Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive250

User:DesiBabe reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added age, with reference to a D.C. Police Report."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615617027 by Hell in a Bucket (talk) Then how about THE WASHINGTON POST???  Is that credible enough?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615617944 by Hell in a Bucket (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615620306 by Hell in a Bucket (talk)  Stop deleting my FACTUAL and REFERENCED posts.  Once more and I will report you."


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


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


 * Comments:

continual reinsertion of BLP info. First used Scribd, I reverted as it was not a reliable source, then inserted a washington post as a reference that did not include a DOB just that he was 52. Reverted yet again after a 3rr warning and a note on the talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:

I posted a sourced link to a D.C. Police report, which lists Dan Nainan's age as 52 (in 2013). This was removed by Hell in a Bucket, because he found the source to be poor. I altered to my reference to the Washing Post, but he again, removed it. I, once again, modified my choice of wording, but again, to no avail. It seems to me that Hell in a Bucket is just not happy with the content being on that page.

DesiBabe (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If the source doesn't explicitly say his date of birth we can not use it. You've been pushing this for almost 5 years [] and you should know by now what we will accept and won't. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been pushing for this, because factual and referenced posts are continually being deleted.

DesiBabe (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem is the facts you are reporting aren't supported by acceptable sources, it doesn't matter what you or I think is acceptable it matters what the website thinks is acceptable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

How can you say that the Washington Post is not a credible source?

You're picking and choosing what you consider acceptable. For instance, I have more of a concern that you "re-added" the following, after I deleted it (because I found it to be too one-sided and read more like a resume than an unbiased account):

In January 2012, Nainan performed for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg at a charity gala at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York City. Afterward, Bloomberg said that Nainan was "hysterical". In March, Nainan performed for Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak at the Apple Investor Summit held at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Afterwards, Wozniak praised Nainan effusively, saying that Nainan is "The funniest guy out there". Two months later, Nainan performed for President of the United States, Barack Obama, at the APAICS Gala at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington DC. President Obama said that Nainan was "hilarious".

DesiBabe (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * How is that relevant to the BLP discussion we are having over a date of birth? I'm not seeing anything connected to a date of birth there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:DukeWellington reported by User:Diego Grez (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&oldid=615234270

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615625829&oldid=615234270
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615626311&oldid=615626060
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615626667&oldid=615626324
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jos%C3%A9_Pi%C3%B1era&diff=615628081&oldid=615627456

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DukeWellington&diff=615629074&oldid=615626231

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See messages at talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DukeWellington

Comments:

DukeWellington has long disrupted the article, by changing words refering to Pinochet and friends for some "softer" ones, despite there is consensus labelling their regime as dictatorship. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Both users have violated the 3RR rule with regards to this dispute, regardless of which one is actually correct about the concensus. There has been no discussion or "consensus" reached on the talk page.  Turgan Talk 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not violated the 3RR. I haven't reverted him four times. Discussing the article on its talk page would be useless since we would be most likely the only ones discussing. Duke's editing history shows he has constantly "softened" words about Pinochet on the article, and that is POV editing, which sums up the disruptive reverting he's been making... Diego Grez (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dlv999 reported by User:Wikieditorpro (Result: Declined)
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:

User has reverted article five times with minimal engagement on talk page. User has previously violated 1RR on several occasions.
 * . This report is stale (reported user hasn't edited the article since the last report was filed) and obviously retaliatory. Perhaps the reporter should take this to WP:AE and see how he fares there.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the the user made four reverts to the article in 24 hours, I am not sure why you claim that the report is "obviously retaliatory". There was no retaliatory motive on my part.
 * If you think that I should have filed this report earlier, you should know that:
 * 1) I was not aware of the exact nature of a revert, until you answered the questions I had asked you about whether deletions and modifications constituted reverts too.
 * 2) In Dlv999's complaint above, I noted the gist of this report and that I expected the information to be reviewed as per the note: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized."
 * I did not file a complaint until it was clear that the administrator had neglected to do so.
 * 3) I was unaware of any time limits attached to reports or that a report could become "stale".
 * I request that you retract your claim that the report is "obviously retaliatory". Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was reviewing this one at the same time. I don't see the 1RR at all.  There are 5 edits in question.  The edit at 00:38 (July 1) preceded the other by more than 24 hours.  The edits at 14:14, 14:13, and 14:12 are consecutive and would only count as one.  The edit at 14:27 explicitly notes it is reverting an IP, which is exempt from the 1RR per the WP:ARBPIA ruling and the talk page notice.  This edit does indeed seem to revert an edit by an IP on June 30 at 21:59.  So, bad faith aside, I don't see technical merit either.  Kuru   (talk)  14:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that consecutive edits count as one. I'll remember that one for the future. Wikieditorpro (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , it's hard to know where to start. First, you have been blocked before for violating ARBPIA. The policy is clear. If you can't understand it, don't edit articles that are subject to sanctions. Second, as Kuru said, one of the five diffs wasn't even in the 24-hour window. Did you not know that, too? Third, there are some aspects of edit warring policy that confuse users, but the consecutive part is extraordinarily clear per WP:3RR (spelled out in the pink oval). If you have to have everything spelled out for you, again, don't get yourself in these situations. Fourth, you don't know whether Dlv999's behavior was scrutinized in the report they filed against you; you know only that no action was taken. Finally, you were lucky to escape sanctions in the report against you. Instead of demanding a retraction, you should count your blessings. I'll have nothing more to say on this subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, You spent nearly half of that paragraph re-hashing the fact that I had a report filed against me for ARPIA. That is absolutely irrelevant to a report concerning Dlv999's conduct or your claim that this report is "obviously retaliatory".
 * Since it is clear from the previous report that even administrators who judge these cases have trouble with the details of the 1RR rule, it is not reasonable to expect an occasional editor or an editor making his first report, to have a perfect grip of them.
 * Given that you are an administrator and this is an administrator's noticeboard, I would like you realize that a brief note (thank you Kuru) of where myself (or another editor) went wrong is much more helpful than sarcastic remarks, ad-hominems, and assumptions of bad faith. That is all I have to say. Wikieditorpro (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Soroush90gh reported by User:Qizilbash123 (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Chronology of user's diffs:
 * - Soroush90gh inserts claims that "Iranian state TV reported London-based activist was assaulted, stripped naked, and gang-raped in London in the presence of her son." This is a serious accusation, not by state TV side but by activist because her claim can not be found on any state TV website. That's why I do next:
 * - I inserted template dubious inside the text of article, and:
 * - Also I opened subsection "Alleged rape claim" on talk page where I explained mentioned above and I asked Soroush90gh for providing link of Persian site. After more then a week, he finally responded:
 * - Instead of giving any official link, he linked a Youtube video as "proof". Beside it, he also inserted a blog, and also removed both dubious & NPOV tags.
 * - I reverted it with explanation on talk page that he still didn't provided verification from official web site.
 * - His respond on talk page wasn't constructive but rude and insulting ("Wow, who are you?", "the funniest joke I ever heard", "I'm amazed. I'm totally mixed up"), also followed by simple revert in article.
 * - I adviced him to avoid ad hominems and again explained everything about WP:VERIFY rule all over again. Since I realized he can't verify claims from activist sites, I also removed section of alleged rape claim from article because over 10 days have passed.
 * - he reverted everything again and he still avoid to present anything reliable for verification, also continued with personal attacks on talk page like "What's your problem?".
 * - for third time I'm explaning about verification and I also gave him comprehensive lists of state TV portals and even links.
 * - he didn't even engaged in discussion after all, just continued to reverting article in sheriff style.

