on the talk page is from 2011.
 * Edit summaries are no substitute for discussion.
 * Massyparcer is under no obligation whatsoever to keep any 3RR warning notices on his talk page.
 * Massyparcer's talk page is not the proper place to have this discussion; the article talk page is. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My view: It looks like Massyparcer is basically blanking and removing large sections of content with little to no explanation as to why. YJAX seems to agree with Massyparcer's action. Chronology is Massyparcer blanked, then ZH8000 reverted. Two additional reverts on each side brings both to 3RR. The fact that there's nothing on the talk page means both ought to have talked about it by now, so both are kind of at fault there. As for the revert war on Massyparcer's talk page... well, that's another story. Jsharpminor (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a tough one. I think summed it up pretty well. The bold, revert, discuss methodology is a welcomed one. After the first revert an effort should have been made to resolve the dispute. Three back and forth edits occurred before any attempt to discuss the changes occurred, when  added this message to Massyparcer's talk page.  responded by blanking the notice, which as Jsharpminor mentioned, is perfectly acceptable. Massyparcer, instead of trying to follow up with a legitimate attempt to discuss the matter, again reverted ZH8000's changes. I agree with  that the article talk page is a more appropriate place to discuss an obvious dispute rather than to utilize the edit summaries and continue to undo others' changes. It is often difficult to find consensus with only two editors who are at odds. If you use the article talk page, other editors familiar with the subject can chime in to help build a consensus.


 * The revert war over at Massyparcer's talk page only further delineates the two parties' refusal to engage in a civil discussion with one another. I'll also note that Massyparcer's third revert at Rail usage statistics by country occurred almost exactly 24 hours after the first. I feel no leeway should be given here under the aforementioned circumstances. The three-revert rule is in place to prevent disruption and help reinstate the collegial spirit of the wiki. We are here to work collaboratively to build encyclopedia, not dismiss others viewpoints - regardless of how much you may think yours is correct. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 01:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DVdm reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: DParlevliet blocked one week)
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:

Three editors did delete the same edit for which I report the last one (thenother did stop deleting). In their comment they don't give reasons which Wiki-rules allow to delete. Syntax is not correct(should be improved), not enough references ("citation needed" should be placed). I have several times asked what the exact problem is, because I also want to improve myself, but I get no answer. For comment see also my comments in the "view history" of the article. DParlevliet (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted once and gave a clear reason for it, as a followup to previous comments by other editors on talk page and in edit summaries. This report might call for a wp:BOOMERANG. In case user would have reverted a 4th time, I already had prepared the following entry:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert: anonymously as IP
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * and then this very report, perhaps more disruptive than a 4th revert
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Section Talk:Double-slit experiment opened by user, recently revived: , ,


 * I find this report rather disturbingly harrassing. DVdm (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Deleting the same part by different editors is no way of prevent the 4 revert rule. DVdm knew of the other deletions and still did it a fourth time. DParlevliet (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) For WP:3RR the same editor must do four reverts, not different editors. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * made . wp:BOOMERANG applies. WP:3RR doesn't beacuse not only does it require same person to make the four reverts, it must also be within 24 hours. However WP:EW applies. Assuming IP is DParlevliet, then he has four reverts on this issue. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Update:
 * 4th revert: Good grief.
 * Yes, IP is indeed without any doubt DParlevliet (wp:DUCK, see previous edit in same article, also undoing a revert), perhaps he forgot to login. DVdm (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be considered reasonable to replace something that employs such poor syntax and such poor logical connectedness between sentences that it does not make a helpful contribution to general readers. Originally there was one discussion. It was replaced by DParlevliet without discussion or justification. Suppose a third writer had come along and replaced that block of text with a third version, also without discussion or justification. Would DParlevliet accept such a change as progress? I came upon his last revert sometime last night. I tried to read it. I did not understand what he was trying to say. I therefore reverted it to a version that is comprehensible and is not misleading to the average well-informed reader. On the discussion page I explained to DParlevliet something that I have learned in the course of discussions on some thorny points, i.e., it is better to argue your case for a change on the talk page and use facts and logic to counter objections raised on the discussion page, and then to make your change. That is better than my making some significant change in the article first and then have it immediately reverted.

In past discussions I have not found DParlevliet to be responsive. Above, DParlevliet wrote, "I have several times asked what the exact problem is, because I also want to improve myself, but I get no answer." In the past when I have asked questions of DParlevliet in attempts to reach a common understanding he has not been responsive or cooperative. I do not think it is fair to readers to let an incomprehensible piece of writing stand while attempting to instruct an editor in ESL and also in how to properly develop an argument. I am having more and more trouble excusing DParlevliet of his general attitude, and I agree that this report seems "disturbingly harassing."P0M (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: DParlevliet is blocked one week for long-term edit warring at Double-slit experiment. Over the period since April 1 it appears that DParlevliet (and his IP) have reverted this article about 14 times. In my opinion any admin could lift this block if DParlevliet will agree to take a two-month break from editing any physics articles. We are way past the point where DParlevliet should have perceived he lacks consensus for his changes.  Comments by others on the talk page suggest that WP:COMPETENCE could be an issue; it's a difficult topic. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to you. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:71.42.218.20 reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: [diff]

Comments:

I have asked this user not to edit war on the indicated article, but the user stated that they "will not relent" and continued to edit war after my warning. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * for 48 hours. Cheers.  → Call me  Hahc  21  17:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mypageone reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Withdrawn by nominator)
I restored the following, which was archived without ever being processed; hence I am placing it at the top Quis separabit?  13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I politely advised editor Mypageone not to insert information regarding minor children (per BLP) on the above article. He/she ignored the hidden comment specifically regarding this issue in the first place after similar edits were removed, and has now, without comment or explanation, simply restored the edits I removed. I do not intend to get into an edit war with an occasional or one-topic editor or be goaded into violating 3RR, but if this editor is going to edit in bad faith then something needs to be done. Please see,. Editor notified on talk page but apparently can't be bothered to respond. Thanks, Quis separabit?  00:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Comments:
 * This report is malformed, lacks any diffs, user never received any edit warring/3RR warning before put on noticeboard, and there is no discussion in articles talk page. As far as I can tell did one revert, so reporting him for edit warring seems like a stretch. If you're having a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:3O or similar process. Since there hasn't been any reverts in 2.5 days, this 'edit war' is stale and WP:BLOCK is not punitive. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TwoHorned reported by Calypsomusic (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 11:10, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 608200537 by Calypsomusic (talk) Sorry but these editorial activities were his for an important part of his life.")
 * 2) 11:13, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 608200792 by Calypsomusic (talk) Why ? All his books are published by VOI !")
 * 3) 11:17, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "prodomo ref: koenraad elst blog")
 * 4) 11:20, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "This is notable")
 * 5) 11:49, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Fixing typo raised by BracketBot")
 * 6) 11:59, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reintroduction of deleted content by disruptive user")
 * 7) 12:05, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Re-introduction of deleted contents by disruptive user.")
 * 8) 12:09, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "ref problem")
 * 9) 20:18, 16 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Not sure than the flag "Hindu politics" is appropriate here.")
 * 10) 12:10, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "The merge tag is the one pending.")
 * 11) 12:12, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Neutralization")
 * 12) 12:13, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 13) 12:13, 17 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "no wikilink for that")
 * 14) 10:59, 19 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Tag restoration: there is consensus in the TP for fusion.")
 * 15) 17:39, 19 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Per TP, with deleted prodomo material and neutralization.")
 * 16) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 609389205 by Calypsomusic (talk) No, per TP, there no BLP violation here, and the OR aspects have been neutralized in the sentence.")
 * 17) 16:48, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "No, per TP,")
 * 18) 18:14, 20 May 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 609405436 by Calypsomusic (talk) The answers and majority is clear on the TP. And you don't have it.")


 * The last 4 diffs show edit warring breaking the 24 hour rule (by some minutes, he was gaming the system).


 * Diff of warning: here
 * After this warning, TwoHorned should have stopped edit-warring. However, he made another revert just minutes outside the 24 hour period, so was gaming the system and breaking the 3RR rule. After breaking the rule, he just replied "ok for me"


 * Diffs of warning: here
 * I made many such attempts to ask TwoHorned to discuss on the talkpage before making further reverts and restorations of BLP violations in the BLP article.


 * He was warned many times for BLP violations (one of the latest: here).


 * He has been warned countless times about BLP violations on this article, judging from talkpages and his block log, as far back as 2006.


 * He is already indefinitely banned on the French wikipedia for sockpuppetering, personal attacks and edit warring. see here and confirmed here


 * His block log shows numerous blocks for edit warring on the Koenraad Elst article and other articles.