After everything my conclusion is that it isn't possible to have civil discussion or cooperation with User:Soroush90gh because he doesn't refrain to use serious and disgusting accusations from third-rated media as encyclopedic content, his edits reflects clear political motivation inappropriate for NPOV rules, he shows significant amoung of arrogance by avoiding discussion and engaging in edit wars. Action or opinion from above is inevitable. --Qizilbash123 (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . I blocked Qizilbash123 for two weeks and Soroush90gh for 48 hours for edit warring. The article was fully protected in early June for two weeks because of edit warring by these two editors and some others. As soon as the protection expired, these two editors returned and resumed the battle. They were the only two of the previous bunch except for one revert by another who then stopped, as opposed to many, many reverts by the two over the last few weeks. The reason for the difference in duration is that Soroush has a clean block log, whereas Qizilbash has a significant and recent history of blocks for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was semi-protected on 25 May, because Qizilbash123 tried to bypass 3rr with IP. This incident was referred to other admin who would fully protect on 4 June. Can be considered as long term edit warring.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 17:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AmirSurfLera reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: @Mandatory Palestine
 * 1)  <- this is a revert according to the definition that a revert is any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material
 * 2)  <- straightforward revert via undo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Since this person started using this particular account they have been blocked for edit warring twice. They don't need a warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I am not involved in the content dispute nor do I care about this content. I saw edit warring from an editor with a very long history of edit warring and reported it.

Comments:

The edits at Mandatory Palestine are an unambiguous 1RR violation in ARBPIA as defined by a literal reading of policy according to several admins, that A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The context is unambiguous edit warring (rather than collaborative article development where technical 1RR violations are inevitable). It is also an example of an editor using a revert rather than following BRD in ARBPIA. After my revert with the edit summary 'rv blatant edit warring 1RR violation', the editor went to the talk page. Normally I would give an editor the opportunity to self-revert but not in this case. My edit was reverted by an obvious disposable sock account here, as per usual in ARBPIA.

There's more. @Rachel Corrie - there is edit warring at that article. There's also misuse of the talk page by various editors but that is another story.
 * first 'revert' under the strict definition at 2014-07-04T05:15 - 2014-07-04T05:23‎
 * second edit at 2014-07-05T00:57. Addition of new material which may be considered by some to qualify as a revert. Given the clear POV pushing intent I would be inclined to treat it as part of the attempts by various editors to engineer the content of that article. The edit was reverted here by Malik Shabazz with the edit summary 'See template instructions about linking to COPYVIO images.'
 * clear revert and 1RR violation at 2014-07-05T04:08. It also happens to be a violation of WP:LABEL and a clear example of selective application of policy/guidelines given that they know about LABEL, having cited it.

I could probably go on but I can't be bothered because I see that another disposable SPA has just reverted me at Death march, so it's time for me to do something else for awhile as I am attracting socks to the project. An indefinite block for this AmirSurfLera account is inevitable in my view but that is another matter. I am not so much interested in what happens to the AmirSurfLera account here as a result of this report because it doesn't really matter, but I want to see how this pattern of edits is handled and whether they are treated as 1RR violations.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

These could only be considered violations of 1RR in the very strict, technical sense of "undoing any work that was previously in the article" - even if no edit war is a taking place. But if that is the definition to be used, then the filer of this report acknowledges he has done EXACTLY the same on Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, another article subject to 1RR: And now this editor is seeking to get another editor blocked for doing the exact same thing he acknowledges doing. Either sanction both of them, or neither one. DanDanT (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * edit summary acknowledges it is "rm CAMERA-ish 'disputed territories'. rm info about control+claims."
 * - edit summary acknowledges "this edit is technically a 1RR violation without an edit war"
 * user:DanDanT claims that he "use[s] DanDanT for editing from unsecure, public hotspots. Blue Duck T is my main account." He made 5 contributions. But user:Blue Duck T has 4 contributions all dating 2013. He is just a sock of NoCal100. Just block him. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is likely to be a NoCal sock as I've said before on this noticeboard since the MO is similar, but it doesn't really matter who it is. Accounts like this that look like socks should be blocked on sight. They cause most of the disruption in the topic area.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

DanDanT/Blue Duck T, it's a tactical error to assume others think the same way as yourself or that you understand them. In my case I have made my intention explicit in the request. Regarding my 2 edits at Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, I agree with you that the second is indeed an unambiguous 1RR violation as I make quite clear in my edit summary. The difference is context, the presence or absence of edit warring, and whether it matters, an issue that I am interested in because it's important. At Murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir I violated 1RR (as did several editors) without an edit war or an opponent in an edit war (as is commonplace during genuinely collaborative article development) and I was thanked for it by Dovid, the person who would need to be my opponent in an edit war for your "Either sanction both of them, or neither one" to make sense. That is the difference between collaboration and edit warring and there is a difference. The 1RR restriction was introduced to ARBPIA to reduce edit warring. It wasn't introduced to reduce collaboration. And bear in mind that you missed a second technical 1RR violation here where I added some information to a citation to address something Dovid mentioned on my talk page about paywalls. So that is 2 technical 1RR violations in the context of collaborative article development.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . This is for the 1RR violation at Mandatory Palestine. The first revert is not "technical". It is an important change to the article in an area that has been the subject of past and current dispute.
 * As for DanDanT's allegations, if a report were brought against Sean for violating 1RR on that article, I would not take any action. It's not so much Sean's admission because if that were all it took, any editor could violate 1RR with impunity simply by admitting it in the edit summary. Rather, it's the nature of the revert and the fact that the editor Sean reverted was happy about it.
 * One more thing while I'm here. Accusations of sock puppetry are running wild these days on this and other boards. Some editors have at least backed up their allegations by filing an SPI, but, as I recall, the SPIs were rejected. Even assuming that ARBPIA-related articles have been the victims of confirmed socks in the past doesn't give other editors an unfettered right to accuse every editor who comes along of being a sock. It's disruptive, and editors have been and may be sanctioned if they persist.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then please find another way of dealing with the situation that has emerged. This needs a more comprehensive approach, and I seriously doubt that the community in general is going to be happy with admins taking the view that the right sort of admin action in this situation is to block long-time contributors while failing to get to grips with obvious socks.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed reply.
 * I think the 1RR restrictions are clearer with this straightforward definition of a revert combined with admin discretion. It's might even encourage BRD.
 * I wasn't actually aware that the content in the first revert had been the subject of past dispute, but now you mention it I can see it all over the talk page in multiple sections.
 * Regarding accusations of sock puppetry, I could say a lot about this but I'll be repeating myself, so I'll keep it brief. Current policy, guidelines and the tools available mean that the optimum editing method for the POV pusher is to use disposable registered accounts. It's inevitable that these kinds of accounts will proliferate in a topic area like ARBPIA because they have a higher relative fitness in this environment. Their activities are not stopped or effectively suppressed by SPI, semi-protection, pending changes, 1RR or any other method currently in use to deal with these kinds of accounts. It's inevitable that people will complain about this. And when direct language is suppressed, most people simply switch to indirect language and coded statements. The statements mean the same thing and nothing changes. The environment needs to be become more hostile for socks than non-socks. Admins can make that happen overnight because they can use their discretion and judgement under the discretionary sanctions to block accounts.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2001:558:6020:1A8:6826:BBB:7D1A:2F7F reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Julian Green. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2014 */ moving from my talk page and responding."
 * 3)   "/* July 2014 */ Reply"
 * 4)   "REply"
 * 1)   "/* July 2014 */ Reply"
 * 2)   "REply"


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


 * Comments:

Resolution attempts all made on editor's talk page. These include explanation of WP:FOOTY guidelines on nationality and options for dispute resolution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - user has been blocked for 48 hours for harassing User:Walter Görlitz. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Walter was subsequently blocked for violating 3RR by a different administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Neev09 reported by User:58.111.196.148 (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 talk:Neev09 just reverts without discussing and despite the fact that there's a clear reference with the quote that supports the edit.58.111.196.148 (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . In evaluating this report, I noticed that Neev09 stated on his talk page that he is Kyrgios's cousin. I added a COI tag to the article. Apparently, at least some of his edits are based on personal knowledge rather than sources. Whether they're biased I have no idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:86.212.60.138 reported by User:Dustin V. S. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615836242 by Dustin V. S. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615835238 by Dustin V. S. (talk)Don't threathen me again, you Dirty SC*M , you will go to pay a high price for your numerous lies and all your squalid propaganda !!!!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615834934 by Dustin V. S. (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615834256 by RGloucester (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 insurgency in Donbass. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The IP never attempted to discuss the issue, and has thrown around multiple insults. It wasn't so much an issue involving me, but the IP still clearly is not acting the way it should. Ask for clarification. Dustin ( talk ) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've already reported at WP:AIV. This isn't the appropriate venue for IP vandalism. There is no content dispute, just pure vandalism. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will agree that there wasn't any real content dispute, but I would not classify the edits as obvious vandalism. The edit summaries don't make it obvious vandalism either unless the user says in its edit summary something along the lines of "vandalizing page" or "inserting false information". Dustin  ( talk ) 16:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for disruptive editing by .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:98.113.143.89 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please stop changing the edit until it goes to moderation.   you have no right to change this edit until arbitrated."
 * 2)  "A full response was written outlining the justifications and facts supporting this factual entry regarding Lira.   ."
 * 3)  "A full response was written outlining the justifications and facts supporting this  entry regarding Lira.   ."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615830392 by MILH (talk)"
 * 5)  "Formal mediation has been requested[edit] The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gonzalo Lira". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is"
 * 6)  "Mediation in progress.. please leave post"
 * 7)  "The biography that Wikipeida provided was not objective given my factual findings elsewhere. I thought it would be responsible of me, and an important matter of ethics, to update the biography to fact as follows; 1) Steve Keen is a well known economist wh"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615830392 by MILH (talk)"
 * 2)  "Formal mediation has been requested[edit] The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Gonzalo Lira". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is"
 * 3)  "Mediation in progress.. please leave post"
 * 4)  "The biography that Wikipeida provided was not objective given my factual findings elsewhere. I thought it would be responsible of me, and an important matter of ethics, to update the biography to fact as follows; 1) Steve Keen is a well known economist wh"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits related to Keen */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gonzalo Lira. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is using a self-published source from one party in a dispute to make claims about the other party (WP:BLPSPS issue). Despite multiple attempts to highlight the issues and get them to talk, they simply won't. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:Kansas Bear (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:

User:Akocsg is using an online "source" consisting of a partial of Maenchen-Helfen's book, The World of the Huns, pages 401-412. Whereas Maechen-Helfen's book concerning the language of the Huns starts on page 376 and ends on page 443. This is clearly cherry picking information to push a certain POV. Also, the Huns article Language section, clearly indicates that what Akocsg is forcing into the lead is not academic consensus, with three other sources stating, "However, the evidence is scant (a few names and three non-Turkic words), thus scholars currently conclude that the Hunnic language cannot presently be classified, and attempts to classify it as Turkic and Mongolic are speculative". Despite this, Akocsg has chosen to edit war ignoring the facts posted clearly on the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:99.249.219.4 reported by User:50.185.134.48 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Communication with the user:


 * Comments

I am not familiar with the current formalities or the technical aspects of gathering the diffs. However the Vaporwave article is currently at the 3-revert limit between me and the reported user. The user wants to add a particular music album as an example of vaporwave style. There are no sources to support this claim,, only a link to the album on another site, and since it was released yesterday I do not expect any sources forthcoming. The user has been warned once about spamming, but not about 3RR specifically. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:99.249.219.4 reported by User:Ian.thomson (duplicating report to get formatting right)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's a discussion going on at User_talk:99.249.219.4

Comments:

If he didn't need a block for edit warring, he'd need a WP:CIR block for failing to get the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I hope that verbal abuse can be avoided and this user will come to understand the policies affecting his edits without being turned off from contributing constructively. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User also appears to be a troll. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * as this is their third block (last one was two weeks). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:114.31.218.104 reported by User:MrX (Result: 24 h)

 * 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:
 * 


 * Comments:

This is slow roasting edit war. 114.31.218.104 continues to remove sourced content, replacing it with POV unsourced content, over the protests of other involved editors. While the IP has not technically violated 3RR, they have ignored an edit warring warning and requests to participate in a talk page discussion. The article was recently fully protected, during which time the IP did not join the talk page discussion. - MrX 16:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)



114.31.218.104 has reverted again, after being blocked for a second time on 9 July. I don't know how to correctly notify 114.31.218.104 that I'm bringing this to your attention, but I will leave a note on his/her talk page. Ailemadrah (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After making the above report, I read the reverted content more closely and discovered that it now additionally contains a personal attack. I believe that such attacks are not permitted on Wikipedia and hope that this can be removed promptly. Ailemadrah (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:198.135.125.122 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html"
 * 2)  "Hi Darkness Shines. The sources Pvdvoole posted are false claims. They have been debunked by Chinese sources. Here is the Chinese source: http://oversea.huanqiu.com/military-articles/2013-03/3727933.html,"
 * 3)  "Hello Darkness Shines, I am reverting eddits done by Pvpoodle. He was banned for 3 days for eddit warring and just got unbanned. He is now back at it again. I have talked to different Wikipedians about this and the okay me to revert his eddits. Thank you."
 * 4)  "Undo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on CAIC Z-10. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Designed by Kamov */ Cmt"


 * Comments:
 * . I can't read the Chinese source but even if it was true this is not an excuse for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.14.223.132 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations&diff=615903334&oldid=615369888
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:50.14.223.132

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

Comments:

The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment (by non-invovled editor) IP could be looking a the similar edit history, Hanzon has added an espionage setion before and both have edit mainly in Ecudorian artilces, on 9 May on Ecua-volley right after each other. Hanzon may have forgot to log in (AGF), maybe he could explain, I will alert his talkpage. Murry1975 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes but it doesn't matter he still broke 1RR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . The edit is suggestively similar to Hanzon's and the IP is certainly an experienced user, but I am not blocking the putative main account at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:PersecutedUser reported by User:178.164.179.114 (Result: already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615932155&oldid=615931749
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615932610&oldid=615932480
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615932925&oldid=615932875
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615933537&oldid=615933391
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615933708&oldid=615933655
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanians&diff=615934314&oldid=615933986

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

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

Comments:

In addition, it's very clear that User:PersecutedUser is a sockpuppet of notorious sockpuppeteer User:Iaaasi, who edited the article recently under the user name User:Avpop. --178.164.179.114 (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This report was removed, I restored it and will take responsibility for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 178.164.179.114 is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Stubes99. Just like User:Satandome. PersecutedUser (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Prove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So I looked myself, the IP who filed this and the one you say he is a sock of have two different ISP`s. BTW the IP is on 4RR himself and so needs a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact I am not sure about 178.164.179.114. He knows that I am Iaaasi and he knows how to make a 3RR report. He can also be User:Norden1990, another editor that had conflicts with me. 178.164.179.114. contributed at Matthias Corvinus, just like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/178.164.210.101 these days. 178.164.210.101 also contributed at Apor Péc where Norden1900 was the sole contributor.
 * But a CU could confirm that User:Satandome is Stubes99 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersecutedUser (talk • contribs)
 * I cannot believe you just admitted to being a sock, this means the IP, as it is not proven as yet to be a sock has an exemption from 3RR. I have filed an SPI given your confession above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Darkness Shines, I see you just reverted to the version before sock-puppet editing. Don't you think the version prior to any edit warring at all would be more appropriate. Sock puppeting does not justify edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As near as I can make out, it is the same thing, the socks were both editwarring over the same content, so a rv to where I rv`d seemed the best solution. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Already blocked by Favonian for abuse of multiple accounts. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:178.164.179.114 reported by User:AlanS (Result: decline)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615933708 by PersecutedUser (talk) this was the status quo before your edits"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615933537 by PersecutedUser (talk) -OR"
 * 3)  "Romanian origin ≠ Romanian (Hunyadi's father made career already in Hungary)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615932155 by PersecutedUser (talk) see sourced articles (Hunyadi family, John Hunyadi etc.)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Aware of 3RR enough to file a report against another user for violating it. AlanS (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Well PersecutedUser has admitted to being a sock at the SPI I filed, so the IP has an exemption, the article has also been semi protected. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware there is no justification for edit warring. If the IP suspected a sock they should of reported it, not engaged in edit warring. They are sufficiently aware of 3RR to have filled a report. AlanS (talk)
 * Sorry no, see WP:NOT3RR "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely to be covered by WP:NOT3RR, one would have to know, not merely suspect a sock. Up until the admission all the IP had was a suspicion. In which case the proper path would of been reporting their suspicion, not engaging in edit warring. AlanS (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as my reading goes they would of had to have reported their suspicion prior to their fourth edit and had it confirmed to have the exemption for their fourth edit. AlanS (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Since PersecutedUser is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet, no purpose would be served by blocking the IP at this time. 178.164.179.114 is cautioned to be more patient in waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:198.208.240.246 reported by User:Samsbanned (Result: 31 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: I am unsure how to report this vandalism as it is my first time, and it is an anonymous user vandalising with their POV. I can't find their user page to warn them and they repeatedly put back their biased off-topic comments Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Me, the reporting registered Wikipedia user Samsbanned Samsbanned (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Samsbanned, you have both made only two reverts. That doesn't constitute edit warring. If you would like to report vandalism I suggest you look at Administrator intervention against vandalism. AlanS (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . This is not vandalism, but is edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 615875444 by Yopie (talk): Still no consensus for inclusion. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by RGloucester (talk): No consensus for second names. (TW)"
 * 3)  "please, read Gdansk vote rule"
 * 4)  "wp:mpn"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * . I would have to block several productive users to quiet this edit war that way, but I am choosing instead to edit-protect the article for one week. The discussion on the talkpage appears productive, so please comment at requests for protection if consensus is reached before then. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

User:I1990k reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: This Ninja here refuses to co operate and neglects negotiations to resolve edit conflicts. When being warned, the editor blanked the talk page.


 * Nobody has used the talkpage whatsoever and both users are edit warring. I'm looking into the situation and will post fully soon. It's a little complicated since there are ongoing developments (Al Khazar just reverted me as well). Bishonen &#124; talk 23:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Sorry about that. I cannot see why you chose to revert rather than inform. As for the talk page, is that a necessity if only two users are involved and one is a WP:NINJA? Khazar (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . This is the third block for edit warring. No attempt to discuss editing dispute through talk page or even edit summary.
 * from my analysis it looks like the revision prior to the edit war reflects consensus, however there is no reason whatsoever to continue to edit war. Simply report here when necessary and wait for preventive measures to be put in place; I would generally ping the user on the talk page or inquire them of their intentions on their talk page after the first revert. You also did not issue a proper warning for edit warring, e.g. it's best to let them know about the three-revert rule. The uw-ew template is the most common way. Next, you didn't notify the user that you reported them, another user did it for you. The latter is a must. Granted, the user is clearly familiar with policy regarding edit warring, as this is the third such block. I also wanted to add the user was free to blank your notice on their talk page, as is the case for most notices. See WP:BLANKING for more.
 * I sincerely apologize. I don't have the experience of being embroiled in such controversy. Khazar (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I responded to this report not knowing you were also looking into it. Anything you have to add (or further administrative action) is obviously welcomed. Apologies for this unintended conflict. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 23:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, follow-up. Sorry it took a little time, but your diffs are pretty hard to interpret, Al Khazar. (They aren't actually diffs, they're page versions.) Note that people are allowed to blank their own talkpage, it's not a crime. And user talkpages + edit summaries aren't the best places for discussion anyway. I reverted you myself some minutes ago, while not being aware of this report, since your last edit, which turned up on my watchlist and which removed 20 kb of content, had no explanation in the edit summary and was marked as a minor edit (!). Those things are not good. I see you have now reverted me right back, with some explanation in the edit summary, but that is indeed too little too late. Moreover, I1990k's addition of content isn't vandalism, no matter how much you consider it undue or pointy, it's a content dispute. And in the timeframe you refer to above, from 5 July to now, I1990k has reverted five times at the most (your first "diff" is to an edit by BattyBot, and you need to explain how your second is a revert at all), only three of them before you filed this report, while you yourself have reverted six times. That's not counting your revert of me, let's ignore that — I'm speaking as an  uninvolved admin, who meant to deal with this (but I was too slow, as often, unfortunately) since I stumbled on it without previous involvement. And, as I said, neither of you has used the talkpage, which leaves your mentions of consensus, and of the other user "neglecting negotiations", a little bewildering to me. There was a discussion of the infobox on talk in May, and another pretty desultory one stretching from January to April, but I struggle to see any consensus in those. And there's not a word on talk about the more recent issue addition/removal of the cinema text.