—Calypsomusic (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please have a look on this to understand the real motive behind the creation of this request. Also have a look of this edit of User:Calypsomusic which is a personal attack of antisemitism. User:Drmies has locked the page and put a warning of the article's TP to which I agreed (as opposed to User:Calypsomusic so far...). Not to mention edit warring of User:Calypsomusic him/herself: example. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned  17:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So what was this edit? here. That other editors have said that TwoHorned is promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories is a fact. here an user says: "To cap it all, your language – when it is not incoherent – gives away the game: why else mention the ethnic origin of an author (‘some jewish writers’)? Shades here, perhaps, of an old discourse (‘the jew Dreyfus’)." And in this discussion here an editor says that an "anti-Israel editor named User:TwoHorned" is promoting fringe anti-semitic conspiracy theories. And you didn't agree, you only said "ok for me" just after you made your last revert. I stopped reverting your BLP policy violations on a BLP article after the warning, and I asked you many times to discuss on the talkpage and not revert.--Calypsomusic (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, one opinion of an anonymous user under IP who was there for a few days plus someone who says I criticize Israel's politics. How lonely I feel myself under the seriousness of your accusations. But, wait a minute, these stupid accusations remind me these ones long time ago. Don't unmask yourself so easily, infdef sockmaster User:Hkelkar. - TwoHorned User_talk:TwoHorned 08:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, going through your edits and talkpage discussions it is very easy to find out that you are obsessed with just a few things: Koenraad Elst, Rene Guenon, Neoconservatism, Jews, Islam-critical scholars, and all the articles where these topics mix. --Calypsomusic (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article has been fully protected and I've notified both users of discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:64.26.134.201 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Prophethood in Ahmadiyya */ There is a consencus amongst all Muslims that Muhammad (Allah bless him) is the last prophet. Ahmadiyya differ in definition of Prophet. It like adding Muslim view in the topic of Trinity."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 609437028 by 78.26 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 609437028 by 78.26 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 609437028 by 78.26 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Prophets in Islam. using TW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Prophets in Islam. using TW"


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


 * Comments:


 * Report was good at the time, but is now stale. (17 hours since last edit) Re-report if this user resumes edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Moxy reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

This report concerns the admission of User:Moxy of using edit warring against this editor for the purpose of controlling and manipulating this user's available time for contributions made to Wikipedia.

Editor:Moxy is edit warring on three separate edit pages simultaneously (Putin, Russia, Ukraine), and has published a personal attack against this editor referring to me as child and inferring that he/she is the only "adult" editor on my Talk page. User:Moxy has also admitted to using Edit Warring (User:Moxy refers to warring below as "my posts and edits", which are all edit warring edits and reverts) as his/her way of oddly controlling other users on how and where they are to use their available time for edit contributions to wikipages which User:Moxy wishes or requires them to use their available time for edit contributions for, with the following statement on this user's Talk page:

"Finally a reply to my posts and edits (that is, reply to multiple edit warring). Sorry its come to this - but please stop copy and pasting news articles and book quotes all over," admission by User:Moxy.

The edit warring has caused many lost hours of editing time to this editor. The edit warring by Moxy is also wallpapering false statements about "cut-and-paste", which has nothing to do with my edits which contain fully researched quotations, and for which Wikipolicy on "Valid usage" and "Fair usage" is explicit in recognizing as valid. The basis of this report for action/intervention is based on the admission to edit warring above made by User:Moxy. Therefore, the conventional links to the diffs to the warring are not included though they may be verified directly from the edit history pages. I can provide all of the diffs or edit ref#s if requested to do this by the reviewing Administrator. These are the diffs for the edit warring on Vladimir Putin:

(cur | prev) 20:58, 7 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎. . (194,063 bytes) (-1,432)‎. . (revert copy and paste job - Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. - this is not hard to understand) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:52, 7 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎. . (195,495 bytes) (+1,432)‎. . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Add recent report in NYTimes of Putin attempt at de-escalation after Crimea military build-up. Add cite and url.) (undo)

Add again on Vladimir Putin on 12 May:

(cur | prev) 16:32, 12 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎. . (192,677 bytes) (+36)‎. . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: restore tag removed without fixing the quote farm.) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:59, 10 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎. . (192,585 bytes) (-3,670)‎. . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Repair Quotefarm problem template and restore narrative format for readability. Previous version was not in narrative format.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixRosch (talk • contribs)

These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on Ukraine page:

(cur | prev) 20:44, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎. . (247,691 bytes) (-625)‎. . (WP:NOTHERE - editor has been told to join the conversations - but yet still edits this copy and paste job !!) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 20:27, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎. . (248,316 bytes) (+625)‎. . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Adding update and cite of status of 2014 International Geneva Pact. The International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the direction and progress of events in the region.) (undo) [automatically accepted]

These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on Russia page:

(cur | prev) 20:47, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎. . (201,538 bytes) (-1,523)‎. . (revert copy and paste job again.. Did you even read your tlak page messages?) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:35, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎. . (203,061 bytes) (+1,523)‎. . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Agreement with PhilKn on condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. Add cite.) (undo)

In the process of preparing this report, User:Moxy has continued edit warring on yet another Page, a fourth wikipage, for Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet in opposition to the cited book by Harold Bloom and in opposition to my short edit there;

(cur | prev) 07:52, 18 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎. . (97,064 bytes) (-493)‎. . (revert info that is in the article already - readers knows this by this point and the section is about "Criticism and interpretation" not origins of set work) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 15:28, 17 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎. . (97,557 bytes) (+493)‎. . (→‎Critical history: Adding critics Arthur Brooke in 1562 and John Swan in 1635 as predating Pepys. Previous version did not include them. Include citations.) (undo)

The edit warring by User:Moxy must be halted and the personal attacks must be retracted. User:Moxy has expressed anxiety about becoming an administrator on Wikipedia which may be related to his/her use of edit warring on this user's contributions on the wikipages listed above. Wikipedia was never taken a position defending uses of edit warring. It would take about one full day for me to correct and repair the  repeated damage done to my fully cited edits by User:Moxy if his/her edit warring activities could be curtailed or refrained from editing for 24 hours. Edit warring needs to be stopped on Wikipedia, and the use of edit warring by User:Moxy to make personal attacks against other editors is a poor example to other users of Wikipedia. FelixRosch (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins are less likely to look into this without proper diffs -- Neil N  talk to me  17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This was included in the report above. FelixRosch (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, those are not diff's - you simply copy/pasted the page history  the panda  ɛˢˡ” 17:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Use or . Also provide diffs for claims of personal attacks. ~ Kirin13 (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What we appear to have are single edits/reversions across multiple articles across multiple weeks. The examples above are not even on the same article.  The filer should please review WP:3RR and WP:EW so as to understand what they are and how they apply.  It is also recommended that they review WP:BRD as a means to obtain consensus for edits.  Also, I see no personal attacks - although this board is not the right place for them, as that's an WP:ANI issue <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ɛˢˡ”  17:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:TMDrew (Result: Declined for now)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 609255694 by Nomoskedasticity: Still waiting on someone to discuss these edits on the talk page. Please don't revert an edit if you can't actually come up with any reasons it shouldn't be made. (TW)"
 * 2)  "restore edits in between"
 * 1)  "restore edits in between"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor has continually refused to obey the consensus view on the talk page, and instead that her version of the article be the official one, regardless of the opinions of other editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMDrew (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . I don't see any clear consensus, either on the article talk page or at WP:RSN. Perhaps a little bit more consensus against TMDrew's version at RSN toward the end of the discussion. That said, this is a VERY slow burning battle, and I'm not prepared to take any administrative action at this point. However, if the battling in the article continues, sanctions may be warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What TMDrew isn't saying is that these edits are unrelated to any consensus that may or may not be developing with regard to the sources discussed at RSN. In fact, as you can see in my edit summary, I am begging other users to discuss these edits on the talk page. But instead, people are reverting without any explanation of what's wrong with the edits, making discussion impossible! No one has actually expressed any problem with these edits; it seems like TMDrew is just trying to get me blocked because of my previous disagreement with him and because he believes I am a "skeptic." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that a bad thing to be accused of? What exactly does he mean? Religious skeptic? Christian skeptic? General skeptic?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Beats me! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Brandeks reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (moved edit war to the Filespace)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to engage editor on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Brandeks is warned that he needs consensus for a change of the image. Since he has not edited since May 21 it seems unnecessary to issue a block. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:124.169.104.184 reported by User:LibStar (Result: IP and Alans1977 blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (remove politically motivated bs – not a scandal at all)
 * 2)  (Not how it works – see WP:BRD. If you're going to introduce controversial material (particularly describing something as a "political donations scandal"), *you* need to take it to the talkpage.)
 * 3)  (rv edit-warring – talkpage, please)
 * 4)  (Libstar, you've been around here long enough to know that the burden is on the person introducing new material to prove its relevant to the article. BRD and all that.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Has been edit warring on several pages, which warning was originally for. LibStar (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Message on my talkpage for closing admin, I'm not the only one who's been edit-warring. The discussion's been pretty WP:MEATy – something you could sink your teeth into, I'd say. Cheerio, 124.169.104.184 (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been edit warring on several pages. Alans1977 (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 124.169.104.184 and Alans1977 for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR. I haven't decided whether the contentious material should be removed. Any passing admin is feel free to weigh in on that issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Man, you're painfully fair. Poor --but edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Alans, let this be a lesson: there is no benefit in continuing an edit war, esp. if you're already getting support from other editors. Anyway,, the content seems fair to me though it wasn't particularly well-written. The article as a whole reads a bit UNDUE, but the disputed section is only three sentences, and obviously the article could use more text. But the content is well sourced, picked up by major media (The Age is big enough), and relevant. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:69.123.195.235 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked+)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Modern herbal medicine */"
 * 2)  "/* Prevalence of use */"
 * 3)  "/* Clinical tests */"
 * 4)  "/* History */  splelling mistake"
 * 5)  "/* Modern herbal medicine */ spelling mistake"
 * 6) 21:30, 23 May 2014 no edit summary
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Herbalism. (TW)"
 * 1)  "/* History */  splelling mistake"
 * 2)  "/* Modern herbal medicine */ spelling mistake"
 * 3) 21:30, 23 May 2014 no edit summary
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Herbalism. (TW)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Herbalism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Changes require discussion, must be supported by sources */ new section"


 * Comments:

Note also false edit summaries and prior notice from other editor link MrBill3 (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked the IP for 48 hours and two weeks for his alter ego, User:James321123.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tutelary reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Amicably withdrawn by reporter)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by John from Idegon (talk): Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gull_Lake_High_School#Vandalism_Incident. (TW)"
 * 2)  "another source. No reason given for reverts other than 'unencylopedic' which it is not (edited with ProveIt)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by John from Idegon: Again. It is inherently notable as it is from a direct link from the official facebook page. Per WP:PRIMARY You have not created an edit on the talk nor anything like it. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by John from Idegon (talk): Nope. Reliable per WP:PRIMARY and is notable to the school. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by John from Idegon (talk): Nope. Reliable per WP:PRIMARY and is notable to the school. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Gull Lake High School. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* May 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism incident */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Vandalism incident */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * No violation. If you look at the last revert, it's simply me adding another source. We're both at three reverts at the moment. Tutelary (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * He is at 4. And I am not looking for blood, just for a third party to explain WP:AGF and WP:RS to this editor. John from Idegon (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To the reviewing admin, look at the diffs. I have reverted three times, and he three times. The '4th' time he tried to claim is when I added Twitter as a source. I've recently added another reliable source for the content at hand.