 * I had some thoughts of blocking both users, since neither has demonstrated collaborative editing, and both have certainly edit warred. But I can't in conscience agree with one of them being blocked and the other (the six-revert one, too) not, even though User:I1990k has form. I'm for fullprotecting the article for a week instead, and would ask the users to please try to work out their differences on talk, and please let's hear no more of "vandalism", because that's just not good for discussions. Of course it's worse, and indeed a bit ninja-like, to not discuss even on usertalk or in edit summaries, User:I1990k. All right if I do the fullprotection and unblock I1990k, MusikAnimal? I agree they would have deserved a block, if their conduct hadn't needed to be balanced against the other user's (who I'm reluctant to block). Bishonen &#124; talk 23:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC).
 * Wise decision. We'll see just how well that works out. I'll create two sections in the talk page for other editors to object or support the collage and relevant information about the ethnic group. Khazar (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Glad you think so. I'm just waiting to see if MusikAnimal will agree. Bishonen &#124; talk 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

Sorry for the wait. My rationale behind the block was simply the history the user has had with edit warring, which implied some ongoing truth to this "ninja" mentality, as you both suggest. There is recent evidence of this outside this case, which makes me inclined to retain the block to prevent disruption elsewhere. Furthermore from what I gather the user has very little if any record of communication, which leads me question the efficacy of fully protecting Russians, as this user would be unlikely to participate in the discussion anyway. Meanwhile, I will note on 's attempt to at least spark discussion in some form, whether it be user talk page or edit summary (though article talk page is always preferred). There is an apparent third party in this dispute, however, so I leave it to Bishonen's discretion as to if a brief protection period may be warranted. I hate to shut out any other impartial, uninvolved editors from contributing to the article, but so long as it helps draw consensus in some timely manner, I'm okay with it. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 03:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, what I thought was to put I1990k on probation — that if he didn't join the discussion and then reverted or otherwise disrupted again after the protection period, he'd be blocked. But you're right, it's time. I'm as unimpressed by the apparent third party as I expect you are, so I won't protect. Bishonen &#124; talk 08:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC).

User:Ericablang reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Calderon Scandal */"
 * 2)  "/* Political career */"
 * 3)  "adding in words for clarification"
 * 4)  "organizing the paragraphs and adding more information on subject"
 * 5)  "/* Political career */"
 * 1)  "adding in words for clarification"
 * 2)  "organizing the paragraphs and adding more information on subject"
 * 3)  "/* Political career */"
 * 1)  "organizing the paragraphs and adding more information on subject"
 * 2)  "/* Political career */"
 * 1)  "/* Political career */"
 * 1)  "/* Political career */"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly re-adding information that has been removed by multiple editors. Not heeding warnings or following BRD. Single purpose account?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 02:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Result: Both editors warned. If either User:Ericablang or User:EvergreenFir reverts again without making a reasonable effort to get support for their change on the talk page they may be blocked. The supplied diffs don't show four reverts: one (#2) is a change of capitalization in a header, and another (#4) is the addition of brand new material. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User EFir has seven reverts to this article on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&action=history all his contributions to the story are only removals of others additions - he has not a single edit to the chat page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kevin_de_Le%C3%B3n&action=history he has three reverts in the last couple of days and is at war himself there and repeatedly wanting others banned here, as can be seen recently in this similar report here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=615231718#User:ChrisP2K5_reported_by_User:EvergreenFir_.28Result:_Protected.29 shut down as protected article by admin user EdJohnson with this telling comment https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=615231718 Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, WTF?, I was not edit warring and nowhere near violating 3RR. My "7 reverts" are over months dealing with vandalism.  Understand I primarily watch for vandalism.  How am I supposed to deal with editors who will not follow WP:BRD and are not "clearly vandalism"?  If I cannot use AIV or AN3, what's left?  This is clearly a single-purpose account and apparently has no interest in dialogue.  , stop hounding me. EdJohnston, please revert Mosfetfaser's latest edit on this article.  It is a clear violation of BRD.   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  17:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, Mosfetfaser warned for NAGF (for the umpteenth time).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 17:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't post your templates on my page, I have good faith, lots of it and I have applied it in all my comments and posted links to all the details as well, ta - Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You display the exact opposite of AGF. Do not target me further.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you bring a case to the 3RR board and don't provide evidence of an actual 3RR violation you need to expect a little backtalk. I did see you vigorously reverting in the other direction, twice on July 7 and once on July 8. In none of these cases did you wait for a talk page consensus before making your change. If the reverting goes on much longer it is likely that full protection will be applied. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - I apologize if 3RR wasn't breached; it appeared to me it was. That said, yes, I reverted in one direction as did  and ClueBot.  This article has been the target of vandalism in the past which is why I follow it.  You seem to have it backwards - BRD and responses to vandalism do not require that I wait for consensus.  The bold editor needs consensus.  And now  is removing information about the scandal.  So again, what am I, a user who monitors for vandalism, supposed to do in cases like this?  AIV is not appropriate as this is not "clear vandalism".  ANI is not appropriate as this is a content issue.  And now AN3 is not available, despite multiple experienced editors and a bot reverting this user?  (Also, no I will not tolerate NAGF and hounding from that user; if it continues I will go to ANI).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  18:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.223.120.208 reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""target was plausibly reframed as "just the alpha"" That's false."
 * 2)  "Restored unjustified deletion of "it will be this year for sure", fully sourced."
 * 3)  "Removed unsubstantiated claim that Braben's words were simply a journo's summary."
 * 4)  "Reverted again"
 * 5)  "AGAIN reverted unsubstantiated claim that Braben response was a journo summary."
 * 6)  "Removed unsubstantiated claim that what Braben is reported to have said is a journalist's summary"


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


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


 * Comments:

An IP editor is having trouble understanding the difference between quotation and paraphrasing (adding "person said 'X will be Y'" as a direct quote, from a source that only says "person said that X will be Y" as a paraphrase) and the BLP ramifications of confusing the two. They've been flatly reverting to their preferred wording as a direct quote, despite an ongoing talk thread with two other editors explaining that they're misusing the source. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think McGeddon's reverts to keep the poorly sourced material out likely fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR. Plus, based on a look at the article's talk page, it's clear the IP didn't care about the issue with their proposed additions or the concerns of other users. Even more, their edit summaries were emblematic of edit warring behavior. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Will102 reported by User:Kheider (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (Sailsbystars)
 * 2) (Serendipodous)
 * 3) (Kheider)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Will102 has been reverting 3 different editors and going against the consensus.

I don't see a 3RR warning, though it's clear Will broke 3RR. But frankly, Serendipodous and Kheider both have been edit warring on the same page dealing with the same matter. Page protection to compel more discussion might be a better approach than blocks. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I placed the original 'citation needed' on this back in May, and have been engaging in self-reverting ever since. This is not a violation.Will102 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will, you are clearly reverting other editors and it looks like you added the cn tag back in March and it was rejected by other editors as misleading. -- Kheider (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to the page [|Wikipedia:Edit Warring]. Then go down the the section 'The three-revert rule'. Under the subsection '3RR exceptions', the #1 exception is self-reverting. Since I placed that 'citation needed', I have done nothing else to the text of the article.Will102 (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Self reverting would be YOU removing the cn tag that you added. -- Kheider (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the meaning of "self-reverting". It means that you revert an edit that you made yourself. When someone reverts an edit that you made, and then you revert that edit, it's not a self-revert. You've made four reverts to that article within the last 24 hours, and that's plainly a violation of 3RR. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , will be looking into page protection. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Amt000 reported by User:I am One of Many (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616200127 by 106.219.185.135 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Channel Owner Detail */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616090556 by QuiteUnusual (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Channel Owner Detail */"
 * 5)  "/* Channel Owner Detail */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted to revision 616193748 by QuiteUnusual (talk): Restoring to show repeated warnings. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on India News. (TW)"

The main attempt to resolve this issue can be found on User:Lord Roem's talk page, but the user did not attempt to resolve the dispute. I am One of Many (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The edit warring started several days earlier. There is more discussion of this article here including another warning about edit warring. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm involved, but I agree Amt000 is clearly edit warring to keep this possibly defamatory material in the article. They did end up on my talk page (linked above) but never continued the discussion after asserting this was "very popular" information. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Amt000 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) i clearly say my refernce are good and beliable and its true. and i dont start edit war firstly it start any ipAmt000 (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC) and i dont delete any think only add with belibale and good reference. and who start edit war delete my edit. this is link [] i complain talk pageAmt000 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Amt000, what we are asking is why is something the owner's brother may or may not have done relevant to the news station? Moreover, even if your sources are reliable, it is not acceptable to imply something extremely negative about a living person based on something a relative (such as a brother) may or may not have done. It is for these reasons that your additions have been repeatedly removed. I am One of Many (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

i already say Jessica Lal murder case very popular so i attachAmt000 (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and WP:BLP violations (violation removed by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.171.11.116 reported by User:Solarra (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."
 * 1)  "Seriously, this has gone far enough, what is it so difficult with you having it your way, several of the other anime actors have the characters they've been playing in BOLD letters. Get over it already."


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


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


 * Comments:

This anon editor has been edit warring this article for over a week. I warned them, but some sort of intervention is needed here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP user has demonstrated a propensity toward POV editing for a while, for example this string of edits in October/November 2013 where the IP was involved in long-term edit warring with numerous users. I first encountered the IP after they'd made this good-faith edit.  I opted to remove wikilinks for common words like dog, lizard, etc, as well as voice actors for whom no roles had been listed per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE.  This apparently rankled the IP editor. "They are listed as additional voices, thank you.", "How is it considered an over link if McFist has a link for a common word like crab?". And when I ultimately removed the voice cast list entirely because it was in conflict with MOS:TV for duplicating the character list, the user reverted with the edit summary GO AND SUCK A PIPE!!.  User later restored the list in spite of an active discussion on the article's talk page. Compounding the issue, the user hasn't demonstrated any intention of participating in discussions, for example this one, or on their own talk page, where they tend to blank notes and warnings and "reply" in their edit summaries. "Well excuse me their is no reason to be so ANAL..."  I've also noticed a recurring "I'm not the one to blame here" mindset in their edit summaries.  They appear to have expressed an awareness of their mistakes, which is a step in the right direction, though I'm not sure how to encourage this user to edit with consensus in mind or to adequately convey that this is Wikipedia's project, not their own.  Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The IP has been reverting my attempts to enforce MOS:BOLD on filmographies (lead roles should not be bolded, and some of this is OR without providing a source), and my attempt to flag BLP sources per list, which was prompted out of recent discussions with other editors to provide better sources on biography articles, some of which have been AFD'ed. Unfortunately I've been 3RR-warned on this as well so I am stuck on how to proceed from here. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * as it doesn't appear the IP is going to continue their disruption. If that self-asserted statement proves incorrect, they can be blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , after acknowledging that their editing warring is inappropriate, user continues to assert their worldview in these five edits. Wikipedia community consensus established MOS:BOLD, and local consensus at Talk:Michelle Ruff supports the removal of the boldface. User's edits are becoming disruptive. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Monochrome monitor reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - 1st revert, 7 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T00:38:06‎ and 2014-07-10T02:00:03
 * 2)  - 2nd revert, 2 consecutive edits between 2014-07-10T04:13:54 and 2014-07-10T04:24:46. I reverted this with the edit summary 'rv blatant 1RR violation while edit warring'.
 * 3)  - 3rd revert, straightforward undo at 2014-07-10T05:02:18 of my revert. Their response in the edit summary 'And revert doesn't count for when reverting someone else's absurd rollback', resulted in my filing this report. They are unambiguously edit warring and need to be stopped.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] See User_talk:Monochrome_monitor. The editor has received an ARBPIA notification and made aware of 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Rachel_Corrie is littered with ongoing often acrimonious discussions. Comments:

The editor should be well aware that that their actions violate 1RR and that there is no consensus for their actions, having participated in the ongoing discussions. Please do something to make sure they understand that they cannot edit war. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Total bullshit. A consensus was reached on the talk page that my edits were far more NPOV than the last. My first revert was of someone who rolled back weeks sort of edits, got reverted, made the same edit, so technically they violated the revert rule. The second revert was because this editor was plain wrong. I added the word allegedly because the article assumes that ISM's claims are true when they are contradicted by Israeli claims, hence no side should be taken. the third edit wasn't even illegal because a new day started. Look at Sean's edits and you'll see why he's reporting me: pro-Palestinian POV. I am a new editor and in my actual "warning" I was intimidated and harassed by an admin who didn't understand common decency, and one lacky who thought i had secret accounts. There was a general consensus on the talk page that the article was biased, so I was "bold" and tried to fix it. I want to make Wikipedia a better, fairer knowledge resource. I think good faith outweighs any small bureaucratic rule. Thanks for your time guys! --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">monochrome  _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">monitor  05:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Not bullshit. There is clearly no consensus for anything there at the moment. That talk page is a clusterfuck, partly thanks to you. Count yourself lucky that I am not an admin because I would be blocking anyone there who misused the talk page to express their irrelevant and disruptive personal opinions about any of the real world issues. If you want to make the article better, read my comment here, and make constructive policy based statements and proposals that can be dealt with one by one without edit warring.
 * This report is about edit warring. The talk page is the place resolve content disputes and propose policy based changes while at no time violating WP:NOTADVOCATE, even slightly.
 * You are edit warring so you get reported for edit warring. It is necessary in your case because you need to stop. That's my POV.
 * 'good faith' ? You said "Look at Sean's edits and you'll see why he's reporting me: pro-Palestinian POV." You are wrong but it doesn't matter. I have explicitly stated the reason for my report in the report. What you should do is make sure you understand 1RR (because it seems you don't) and make a commitment to the effect that you understand 1RR and will never violate it again, and mean it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For violating WP:ARBPIA 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:MarkBM reported by User:Solarra (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Journalist reactions */"
 * 2)  "it's not unbalanced or sensationalist, it's an accurate reflection of what happened"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616299056 by Pmj (talk) don't talk utter rubbish - it improved it by removing trivia. and if you think emotion is not encyclopedic, you're sadly mistaken"
 * 4)  "there is nothing unencyclopedic about this version - if you disagree, provide details, don't assume everyone else thinks the way you do"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 616320450 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) stop changing this without even attempting to explain what's wrong with it"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 616322984 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) I'll stop as soon as you get off your lazy ass and explain yourself at the talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Brazil vs Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Twinkle doesn't have the capability to report the other page this user is edit warring on, but I have linked the history for patrolling admins. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  05:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also issued a specific 3RR warning after the 6th (!) revert on the mainspace page: . Ansh666 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Now also at WP:ANI. Ansh666 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of this? You're not interested in having a decent introduction for that article. I get it. You value the ability to tell the teacher on people about a lack of "civility", rather than actually being civil and answering simple requests for further detail about what it is you objected to in my text. I get it. I opened a talk page section, the person who was SHOUTING at me to STOP EDIT WARRING couldn't be bothered to contribute there, and nobody else who replied could be bothered to give an actual explanation that I could work with, so I concluded the whole thing was a giant waste of time, and decided to shit can the whole thing. And now you're objecting to that? WTF? I'm not planning on touching that article again, not with a ten foot barge pole. If I didn't know it would be futile, I'd remove what I already added, because I only did so to support the revised opening, which is no longer there. If people want a summary of that part, they can apparently go to hell, as it's seen as "emotional" to summarize it, or whatever the stupid excuse was. MarkBM (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Greeneditor491 reported by User:Shrike (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reference addition"
 * 1)  "Reference addition"
 * 1)  "Reference addition"