Do not look at it at face value. Look at the page, investigate, look specifically at how many each reverted. Adding a source is not reverting content. We are both at 3 reverts.
 * Additionally, the editor has claimed 'edit warring' when he himself reverted twice after claiming that I was edit warring.
 * The editor has combative comments about "How he's been here longer than me" and that "I called him a vandal" and "That I'm wrong" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATutelary&diff=609892836&oldid=609892348
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGull_Lake_High_School&diff=609893408&oldid=609892540
 * Additionally, the claims and attempts to solve the content on the talk page (the section was created by me) has only focused on personal attacks against me, rather than the content at hand. Tutelary (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I've sorted things out. First: as for the question of whether the article on the school should mention the vandalism, John is right and Tutelary is wrong. Second: as for the question of how you were both behaving on that talk page, Tutelary was right and John was wrong. Not very wrong, but John was still crossing the line as Tutelary was attempting to remain peaceful. I have talked with Tutelary about this, and she's conceded my point: if the school takes permanent action due to the vandalism (installing cameras, switching regular doors for security doors, etc), then that will be worth mentioning, but only in terms of what measures were taken, not re: what the vandalism actually was. Tutelary has agreed to not try re-inserting that content in the article, so now we can all move on and edit productively. Isn't that right, Tutelary? DS (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've personally considered it and second guessed myself regarding it. A single act of vandalism with no long term effects should not be included in the article, as it isn't important with regards to long term notability. We discussed it civilly on the IRC and have come to the conclusion that I'm wrong about the content. I do concede the edit unless there does show signs of long term notability of the incident. Tutelary (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but calling another editor a vandal is never appropriate (unless of course, he or she is). If you were referring to the section title, then I owe you an apology.  If you were referring to me, then you owe me one.  I concede easily that I may have misunderstood, and if so, I am sorry. Been awake for roughly 30 straight hours now, and I guess I am not seeing things that well. Happy editing to all, and to all a good night. John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were to link me to a diff where I described you as a 'vandal', then I will apologize. However, I aver that the claim is baseless if there is no diff. I did not call you a vandal. Tutelary (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. I am so sorry.  Exactly what I alluded to above is what happened.  This would be a great time for me to pull my foot out of my mouth.  Please forgive me and thanks for being interested in schools in Michigan. John from Idegon (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And with that, we are at peace and the article is too. Consider my complaint withdrawn. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:186.31.20.28 reported by User:Disembodied Soul (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: 186.31.20.28 is conducting a global edit war by inserting a hoax daughter into the article about Carlos I of Portugal.


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:The_Real_One_Returns (Result: )
This user is continually reverting the edits of multiple articles to previous versions, with unsourced claims and erroneous and/or factually incorrect information.

Examples:<BR> Page:

Page: <BR> Page: <BR> Page: <BR> Page: <BR> Page: <BR>

I have explained to this user why his reverts aren't useful and have cordially requested that he or she cease their disruptive editing, to no avail. In addition, this user has also violated the [|Three Revert Rule] and has resorted to threats. Please assist. The Real One Returns (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Some corrections/explanantions :
 * This user is one of these typical genre warriors who like changing genre to suit his/her own point of view. I first noticed a genre was changed at I Was Here and I realized someone decided changing "new-age" into "pop" without any explanation at all. Then I realized this user changed numerous genres to suit his/her own point of view and I simply decided reverting as much edits as possible, providing an appropriate edit summary.
 * Afterwards this user started reverting my edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Real_Love_(Jody_Watley_song)&diff=prev&oldid=609909455 and provided POV-pushing explanations on his/her edits summaries.
 * After reverting this editor with edit summaries like this one, my edits were reverted again and this user started attacking me on me on talk page, calling me a vandal while I was reverting him/her.
 * I didn't violate the 3RR
 * The Real One Returns accused me of "hiding behind an anonymous IP address. This is a false accusation against me ! I didn't log out to revert him/her edits. This is simply a coincidence. I imagine someone else noticed genres were changed and this person decided to revert The Real One Returns.
 * To sum it up :
 * 1) I'm not a vandal
 * 2) I never violated the 3RR
 * 3) I never used any IP adress Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This wound up on my talk page, and I will post publicly to both Synthwave.94 and The Real One Returns: stop it. Both of you. Now. If you want to change a genre, provide an inline citation from a reliable source that supports the genre you are reverting to or adding. If you continue this widespread edit-war of unsourced material, a block will quickly follow.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that Synthwave.94 is continuing to vandalize articles by reinstating previous, erroneous versions -- but is not providing any sources to back up listed genre. This article being an example, and is seemingly bragging about his reverts at this point; yet he/she insists on name-calling me a 'genre warrior.' - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not vandalizing articles but for sure you're a "genre warrior". Anything else ? Any better remark ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know - or care - what a 'genre warrior' is...but I do know what a vandal and a troll are, and your activity epitomizes you as both. Trying to lie your way out of your deliberately reckless activity is futile, as it is all on record. Anything else ? Any better remark ?  I'll let you ponder while I remind Synthwave.94 that persistent vandalizing of Wikipedia articles with reverts of unsourced claims, because you have a chip on your shoulder, is a past time that can and will get you banned. - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea of what you're talking about but I perfectly know I'm here to contribute and that I'm certainly not a vandal or a troll. See what I did at The Power for example (one of the numerous articles where you clearly pushed your own POV, changing "hip house" into "hip hop") : I added new peak positions, changed some dead links, corrected links, added a certification table,... This is one of my typical edits when improving an article. Not this kind of ridiculous edit. See the difference and keep your disparaging comments for yourself. I'm not here to waste my time with typical troublemakers like you who are trying to bring faithful users down. There are numerous proofs I'm here to contribute : the awards on my talk page, positive feedback on my userpage and the kind of edit I just evoked. More than enough to prove my edits are well received. Now go back to your activities and drop your genre-warring behaviour for good. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I never intended beginning this "war". I'm simply fed up to see all these editors who changed genres without providing anything at all in their edit summaries. And The Real One Returns seems to be one of these typical genre warriors no one is looking at and who will continue changing genres without any explanation and sources if someone like me doesn't warn him/her. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but your reverts have been completely groundless. "Genre" and "style" are separate, yet on one article your reverted back to a version that listed 'quiet storm' as a genre -- something that it is not.  Apparently [[User:Synthwave.94|

Synthwave.94]] happened upon one of my revisions, became disgruntle because he/she saw me as an editor who is a "genre warrior" (whatever that is supposed to me, but whatever it is it is a name-calling insult that needs to stop) and decided to vindictively go through my entire contribution history to revert all the edits that I have made going back months at a time...undoing new revisions that made been made by succeeding editors in the time since...while simultaneously failing to provide *any* sources to back up what had been stated on the previous version he/she reinstated. This editor Synthwave.94 appears to simply have a vendetta at this point, which has made virtually all of his reverts and revisions unproductive and useless. - The Real One Returns (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a vendetta at all. I correctly explained in my edit summaries why I reverted you. Also changing genres on a good article like "I Was Here" is not very clever. You clearly proved you were here to change genres only. I saw few helpful edits in your contribution history (at least your 500 last contributions). You don't seem to be here to contribute. If you are unable to edit without providing sources (that's what your talk page seems to say) then someone should block you right now. Immediatly change your behaviour and stop changing genres if you don't want to have more troubles with me or with someone else. And drawing your own interpretation from Billboard charts is completly stupid : a song which chart on the R&B charts doesn't automatically make this song "R&B". This is obviously your own opinion, which doesn't matter at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:66.214.143.68 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semi-protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  - where he also makes a personal attack
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, because this is a long-running IP-hopping sockpuppeteer that and others have been dealing with for a long, long, time. Honestly, I'm kinda tempted to propose an edit filter. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

True, but protection has brought him to my talk page to discuss the issue. Part of the problem is that he's reading the Robert Graves bit at Orion (mythology) and also doesn't distinguish between solar hero and sun god, something which I've explained on my talk page. I'll be doing an edit this weekend clarifying it. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * He's just responded to my edit on my talk page reasonably and adds that he is not IP hopping but switching between iPhone and laptop according to connectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected, there is now a discussion at the article's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:LucrativeOffer reported by User:Freemesm (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Sourced content blanking.
 * 2)  Content biasing by reverting
 * 3)  Content biasing by reverting