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


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


 * Comments:

The article IS under 1RR per ARBPIA Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was going to put this under Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement but since it is already here, user warned of ARBCOM Sanctions on this topic field]. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  07:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The user could be blocked even without ARBPIA warning for 1rr.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I did add the ARBPIA notification. (I think I did it right first time dealing with ARBCOM stuff). <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  07:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to block this user as they haven't edited since being notified of the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * They may be editing logged out e.g. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:46.28.53.146 and User:74.73.190.234 reported by User:Aa2093 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

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]

I can't warn the user because he or she is editing from an IP address, not a user name. But he/she keeps adding in accurate info to this entry. I have undone it twice but don't want to risk violating the rules myself. How should I proceed?:


 * I have fixed the links above. I feel that this report may be better suited to WP:RFPP, however if a (possibly) dynamic IP chooses to edit war, just warn the latest IP, and request protection over at RFPP. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  11:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for a week. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:93.103.152.4 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warning)
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 problem is not just the reverting, but the repeated inserting of unverifiable information. It is even more problematic as several registered and unregistered users participate in the edit war, but this one seems to be the most active. --RJFF (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * also, please be sure to inform the editor whom you're filing a report against. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Gunrpks reported by User:علي سمسم (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * attemps of the user's reverts:

User:Nishidani posted on the Article's talk page a notification that this article is under ARBPIA sanctions. After he did that User:Gunrpks continued to revert material on the page, and he was actually at his sixth revert. first rt (2) second rt (3) rt (4) fourth rt (5) fifth rt (6) sixth rt
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User Gunrpks used this friend from Israeli User: Strike to report me for a war edit he started himself. I did resort to discussions on the talk page yesterday. and he also did that :). Funny that today --علي سمسم (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC) I did not make any contributions to the page> I only replied to his comments on the talk page..but he called on his Israeli friend User:Strike to report me today for a violation me and him comitted yesterday!

Strike, I may not know now --علي سمسم (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This accusation is clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA(I came to the relevant page after it was list in deletion discussion) --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 13:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't assume "good faith" when you failed to mention the name of the "other user" who violated the rules as well...Appologies if your claim is true. but Please add User:Gunrpks to your report on editiorial wars on this artice...this would make me see you as a fair broker...anyways...let the admins decide.--علي سمسم (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure sign of editing warring when someone says that you can't take "The Guardian" as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Israeli_strikes_and_Palestinian_casualties_in_Operation_Protective_Edge&diff=616269597&oldid=616267999 AlanS (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The remark on the "The Guardian" wasn't OK, I undertand. After we started the discussion I didn't edit this article at all and we talk only on the talk page. Gunrpks (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for violating 1RR and notified of WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:علي سمسم reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

The two diffs above are restoring this version
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 3. ""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge. (TW)"


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

I have tried hard to resolve the dispute on the talk page. I think User Strike is biased in this report as he is an Israeli same as user Gunrpks who started this editorial war. I am new to wikipedia and never been egaged in editorial wars that's why I don know about these rules. I got provoked by User Gunrpks attitude and the war he launched on that particular article. I did resort to discussion and today (The day I was reported) I did not make any contribs to the Article. I just replied to Gunrpks comments...Something that may have provoked him and made him bring his friend strike here to report me.


 * Comments:

The user is new so warning will be enough probably .The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA the other users are probably broken 1RR too and should be warned too in similar way. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani
So, Shrike, you observed edit warring, and singled out two edits by an Arab editor as worthy of report. This is what your report doesn't state, about the editor the newby twice reverted (User:Gunrpks).

Gunrpks has been round since 6 August 2013, and has edited several I/P pages since. Last night he went like a dose of salts, or lived up to the POV in his handle (gun+RPK) through a new page and shot about reverting in succession in the following style: He only desisted when I formally warned him by providing diffs, while informing him I would not register a complaint. Shrike is fully aware of this, but has collected diffs against the fellow with the Arabic handle. If he is concerned about proper conduct, edit-wearring and encyclopedic neutrality, he should have provided the same diffs, which show even more problematical behaviour. Both editors of course, edit-warred.(I only see now that a complaint has been made against Gunrpks below.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (1)19:36, 9 July 2014 (challenging The Guardian as RS)
 * (2)19:37, 9 July 2014 (Substantial removal asserting it was propaganda)
 * (3)19:42, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
 * (4) 19:45, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
 * (5) 20:08, 9 July 2014 Reverts an intermediate edit.(No explanation given)
 * At 20:15, 9 July 2014‎ I posted an ARBPIA banner on 1R restrictions on the talk page. Undeterred or unimpressed Gunrpks then made a further two reverts.
 * (6) 20:51, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
 * (7)20:58, 9 July 2014 (No explanation given)
 * My reported stated that other users are edit warred as well and should be warned too so you accusation is certainly breach of WP:AGF and not suitable of WP:ARBPIA.
 * Given the severity of WP:ARBPIA editors from whatever direction in the compass should exercise great caution in not using it unilaterally to obtain advantage. The disturbance last night, by two editors (the other being Brad Dyer) who, as soon as they noted it, both attacked the page and sought its deletion, could not go slip under an attentive editor's radar. The newbie here was upset, and unfamiliar with our practices, but that is no exculpation. And if one was tempted to report one, conscience would demand one report the other. I noted both were edit-warring, put a notice on the page, and withheld making a report precisely out of WP:AGF, since I have had occasion to observe neither over time. You picked the least offensive editor to make your report. That is not good practice. I am not making an 'accusation'. I am reminding you of good practice and the need for equitable approaches.Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did make equitable aproach by saying that other editors a edit wared as well.Lets the admin decide what is apropriate course of action.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for violating 1RR and notified of WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Veganfishcake 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)  by anonymous IP