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: I found User:LucrativeOffer as a wp:spa, after watching its contribution. He was trying to bias the article according to his opinion. Severel times I warned him, he didn't care about that. Moreover his message in my talk page make me more suspicious about his more than one identity. --<font color="#228B22" face="Ransom">FreemesM  <font color="#FF0000">(talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There is some serious misunderstanding. I never blanked any content, rather expanded the texts. Besides, I reworded the biased tone of the article which had words like extremist, fundamentalist etc. Neutral point of view and Manual of Style/Words to watch don't permit us to write an article with this tone. This is why I edited the article reworded the sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucrativeOffer (talk • contribs) 12:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are quite sensitive about Hefazat-e-islam's Fundamentalist and extremist identity. I am citing few news, which clearly identify them as Fundamentalist and extremist        --<font color="#228B22" face="Ransom">FreemesM  <font color="#FF0000">(talk) 12:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This diff indicates that there is a relation between User:LucrativeOffer and user:Fugstar. user:Fugstar was engaged in disruptive editing in William Nicholas Gomes and 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article and then suddenly User:LucrativeOffer is created and start editing in 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar article. In this diff  User:LucrativeOffer mistakenly linked William Nicholas Gomes's article. Later he removed that in this diff --<font color="#228B22" face="Ransom">FreemesM  <font color="#FF0000">(talk) 12:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'm not convinced based on behavioral evidence that LucrativeOffer is the same person as Fugstar. Without that connection, each of you had edit-warred, three reverts apiece.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, May be they are not connected, but how did LucrativeOffer know about William Nicholas Gomes's article, which he mentioned in my talk page ? Please check his edits, don't you think he is quite experience in wikipedia? Ok, apart from that LucrativeOffer was trying to push wp:NPOV without any source and he removed those contents, which are presenting negative activities of Hefazat-e-islam. All of them are properly sourced. He didn't attend to any discussion anywhere. But every time I noticed him in his talk page. Moreover as far as I know, preventing vandalism doesn't counted under 3rr.--<font color="#228B22" face="Ransom">FreemesM  <font color="#FF0000">(talk) 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The Gomes edit is the only thing that struck me as suspicious, and it's not enough for me to block. If you wish, you can file a report at WP:SPI. Claiming an exemption for vandalism is always risky unless the edits are egregious. In my view, the exemption doesn't apply here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bbb23, Currently I am not interested in LucrativeOffer's more than one identity. Please make a decisions about his edit warring attempt. He is continuously removing sourced content and push wp:npov content. Check diffs, which I reported, you will get an idea about his activity.--<font color="#228B22" face="Ransom">FreemesM  <font color="#FF0000">(talk) 12:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * FreemesM and LucrativeOffer have both continued to revert the article while this report was open and since User:Bbb23's comment above. The word 'violent' in the lead has been steadily going back and forth, always added by FreemesM and always removed by LucrativeOffer. In my opinion both should be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Meh, I didn't even look when I responded to Freemesm's comment on May 25 - so much for good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Trackinfo reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Trackinfo has continued to add a self-published source to the biography of a recently deceased person (April Jace) in violation of Wikipedia's policy against it. Rather than discuss it on the talk page, Trackinfo chose to disrupt the deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/April Jace. After being warned of the 3RR, Trackinfo temporarily ceased reverting. After the discussion on the talk page went nowhere, I suggested that he/she bring the discussion over the disputed source to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. After waiting 24 hours with no discussion, Trackinfo resumed reverting. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been repeatedly trying to tell the complaining editor that there is no problem with the source. Instead of listening, this user is the one creating the edit war by continuing to remove content, at a critical time when the entire article is nominated for deletion by this same editor.  In other words, this editor is deliberately trying to weaken the sourcing on an article they are also trying to remove.  That's deliberate, underhanded sabotage in my book.  At this editor's suggestion I have taken the source to the Reliable Sources noticeboard.  This user's contention has received zero comment, other than their own response to my entry.  After waiting over 24 hours, I put the content back.  In this entire sequence, I believe I have been the reasonable one in using a common source for the subject at hand as a reliable source and retaining the content it and other sources justify. Trackinfo (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Insistent on weakening the article during the debate. This user is now on their fourth removal of this content.

1, 2, 3, 4 and they too have previously been counter-warned about edit warring, as if this were necessary here Trackinfo (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Trackinfo, the problem here is that Hirolovesswords is correct: you cannot use a blog to source data about a recently-deceased person (actually, you can't use them pretty much anywhere, but the rules for biographies are particularly strict). He has immunity from our 3RR policy for removing them, but you do not have the same immunity for adding them. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Trackinfo has reverted again, this time adding new sources . However, these sources do not support the content added and appear to be original research. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Seriously?  nbclosangeles is about as big a news organization as there is in Los Angeles.  They aren't a reliable source?  Original research?  They reported on the tribute video (shot and posted to youtube months before her death), which I added and was removed by KWW, and how well loved she was by the members of her new team both reported in the story and in the text, calling her "Sunshine."  And official meet results showing her participation in championship events?  Your misinterpretation of information in order to achieve a result is childish and laughable, but also dangerous to have around a serious information source such as wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * nbclosangeles stated that she was a member of the team and that they called her "Sunshine", not that she was "known in the Southern California Masters track and field community as being a top sprinter". Using her official meet results to declare her as a top sprinter is original research because it is a novel interpretation of primary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Trackinfo has been warned (above) by User:Kww not to keep restoring the masterstrack.com blog source to the article since it doesn't qualify as a valid source about a recently-deceased person under WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Klocek reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User does not see that their is any concern with them reverting a bunch of other editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the 5 reverts cited were completely different edits, not the same. Furthermore, several editors suggested and approved the changes on the Talk page Klocek (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Cvhr reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Doc McStuffins episodes (Season 1). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on List of Doc McStuffins episodes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also repeated removal of CSD templates on related articles and insertion of copyrighted content from imdb.com. (I assume the user is probably a child unfamiliar with our policies.) - MrX 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * indefinitely. Too much sneakiness to be attributable to the "innocence" of a child. And, even if a child, too much disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Stalkford reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked)
Page:







User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * God in Buddhism:
 * Gautama Buddha in Hinduism
 * Pratītyasamutpāda
 * Buddhism and Hinduism

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Warnings:
 * User talkpage
 * User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Joshua you reverted my articles. Please go and check the history. I gave the sources which were verifiable and also many articles of Buddhism were quoted from the same website. But you didn't make any unchange. But on this you made and unchange and reported me. I know I haven't done anything wrong. Stalkford (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Comments:

Comment by JJ: Also abuse of warning-templates. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan reported by User:Stalkford (Result: Filer blocked)
Stalkford Page:



User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * God in Buddhism:


 * Gautama Buddha in Hinduism

This man is continuously engaged in edit war. I gave the sources which were even there in the article. He refused to discuss and when I asked on talk page, he didn't gave any response. * User talk:Joshua Jonathan

I ask him to kindly peacefully discuss rather than just showing his dictatorship on all Buddhism articles. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * . Filer blocked 72 hours. See above report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Hockeyloveisgay reported by User:Trlovejoy (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "i hate this gay shit"
 * 2)  "it was plagiarized and i didnt like it"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 5)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 6)  "/* Works */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Level 2 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"
 * 2)   "Level 3 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"
 * 3)   "Level 4 warning re. Fukuzawa Yukichi (HG)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Jehochman Talk 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:96.253.65.178 reported by Diego (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 Comments:  The IP user has reverted the article 5 6 times today (one more time after this warning was posted) (seven now, and counting), but the thing has been going on for weeks. Diego (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. And now this is becoming ridiculous. Are there no administrators watching this thread today? I'm going to request protection for the article. Diego (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Multiple editors have been trying to move the article's Historical Accuracy section from under Plot since it was first created. The reason changes every week, but none of them have been able to support their points after making them, and yet continue to move the section without consensus. You can read the discussion in Talk, and a summary of it at the bottom of the page. 96.253.65.178 (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been informed that Edit warring is unacceptable behavior in Wikipedia. Even if you don't think that moving the section is justified, forcing it back again and again, against the will of everybody else is forbidden. Diego (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Still there was no reason to edit war. According to my guess, the article might end up with protection.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Well past 3RR, obviously aware of policy. I did not see any other editors breaking 3RR. Kuru   (talk)  15:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After the 24h period end, the first edit of this user has been to repeat the revert for which he was blocked. Diego (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sceptre reported by User:Slenderdan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: The strange thing is I haven't objected to her view that he committed violence against women. I simply see that he also committed violence against men.

((ec)) The edit-warring is about Category:Violence against men in North America, a category that with the removal of this page has only 2 entries and no definition of what articles should be in this category, and I can see BLP issues arising both with the category and its addition to this page. Apparently the perpetrator of this killing has written about his hatred of women, but not of men, which would justify the Category:Violence against women in the United States category (although I'd still like to see a definition for this one also). Adding the violence against men category appears to be stating that the perpetrator was acting because of his hatred of men (as well), and that doesn't seem to be justified - thus a BLP violation. Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * She hasn't reverted since I warned her, though nobody's reverted her since then either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replied to Doug's comments on my talk page and also started a section at Talk:2014_Isla_Vista_killings to discuss the category. Dan, next time editing gets tendentious like this, it will probably be best to go to the talk page first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - Went right back to EWing after she was reverted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now unblocked by blocking editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * still engaged in edit warring by reverting others edits more than three times. Is that acceptable now on wikipedia?--Slenderdan (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Man of company (Result: Trolling filer indeffed)
Page:













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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

   
 * List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) films:

   
 * Robo Shankar:

      
 * Ekk Nayi Pehchaan:

  
 * Gavin Menzies:

   
 * Bobby Simha:


 * Bevin Boys:

This user is highly vandalazing the wikipedia. Please do watch his contribution section []. He only revert the changes giving the reason it is either outsourced or unimportant. There is nothing whatsoever he has constructed on wikipedia by only deletion. It is recommended to block this user immediately.


 * I do not see any WP:3RR violations. The only revert I can see is on the last page, and that's just a single revert, not even close to edit warring. Tutelary (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . Filer is a troll and probably a sock puppet, I just can't think of whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |21:25, 25 May 2014‎ (more or less this version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:32, 26 May 2014
 * 2) 15:59, 26 May 2014
 * 3) 16:19, 26 May 2014
 * 4) 17:27, 26 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Brews ohare

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: multiple on talk page (Talk:Enactivism,Talk:Enactivism,Talk:Enactivism,Talk:Enactivism)

Brews_ohare: Response
The items:
 * 1 14:32, 26 May 2014
 * 2 15:59, 26 May 2014
 * 3 16:19, 26 May 2014

are the insertion in the subsection Enactivism of identical material regarding the contributions of Luhmann to the subject of applying enactivism to social interactions.

The fourth item listed:
 * 4. 17:27, 26 May 2014

has no bearing at all upon this matter.

There is no dispute that Luhmann is very well regarded as a source, nor that what is said in the WP article is in any way a distortion of his position. The reasoning behind inclusion of Luhmann was provided on the Talk page as Talk:Enactivism.

The assertion of Snowded was that this material was irrelevant to enactivism, and he made no attempt to substantiate that point of view. His responses at Talk:Enactivism were unsupported by sources and consisted of erroneous conceptions of the topic conjured from his own mind. It was apparent that he had no intention of discussing this material or its sources, and instead was simply asserting and re-asserting his opinion with less and less civility.

Following the third insertion of this material, Snowded placed a tag on the entire subsection (even though only a few last sentences were involved) questioning the importance of the entire subsection, an issue never raised. I subsequently added another source (Torrance) and his views to this subsection, to support its relevance to enactivism.

I think with the attachment of this tag, a proper talk page discussion is now in the works, and this busy-body intrusion by FyzixFighter is just that. The matter will settle itself, and no action is necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I'm not an involved party in what appears to be a long simmering edit war here (and on a number of other page) between and  and few others. I was involved years ago in some of the physics article disputes that led up to Brews ohare's arbcom case and sanctions, so every once in awhile I drop in to see what he is up to. I wish I could say I'm surprised to see what is IMO some of the same behavior that got him in trouble before, specifically tendentious editing (including, but not limited to, accusing others of vandalism, accusing others of malice ), personal attacks (take your pick from the talk page), disregarding WP:BRD entirely (yes, I know this isn't policy, but it's a damn good essay on consensus building), and requiring that the onus be on those removing his new additions rather than on him when his edits are challenged (hence his justification for his reverts). The other actually involved editors might be able to give better examples. I'm not saying that the other editors are blameless in this edit war, but this looks like the first time in the edit wars that Brews has crossed the clearly defined line set by WP:3RR, which is IMO a good indication that his behavior needs to be examined, especially in light of his previous dispute and editing issues. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * . Putting aside Brews's history, which is complex and I'm unfamiliar with it, and even putting aside the unfounded accusations of vandalism and censorship (not really "malice"), it appears that Brews is not the only editor who has breached WP:3RR on this article. has also done so, and both of them have been edit-warring for quite some time. One other editor that I can see has been slightly (in comparison) involved, but Brews and Snowded stick out like a sore thumb. How can I justify blocking one without blocking the other? Frankly, I'd like to hear from both.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem lays with how Snowded tends to trail him around. I also think one of the refs is a little misleading, the one showing the removal of the essay tag []. The diffs for the refs are close to violating 3rr but I agree that there is an overall long term edit war between the two of them. I think that if blocks are handed out they should be handed out evenly because there isn't just one problematic set of behaviors being shown here and Snowded has clearly shown a battleground mentality too. I think Brews has had a rough hack at things here and this has lead to a lot of the scrutiny that at times is petty, I often wonder if he would have an easier time starting a new account and see how things go, IMHO it might help but there isn't any mistaking brews that's for sure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - I'm not seeing Snowded violating 3rr; I do see him doing 3 reverts total in a 24 hour window but there is more than 24hrs between the earliest of those edits and his revert  just previous to those three. I'm not saying that he wasn't edit warring, but he didn't cross the distinct 3RR line that Brews did (reverting a good-faith tagging is still a revert). I don't know if Snowded has been previously warned regarding expected standards and decorum, but Brews has explicitly been warned previously. In regards to "malice", I was basing that on the description in WP:TE, which includes as examples accusations of "censorship" and general lack of AGF. I agree "malice" may be a strong word here, but WP:TE is what I was basing that description on. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , you are correct about Snowded and 3RR. I counted edits on the 26th that were not reverts but pure additions. I'm not sure in this instance it matters much as the edit warring by both users is so blatant, but it can't be classified as a 3RR violation. As for a warning, an experienced editor like Snowded doesn't require a warning. Neither editor has edited on Wikipedia since I asked them to comment on their conduct, so for the moment I'm taking no action. Another administrator may feel differently, and I must say my inclination is to block them both, but I feel that would be unfair after I invited their input.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Brews for 48 hours. Their justification (see above) for violating 3RR and edit warring generally was wholly inadequate and showed no insight into their misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Walter Sobchak0 reported by User:Lucy1994 (Result:48 hr )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: This user has deleted information referenced with reliable sources (centre-left and anti-nationalism), he has also written other information without any source (Spanish nationalism) and lastly, he has used questionable sources to add lerrouxism and third way.Lucy1994 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to call it a day with respect to the ideology section but I'll reintroduce the other changes (the ones in the paragraphs, arbitrarily erased in the latest edition) because they are properly referenced, all of them. I agree Lerrouxism and Spanish Nationalism are open to discussion and the refs are questionable but the in-text edits are not; references are all adequate. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No,, you will not re-introduce anything. As per WP:BRD, if you make a change and it's reverted, you then open a discussion on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS for all or part of your suggested edits.  If you ever fail to follow BRD - even if it's as you say "adequate" for references, you will be blocked for edit-warring, and no further warnings will be required.  The above disgusting show of brute-force edit-warring is unacceptable, and unless you have a really good reason AND show that you indeed do NOT intend to re-implement previous changes in any section, then a block right now is inevitable <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’  22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * DangerousPanda, not obeying bold, revert, discuss is not grounds for a blocking. It is not a site policy, and is only an essay by some users. Of course, I'm not sure if they've violated the three revert rule but I would limit the blocking based on actual policy, not an essay. Tutelary (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's an essay. Have you seen their edit-warring above?  Are you aware that editors can be placed under WP:1RR?  Is there a good reason for you to chime in here? <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’  23:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’ 09:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Dougweller reported by User:75.73.22.81 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial&diff=607417498&oldid=602828196

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 607457160 (original revert made by different user (Harizotoh9) who did not engage in further edit warring
 * 2) 607884311
 * 3) 608649281
 * 4) 608787881

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 608781169

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 608147732 (attempted to engage user on point of translation)

Comments:

I assert the source in question, the Hoefle Telegram, uses the German word "zugang" which translates as "enter," "access," or "arrive" as opposed to "exterminate" (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/german-english/zugang http://dictionary.reverso.net/german-english/Zugang%5D) which Dougweller erroneously claims. For convenience, here is the image of the Telegram with the word highlighted (http://imgur.com/e6IerTL), which Dougweller erroneously claims is not there.

Comment by JJ: the Hanyok-source comments to this telegram as follows (p.80): "January 1943 message listing number of Jews killed as part of operation Reinhard". Your personal interpretation is WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks. I explained to the ip that we go by what our source says, not an interpretation of a word. The ip refuses to accept this although I think I went into this in detail. On dodgy connection with ipad so can't get doffs right now. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a doff world... Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See my posts at User talk:75.73.22.81 and the IP's edit summaries. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Stale No edits since 16 May (and there's fairly obviously not a violation here anyway). FWIW, the IP does appear not to grasp the issue that we rely on our sources, not original research. Black Kite kite (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:71.42.218.20 reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: Both IPs blocked 72h)
Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

See previous report at Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive246.

IP 71.42.218.20 as well as 71.42.218.26 have continued to edit war despite the previous block. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Both IPs have been for 72 hours for edit warring.  I consider both IPs either the same person, or meatpuppets.  --Chris (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by Doncram (Result: Both blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * I provided notice of this discussion by this diff. Editor Pigsonthewing is highly experienced, and needs no warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * There was a merger proposal pointing to the article Talk page, initiated by editor Gilliam in this diff. And I saw that editor Candleabracadabra had commented there, but the Talk page disappeared.  Did editor Pigsonthewing delete the Talk page?  I am confused why I cannot see the deletion.  It is possible that I saw a different Talk page where there was a different merger proposal (which I believe was at Talk:Dundee Community Garden, but that doesn't show now either).  Was that also deleted?  I am suspecting use of administrator tools to confuse this matter.  Either way, I created or re-created a Talk page at Talk:Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska with a section for merger proposal and commented there, in this diff, at 13:08, 27 May. -- do  ncr  am  14:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor PigsontheWing has explicitly violated 3RR with four edits on Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska article. Edit summaries were: 13:22, 27 May. (-1,751)‎ . (there is no "process") (current) 13:13, 27 May. (-1,753)‎ . (Undid revision 610344523 by Doncram (talk) Poppycock.) 13:08, 27 May. (-1,753)‎ . (Undid revision 610344068 by Doncram (talk) No reason not to merge) 12:59, 27 May. (-1,753)‎ . (merged)

in response to my edits, with all three edit summaries calling attention to merger proposal discussion: 13:21, 27 May (+1,753)‎. (Undid revision 610344748. "Poppycock" is not a valid reason to over-ride merger proposal process. Discuss at Merger proposal.) (undo) 13:11, 27 May (+1,753)‎. (There was an active merger proposal. It is contentious to unilaterally merge. Restore. Discuss at merger proposal.) (undo) 13:06, 27 May (+1,753)‎. (Undid revision 610343346 by Pigsonthewing (talk) There is a merger proposal.) (undo)

I ask that Pigsonthewing should be enjoined not to take contentious actions such as blanking/redirecting a page, when other editors disagree, and behave like an administrator (I believe Pigsonthewing is an admin, though userpage does not indicate that. And I ask that the editor be blocked for 24 hours per guidelines at wp:3RR.  I don't think an administrator should be exempt from consequences.  I am honestly dismayed to encounter this behavior.  I hesitated in this sequence of edits, because I don't want to raise contention.  In fact by my actions I was trying to reduce other contention/disagreement in connection with a recent AFD that closed.  So I was sure to call for discussion at Talk, and am quite dismayed that the editor seems to act in what I view as a bullying-type way, without fear of consequences.  I am somewhat afraid this is an opening salvo in further contention. -- do  ncr  am  14:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Doncram is, to put it charitably, confused. Or perhaps worse, given that, including one related to the article under discussion here. There was no "active merger proposal" on either the article concerned, nor its talk page (he's welcome to refute this with a diff, if he believes otherwise). I have never reverted to the version he claims (though he has). The first (chronologically; listed last in his sequence) edit he lists is not a revert. I've reverted no more than he has. Is he calling for himself to be blocked, too? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Umm, i don't think that is charitable. Pigsonthewing 4 times removed all content.  Pigsonthewing, could you explain what happened to the Talk pages:  did you remove them or not?  Did you use administrative tools in any way?  I don't want to get blocked;  I have noticed with concern your following me to a couple articles, and I am afraid that this could be a start to following, bullying-type behavior, which I want to avoid.  I don't want to battle you, Pigsonthewing, but nor do I want to be a victim of possibly bullying-type behavior such as repeated redirects where you judge, against apparent views of at least 2 editors, that discussion is not warranted. -- do  ncr  am  14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is probably a good time - given the hysterical and false accusations, rhetorical questions and insinuations preceding this comment - to quote from Arbitration/Active sanctions: "Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate." (see March 2013 case). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Some facts: There were 2 editors calling for discussion: Gilliam and me.  I have also noticed Pigsonthewing editing after me here, here, and here.  Nothing wrong with those edits, but this after having some disagreement about PRODs and AFDs that Pigsonthewing initiated.  It's not unreasonable for me to perceive some following going on. -- do  ncr  am  15:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where was this discussion? I've been a member of WikiProject Historic sites, so it's on my watchlist; and that's where I saw Jusay Ancestral House mentioned. Your accusation of stalking is - unlike your stalking of me - entirely without evidence or merit. However, none of this is pertinent to your bogus accusation of 3RR, and I repeat my invitation that you take your accusations to ANI if you still believe they have substance. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, this seems to confirm what I have been afraid of, that you were seeking to pick a fight, knowing that I am vulnerable.   I am indeed sensitive, given some past interactions with Pigsonthewing and given some past interactions with other administrator-editors.  About the 3RR, I ask that someone take action here.  About other issues, I am afraid of what this is going towards. -- do  ncr  am  14:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I see why I thought there was an active merger proposal discussion going on at a Talk page: it was because Pigsonthewings' 12:59 edit redirected the page that was the target of the merger proposal link. Editor Gilliam indeed initiated a merger proposal with a banner including link to where discussion was to happen.  I clicked on the link, and found discussion in process, but had unbeknownst to me had been brought to a different page, where there was a different merger proposal.  I [commented there at 13:02], believing it to be different than it was.  It was indeed confusing.  Pigsonthewing since deleted the call for discussion, in this diff. -- do  ncr  am  14:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I deleted a "mergefrom template, because I had already merged the articles. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean YES, you deleted the call for discussion, which was a mergefrom template. And during the active edit warring you had appeared not to have merged the articles, rather you effectively just redirected.  I see now that you did previously copy in the table that was the main portion of the article, but then at 13:00 you removed it with comment "rm repetition", and it was not present while you were edit warring up to 4th reversion.  And only later, in diff at 13:44, after you this 3RR was opened at 13:40, did you restore it.  It could have made a difference if you would have discussed the situation at Talk page as I requested.  But irregardless, I did dispute the undiscussed merger and restore it, and there was a proposal to discuss it, and the edit warring against that is what this 3RR report is about.  The article should be restored and there should be an orderly discussion of whether it should be merged or not. -- do  ncr  am  17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I meant what I wrote, and wrote what I meant; and I repeat again that your bogus claim of 3RR has already been refuted. I'll now repeat the question I asked above, but which you have ignored: "Where was this discussion?". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I don't want to engage in an edit war on this noticeboard. But Pigsonthewing has edited the above (in this diff), which moved my inserted comment, which has the effect of making this discussion look better for him and worse for me. While he has himself inserted comment, where he likes. I would prefer to move my inserted comment back, with his following response to that, to make this discussion make more sense, but I won't. I do object to an involved editor refactoring my comments. About an action to take here, I would like for an administrator to note that Pigsonthewing did violate 3RR, and to restore the article (undo the redirect). -- do ncr  am  16:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) -- do  ncr  am  17:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I fixed the indentation and chronological sequence, per WP:TALK and WP:LIST. Your comment was otherwise unaltered. How do you think that "has the effect of making this discussion look better " for me? Your false allegation of 3RR is refuted above. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read through this case and have to admit I am a bit confused, Andy, by your statement that the 3RR claim is "bogus" and "is refuted above." I can't find the refutation you refer to; would you mind clarifying? Doncram, to clarify your confusion in your first remark, Andy is not an administrator and never has been. --Chris (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After looking a bit more I think I see what you meant -- that the first edit was not actually a revert, but rather was the original edit that was later reverted by doncram. It looks, then, like you both walked right up to the 3RR line and then stopped.  This appears to me to be very obvious edit warring, even though 3RR was not breached.  According to WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring [...]. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."  Noting that both editors have a history of being blocked for edit warring, .  --Chris (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:66.65.19.113 reported by User:JimRenge (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Deleted the photo of Dai-Gohonzon since no photo or reproduction of Nichiren Shoshu's highest object of worship is permitted.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Deletes the offending image from another page after final warning. JimRenge (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:69.196.171.23 reported by User:Obiwankenobi (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Violates WP:BLPCAT, which is enshrined in a policy and thus overrides a discussion on the talk page. Sorry Binksternet."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 610354288 by Obiwankenobi (talk) You can't overrule a policy."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 610354830 by Obiwankenobi (talk) Sorry, but I'm simply enforcing policy. Until Foster says she is gay or bi or a member of the LGBT community, the categories stay off."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 610357041 by Obiwankenobi (talk) Local consensus does not and can not overrule policy. Also, there was no such consensus - look again."


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring after close of a community-wide RFC on the topic which had plenty of participation, but this one IP doesn't agree, so they edit war. I suggest a block, since warnings have been given and they continue to revert. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Bad Block  The IP is actually correct. BLPCAT does actually say what he says it does, and no rfc can change that as it's policy.  Please overturn.   Kosh Vorlon    '' 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to the three RfCs on the talk page, Foster should be in the 'LGBT' categories but should not be described as a lesbian. So the IP who is reverting to remove the LGBT categories is in the wrong and the block is correct. The language of WP:BLPCAT does not contradict this. According to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jodie_Foster#RfC_1_-_Should_LGBT_categories_be_added_to_page.3F the RfC], Foster is married to a woman. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the RFC's, but the RFC's can't be used to over-ride policy, especially on BLP's. The IP's still correct  Kosh Vorlon    '' 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the RFC's aren't over-riding policy, they're interpreting policy in a grey area. Now one could disagree with how they've interpreted it, but that isn't the same as saying an RFC is invalid because it interprets it differently than you do, and it certainly can't mean that anyone can edit war to ignore an RFC because they interpret BLP more strictly than the RFC does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SumerianPrince reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 10 Dec 2013 (by IP 117.194.x.x, self admitted by the user that this is his IP)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19 May (by IP)
 * 2) 26 May
 * 3) 27 May
 * 4) 27 May (by IP)
 * 5) 28 May

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

Comments:

Persistently edit warring using IP and registered account to restore POV content. Since this article is in the domain of WP:ARBIP discretionary sanction, I would like the closing admin to please at least inform the user about this. -- S M S  Talk 15:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My response to the charge above
This is in response to your message on my Talk. I have used exclusively one user-account to edit which is this that I have made those edits with and am using now. As to my alleged use of sock-puppetry with IP's I did make a couple of edits when I was logged out (I do not keep myself constantly logged into WIKI) in a bit of haste. Every edit that you will see in the revision page is from IP's 117.194*. That is on account of my Net connection having a moving IP and not a fixed one. (As this is a large city and so is the network there will be many more users with edits made from 117.194* on various pages of WIKI. The IPs keep moving each time for each user when he/she logs onto the Net and its almost never the same except for the first two numbers.) However those made from those IPs on the two concerned pages are mine I concede. By definition, I have not indulged in sock-puppetry, the reason being that I know for a fact that what I have been claiming on that page is correct. My apologies if that were to be still considered sock-puppetry.

Furthermore, please look at this message I left on the Talk of User:VSmith, an admin I have interacted with prior, long before I was reported and you conveyed the same to me. I have clearly mentioned there that a couple of my edits have appeared under 117.194*. I reported User:Smsarmad and the other user User:Maharashtra1 (to User:VSmith) along with a London-based IP 81.157* for repeated vandalism, removal of reliable references, and sock-puppetry. You can see for yourself from that edit that I did concede on my own that those edits were made by me without logging into that account.

These nationalists insert all kinds of BS in the analogous India articles and yet remove reliable references from those like the two in contention here. My issue was primarily with the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx which shows pakistan as a heavily 'unfavored' nation in the US. I put up that as a reference for that pakistan is disliked (along with an article from huffingtonpost.com). The user keeps deleting them from two different usernames and one IP.

I again apologize that I did not show the patience in logging in and making the edits that I wanted to every time. Looking back at the revision history of the page [] its been reverted again and again. I would not have been making those edits in the first place if a well-referenced claim like that was not being repeatedly deleted which I hope you shall appreciate. Moreover I am pretty sure that Ssarmad and Maharashtra1 are the same user editing from 81.157*.

SumerianPrince (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Whichever admin closes this might also look at User talk:EdJohnston for the editor's responses. It appears that a conventional block may be justified, which they might avoid by promising to behave better, assuming that they do. I must not be the only one to think that SumerianPrince's comment above isn't much of a defence against an edit warring charge. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having read your response to my message on your Talk I again reiterate that I am not going to 'edit-war' on India/Pakistan/SouthAsian pages/articles. Not just for the next 14 days but for as long as I edit on WIKI. I must also say this again - that every time I might have been involved in 'edit-wars' - I was cornered for 3RR/warring and not pushing POV or OR or not using RS. TBF sometimes it gets difficult on WIKI when somebody reverts righteous claims with appropriate references. HOWEVER, eventually if at the end of the exercise, I find that what I think is right does not materialize, AS WELL AS that I am blocked, obviously it makes little sense to carry on. So again I do not intend to edit directly on that or ANY page in that category. SumerianPrince (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not necessary to promise to ban yourself completely from articles that are in your area of interest. You should simply read WP:BRD (essentially 1RR) and promise to abide by it, using the article's talk page after you have been reverted to explain how your edit improves the article. You don't use article talk pages much at all, but you should be using them all the time when you find yourself in a dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that link, Sir, and you are right in that I seldom use the Talk Page. Probably 90% of the time I refrain from using iffy refs (and in the first place the claims I make are well-supported by these usually solid refs). Here it is clear that the person does not want to see what he does not like. I mean a Gallup poll says that over 80% Americans dislike pakistan while only 14% do not. The site is authentic. Having been in the US as a student, and possibly returning there next year, I know its well-known. Somewhat I feel a discussion on the Talk would only serve the purpose of such people from prevaricating any chance of allowing the appropriate edit to materialize. As you have said, in future I shall open a discussion on the Talk page abiding by 1RR, but in the face of weak/flimsy/vacuous arguments there, I shall approach Admins like yourself and EdJohnston, who I believe shall do justice. SumerianPrince (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As admins can see the above user is a sock he conveniently "forgets" to log in when reverting stuff and is simply deluded on the meaning of authenticity he claims a poll explains some sort of anti-Pakistan sentiment and the source clearly does not explain anything there are hundreds of polls carried out and they do not help explain not verify the utter ridiculous pov of our Indian pov pusher above. Being a student abroad I have experienced blah blah should give an indication of what school of thought this user was brought up on sadly Indians are so obsessed with there hatred for Pakistan they spread this phobia on wikipedia and pollute it his intention is obviously "Americans like Indians more" idea has no place on wikipedia sadly this view is part and parcel of Indian culture and they have been brainwashed into thinking this is a worldwide view he bases his garbage on his personal "experience" and a poll its far far to weak to have an inclusion of a pov pusher in this article. Maharashtra1 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Anti-Pakistan sentiment. The user doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy and is resistant to learning it. The unconvincing excuses above are making things worse for him.  ("Somewhat I feel a discussion on the Talk would only serve the purpose of such people from prevaricating any chance of allowing the appropriate edit to materialize.") People on the other side are offering "weak/flimsy/vacuous arguments".  He has a previous block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:92.226.89.115 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Warned)

 * User being reported:
 * Pages in dispute: ,
 * and others

User is making a series of edits that, within a picture caption, falsely equate Civil calendar with Anno Domini and falsely indicates London does not observe Anno Domini year numbering:,. Also defies WP:ERA. Correction reverted:. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HurluGumene reported by User:Spike Wilbury (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:50, May 27, 2014‎
 * 2) 12:59, May 28, 2014‎
 * 3) 19:46, May 28, 2014‎
 * 4) 20:19, May 28, 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This user insists on adding exhaustive setlists for each show to this and other articles. Despite no fewer than three other editors disputing the additions and consensus on the article talk page that they don't belong, HurluGumene continues to edit war. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and personal attacks by .--Bbb23 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:72.50.87.238 reported by User:Mercy11 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This anonymous IP engaged in edit warring with identical claims and reverts at 7 other biographies as well as follows:


 * 1) Luis Muñoz Marín
 * 2) Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rican Congressman)
 * 3) Carlos Romero Barceló
 * 4) Rafael Hernández Colón
 * 5) Pedro Rosselló
 * 6) Sila María Calderón
 * 7) Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
 * 8) Luis Fortuño

End. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As per the text utilized above, "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." As Wikipedia's logs will show, there has not yet been a violation of the 3RR by this profile. Furthermore, the 3RR is applicable in the context of one article. There are no rules on the edition of multiple articles. Furthermore, as the logs will also show, Mercy's invitation to discuss the contested edits have been answered. As of yet, Mercy has preferred to serve notification of this procedure instead of offering good faith discussion. This is likely, because the actual letter of the law support my edits, and he cannot muster an argument refuting said legal sources. Therefore, Mercy resorts to censorship instead of ceding the point, as he is obviously wrong. 72.50.87.238 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bigidilijak reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Blocked for 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 610598965 by Freemesm (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Activities in 2013 */"
 * 3)  "WP:DLR"
 * 1)  "WP:DLR"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * by.
 * by myself.
 * by.


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


 * Comments:

User continues to add WP:COPYVIO from this blog. G S Palmer (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally I did not do WP:COPYVIO. Please see it:. User:Freemesm continues to add WP:DPL. 2 days ago User:Freemesm was already blocked for 48 hours. Please see also the 3RR warning. He still started disprutive editing here:  Bigidilijak (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You still committed copyvio: that's just a diff of fixing it. And that's still Close paraphrasing.  G S Palmer (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72h - user clearly does not understand copyvio or sourcing after numerous warnings. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm reported by User:Bigidilijak (Result: Reporter blocked for 72h)
 
 * Page: &
 * User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user is continuing to add WP:DPL.Two days ago User:Freemesm was already blocked for 48 hours. He still started disprutive editing here: Bigidilijak (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Can you explain why some of Freemesm's reverts are removing material repeatedly added by you but sourced to a blog on two different pages and copyright violations added at least twice by yourself? I would suggest that if any editor needs a block here, it would be yourself for tendentious editing and copyright violation. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the copyright violationBigidilijak (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Look here another user has written something about freemesmBigidilijak (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. It's fairly clear that you haven't responded to the above concerns.
 * Reporter blocked for 72h - see above. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Nasa-verve (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

have discussed the article in depth about the use of WP:NFCC. I posted and am attempting to get a 3rd opinion on it, but Werieth will not wait until that opinion comes in. I believe he broke the 3RR rule by completely gutting the article and not interested in building any type of consensus on the issue first. Apparently he believes that WP has an immediate deadline. My request for 3rd opinion was requested here 5 days ago and only has one request in front of it. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I am at 3RR which is the same point you are, and neither of us have violated it yet. I pruned an article to meet wikipedia policies. Werieth (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at just a 24-hour window gives a narrow view of what is going on here. This article has been at over 24,000 bytes since December 2008. Then with these edits Werieth thinks he has more insight than five and a half years of editors experience by chopping the article down to ~5,200 bytes. Our talk page conversation started discussing the use of NFCC media, but then ended with Werieth deciding that he needed to gut the article in order to what really needed to be done. In my opinion he was letting the ends justify the means: forcing the issue on removing valid use of Non-free media (with valid use rationales and everything) by removing all the surrounding text as well. Please do not dismiss because this is not technically 3RR, because it will escalate into that soon. I have tried for 5 days of talk page discussion to build consensus, but it seems Werieth is not interested in that.

Data:
 * 19:45, 23 March 2014: Stable article
 * 23:19, 3 May 2014: Werieth removes Non-free media with rationales
 * 15:23, 22 May 2014: nasa-verve adds back in media with edit summary: (Re-add images that I proposed per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finder_(software)#Fair-use_images_on_Finder_.28software.29 both of which have acceptible WP:FUR)]
 * 15:25, 22 May 2014: Werieth removes 18,000 bytes from article, gutting it, without building any consensus at all

Nasa-verve (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did cite several reasons for the removal of the content, The material that Im removing is poorly sourced, non-relevant change log. We dont include trivial information about a product. I removed the cruft and promotional materiel that is unencyclopedic. Werieth (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What is your excuse for repeatedly (4 times now) removing 20k / 80% of text content from this article? You have yet to give even a relevant edit summary for this. NFC, your usual excuse, is no reason for deleting this much text. Nor is there any excuse for your threat to block another editor under NFCC for restoring this text. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see this outcome by where Werieth was warned, its a very similar case. If the images stay removed through Werieth's edit war, they "immediately become speedyable as orphaned fair use" (quote from Magog link). Nasa-verve (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Werieth might have been able to justify edit warring over removing just the images, but over massive blocks of content? And the claim the content is unsourced, when we are talking about a major component of a significant operating system, meaning that it's a matter of cleanup to find those sources (We're not talking about a significant amount of OR). Of course, Nasa-verve edit warred as much, it shouldn't have gotten to this point, but to be clear that there's no way that Werieth could use the NFC exemption allowance for 3RR to justify this behavior. --M ASEM  (t) 15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My primary issue was the excessive non-free files which where not discussed. I explained the issue several times, and that the article needed a lot of work before we could justify additional non-free media. seemed to think that because the article referenced the other versions that we need to include an image. I tried to explain the issues with the article but Nasa-verve didnt listen. I told Nasa-verve that if they wanted to re-add the files I would go through and clean up the cruft from the article instead of just leaving it to be fixed by someone else, I also stated that Nasa-verve wouldnt like the result as the article was in poor shape. Nasa-verve agreed to that, re-added the the files, and I proceeded to tag/remove material as needed. Werieth (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I never agreed to you gutting the article. I was accepting that which I was powerless over: you doing whatever you had already decided and you would not address the points I raised. Please do not forget that these images have proper fair use rational. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said, fair use has no meaning on wikipedia, we are limited by WP:NFCC which is far more strict than fair use. I addressed the root issues. Citing WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt valid, and citing anything other than WP:NFCC is pointless as WP:NFCC supersedes any other policy in regards to usage of non-free media. If a file doesnt meet WP:NFCC it cannot meet any other policy you quoted. I did address the issues you just dont like the response so you have attempted to wikilawyer your way to ignoring the real issues. Werieth (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The point, though, is that while going through and removing cruft and in the effort to handle NFC problems, and doing so BOLDly is fine, editing warring over the text content that you removed is by no means acceptable; there is no such excemption for that under 3RR. --M ASEM (t) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And I never claimed that there was an exception for the associated cruft that I removed. What I stated was that NFCC enforcement has a exemption clause from 3RR, and that if Nasa-verve refused to abide by it, it was an option. I also noted that neither of us had violated 3RR, and that Nasa-verve would be the first one to do so if they pushed it. Had that happened I was just going to throw a report here and have them blocked. All I actually stated was that it was a road I would rather not go down, but that was there. Werieth (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Example: File:Finder.png (one of the files you are edit warring to re-add) is almost identical to File:Finder Lion.png. If the files are that close to each other we dont need both. Especially since there is no critical commentary on the visual elements and differences . Werieth (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * my specific proposal that I wrote here stated that I only proposed to keep File:Finder10.png and File:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png. I never intended to keep File:Finder.png Nasa-verve (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is zero critical commentary about File:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png and just a very short bit of text about the v9. No where close to meeting WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The image illustrates exactly what is stated in the text "Finder 9 was the last major update to the classic Mac OS Finder." That screen shot illustrates the finder window, as the next version (10.x) looked completely different. If this is not satisfactory Werieth, please explain to me in detail what type of details would be necessary to provide "critical commentary" and secondly, please provide text which establishes this anywhere in policy (specifically that an article with NFCC requires enough critical commentary on it), because I read all of WP:NFCC over again, and did not get that out of it, in the way that you state it. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This proposal was an attempt I made at a compromise to keeping all 4 historical screen captures of the Finder (software). I believe all 4 conform to WP:NFCC. But in a spirit of WP:compromise, I said that keeping only 2 would be satisfactory (see comment immediately preceding.) But Werieth made no such consolation, instead removing 80% of the textual content of the article to support his entrenched position. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The important fact that both he and yourself did more than one cycle, which while not exactly 3RR, is still going in the wrong direction with neither side "right" here. --M ASEM (t) 19:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree Masem. hangs head Okay, lets get serious here. I made some strides to offer details where Werieth had difficulty (and perhaps others would as well), by employing the Non-free use rationale software screenshot template in these edits here. (Perhaps you could suggest this to folks not familiar in the future Werieth?) Does this help us move in the right direction? Nasa-verve (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ill repeat myself for at least the third time, its not about the text on the file description page, it is about the content of the article. As I said before improve the article content and then the issue of non-free media can be discussed. According to WP:NFCC Finder 9 was the last major update to the classic Mac OS Finder. does not support the usage of any non-free media. Just because something exists doesnt mean that we need a picture. NFCC#1 states that if an image can be replaced it should be. There is nothing tying the image to the text and the only purpose of the image is to establish that Finder 9 existed. Thus the image can be replaced with text. I could continue with each failure point again, but Ive already done it. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have addressed both. Nasa-verve (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Outcome

 * Okay, here is the outcome of the 3O. I am okay with leaving the article the way it is under material gets added back in with proper sources; and I'm okay with images expiring and getting deleted. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Quote:
 * werieth and Nasa-verve Reading the above discussion and comparing the two given versions, I feel that the main reason those Fair use images don't fulfil WP:NFCC, is because most of the content it originally was supported by, is unsourced in the first place; this is the main problem here. If this article can be expanded with good references, and if these images are relevant to it, then they can be uploaded again. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

multiple users and multiple anonymous IPs reported by User:BMRR (Result: Locked)
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:

Edit warring since May 23... please view the page history to see what's happening. BMRR (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Uishaki reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User was alerted to WP:ARBPIA sanctions and recently was placed on 0RR for one week for violations thereof  (that week expired without incident). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * User reverted once more after being notified of this report. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . According to the article, the Druze were joined by Muslims in the anti-Jewish pogrom, which might explain why the IP user kept changing the category. Either way, the two editors should discuss the matter rather than continually revert each others changes. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Aragorn8354 reported by User:XXX8906 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has changed the title of an episode to something that is not found in the sources. The user believes that the source used is not a reliable source, even though it is. XXX8906 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if Wikipedia considers Zap2It a reliable source because I will then know for certain nothing in Wikipedia is reliable. I can cite hundreds of instances of Zap2It information being way off reality. Show listings, show airing times, episode titles-season#-episode# wrong, listing an hour long episode in a half hour time slot, etc,etc. Seriously, Zap2It gets thier info from the TV station airing the show not any truely reliable source. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There was never any attempt by XXX8906 to discuss this as evidence the talk page associated with this silliness where I attempted to discuss this with no response whatsoever from XXX8906. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * User XXX8906 continues to revert edits for which I have not only provided a reference for but have physical proof for in my posession. I don't know what needs to be done to resolve this but I will continue to monitor this situation closely. Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * - This report is in danger of being archived for lack of interest. I would like to encourage admins to take a look here. User XXX8906 has a history of disruptive edits based on their talk page history. They've been warned numerous times against submitting unsourced or inappropriately sourced content, they've been warned numerous times against refactoring other users' comments, they've been warned against blanking , they've been warned against edit warring  and were previously dragged through 3RR though  didn't at that time agree with the reported violation, I think it's clear that XXX8906 is the slow-edit-war type. They've also been warned against general disruptions . While minor mistakes are expected for new users, this account has been active for nine months, and has demonstrated little interest in collaborative editing, and seems intent to assert their own worldview, which is ultimately disruptive.  I'm not confident this user is here to contribute as part of a community. I'm not sure about indeffing, but an imposed break might be warranted.  With regard to the edit war above, the TMNT episode aired with the title card "The Manhattan Project", though some of the existing sources still bear the "Wormquake" name.  This is not a problem that is going to be remedied through revert warring. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rolltheblunt reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:40, 27 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 19:41, 27 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 06:04, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 06:07, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 06:09, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 08:51, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 08:52, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 09:38, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 15:47, 28 May 2014  (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

One of Rolltheblunt’s colleagues, 83.237.225.85 (talk), made a series of analogous reverts at Right Sector: 83.237.225.85 was blocked by Ëzhiki at 19:33, 27 May 2014. Rolltheblunt made his first contribution to Right Sector at 19:40, 27 May 2014. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) 16:33, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 16:53, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 17:42, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 18:22, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
 * I should note that the edits themselves are a POV push that have failed source verification, making the warring attempt doubleplus bad --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

for edit warring as well as POV pushing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Relapse of edit warring since 25 May at Crimean status referendum, 2014:
 * Edit being reverted:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (after block expiration)
 * Petr Matas 11:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sonici reported by User:Dougweller (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Don't delete the facts, or don't use our culturel instrument here..!"
 * 2)  "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savafid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."
 * 3)  "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savefid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Slow edit war at Kemenche - editor has been blocked 3 times for edit warring (twice by me) - see also. 3 editors have now reverted him. This goes back to February when he added similar material 3 times and was reverted by 3 different editors, only one being an editor who has reverted him this time - that led to a block by me. I also note where he deleted material he didn't like from a talk page. Basically we seem to have a nationalist edit warrior here. One of his edit summaries states "I'm a Turkist-Turanist researcher " (see Turanism and all of his edits reflect this agenda. Maybe I should be taking this to AN or ANI to ask for a ban or indefinite block at this point as virtually all of his edits have been reverted? Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * . This person is just WP:NOTHERE. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)