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reported editor has repeatedly installed a POV edit into the article that is not consistent with the sourced claims of the section. Despite two other editors supporting my concerns on the article talk page the editor has persisted with reverting to his POV version. After the editor reverted a fifth time I left a 3RR warning at his talk page (he hadn't violated 3RR at that point since only three of the five reverts were in a 24-hour frame). Within minutes of posting the warning on his talk page an anonymous IP reverted yet again. I believe it is the same editor reverting to his preferred version of the article but attempting to avoid sanction for edit-warring. The editor supports Fleetwood F.C. (a UK football club) on his user page while the IP operates out of Longsight UK, with Fleetwood and Longsight situated just 50 miles apart. Betty Logan (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clearly the same editor. Edit warring regardless.  The talk page admission that s/he will continue to edit war against consensus is fairly problematic.  Kuru   (talk)  11:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Stanley5141 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Consecutive edits
 * 2)  "It was accepted view in Wikipedia that Europe divisions are vogue. For example look at Switzerland which was represented as bot Western and Central European country and look reference explanation. Ukraine has arguments to be named a Central European."
 * 3)  "According to opinion already accepted in Wikipedia Europe divisions are disputed. For example look at Switzerland article. Ukraine has arguments to be named Central European."
 * 1)  "It was accepted view in Wikipedia that Europe divisions are vogue. For example look at Switzerland which was represented as bot Western and Central European country and look reference explanation. Ukraine has arguments to be named a Central European."
 * 2)  "According to opinion already accepted in Wikipedia Europe divisions are disputed. For example look at Switzerland article. Ukraine has arguments to be named Central European."
 * 1)  "It was accepted view in Wikipedia that Europe divisions are vogue. For example look at Switzerland which was represented as bot Western and Central European country and look reference explanation. Ukraine has arguments to be named a Central European."
 * 2)  "According to opinion already accepted in Wikipedia Europe divisions are disputed. For example look at Switzerland article. Ukraine has arguments to be named Central European."
 * 1)  "According to opinion already accepted in Wikipedia Europe divisions are disputed. For example look at Switzerland article. Ukraine has arguments to be named Central European."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ukraine is Central European country editing needed to be allowed */ rp"


 * Comments:

Not actual reverts, but every edit is substantially the same: removing "Eastern Europe" and replacing with "Central Europe". Multiple reviewers (,, and myself) have told this user the edits are not appropriate and asked them to discuss it on the talk page. They did open a talk page section, but continue to edit war.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 23:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - Twinkle missed a few; added by hand.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 23:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . The edits border on vandalism. The user also made disruptive edits at Switzerland.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Washuotaku reported by User:NE2 (Result: Both 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:

I'm pretty sure removing my comment constitutes vandalism, but even if not, he's done it four times. We've also edit warred at U.S. Route 321 in North Carolina, U.S. Route 321 in Tennessee, and U.S. Route 321 in Virginia. --NE2 03:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Knight of BAAWA reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked and locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:50, July 8, 2014
 * 2)  22:38, July 8, 2014
 * 3)  01:41, July 9, 2014
 * 4)  21:32, July 9, 2014
 * 5)  01:57, July 12, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:59, July 9, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 07:53, July 9, 2014

Comments:

Knight of BAAWA has recently been edit warring over the following sentence: "Anarcho-Capitalism is not usually recognized as a form of anarchism by most traditional anarchists, as anarchism has historically been anti-capitalist." The sentence is a true-but-not-very-flattering summary of well-cited article body text, positioned in the lead section. Knight of BAAWA does not like this derogation of anarcho-capitalism, and would rather tell the reader that anarcho-capitalists consider themselves to be "pure 'anarchist' in the strict sense", which is not supported by article body text. A flurry of edit-warring has ensued, with many users involved. Because of the edit warring to keep out the unflattering text, tagged the article as having problems with neutrality. Despite his full awareness that the issue was indeed in dispute, and his having been warned about edit warring, Knight of BAAWA removed the NPOV tag. His edit summary was "Disputed by whom? Just because you aren't getting your own way, statists, doesn't mean NPOV. Do NOT misuse tags as a form of disruptive editing." All by itself, the removal of the tag is clearly an expression of battleground behavior, and constitutes an entrenched attitude of edit warring which goes beyond 3RR. The insulting edit summary, calling other editors "statists" just underlines the battleground stance. Despite the last diff being 50 hours after the previous one, it shows how intractable Knight of BAAWA has become, how little he thinks of a collegial atmosphere, and how his disruption extends to calling others names. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This really should have gone to ANI as there is very clearly no 3RR violation and there is a lot of edit warring not just from Knight of BAAWA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Irondome reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Closed)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Revert 1, adds non-RS
 * 2)  Revert 2, adds non-RS
 * 3)  Revert 3, removes pertinent fact
 * 4)  Revert 4, pushes falsehood

Comments: So not only 4 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR article but the reverts are also part of a clear pov push made even more obvious by remarks made on the talk page. Sepsis II (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've notified a few editors of the discretionary sanctions and added an editnotice. Let's leave it as is for now and see what happens, especially since it's a developing and current event. Anything other than edit warring, 3RR or 1RR violations should go to WP:AE not here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * ., the fourth revert occurred outside the 24-hour window, although not by a lot. No one warned the user they were about to breach 3RR. You failed to notify them of this discussion as you're required to do; I did so for you. Although not a new user, they have never been blocked before, so it's not clear, particularly with the immense amount of activity on that page that they knew they were might breach 3RR, although the sanctions blurb is prominently displayed on the talk page. They were just alerted to the sanctions, so I wouldn't block them for violating 1RR. Finally, if you're going to accuse the editor of POV edits on the talk page, you should provide evidence.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Outcome as expected. Thanks for verifying. Sepsis II (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Taivo (Result: Blocked 10 days)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:WhyHellWhy appears to be a WP:SPA focused on pushing a pro-Russian POV on a small number of articles. --Taivo (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and notified of discretionary sanctions due to edits related to Crimea. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:B3nz2die4 reported by User:AlanS (Result: already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. (TW)"


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

Account appears to be single purpose account, created just prior to start of vandalism/edit warring. Vandalism/Edit Warring continuing to occur in spite of warnings. AlanS (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Already indeffed by Malik Shabazz. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Unscintillating reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  referring to this
 * 4)

I sought to address this on the talk page of the editor, as reflected above, and on the article talkpage.

Comments:

In addition to the activity being edit warring, the editor plainly disregarded the fact (pointed out to him numerous times) that his additions violated wp:burden.

Which states: "'The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.... Attribute ... any material challenged ... to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article."

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source.'"

He was restoring information, some of it blp info, that had been deleted in accord with wp:v and wp:TENANTS (which states: "Wikipedia is not a directory, and for that reason we should avoid including tenant lists ... in shopping center articles (except in the circumstances described below).") That the material was deleted on those bases is reflected in the edit summaries and in the various posts made to his talk page.

Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I began to work on this article tonight as I had found 11 sources, and the article in its current condition fails WP:V. There was also a problem that Epeefleche has been removing material from articles at AfD without looking for sources and without posting CN tags before removing the material, and in a recent related case I've documented a removal of sourced material.  So I began by restoring a stable version of the article, but I made two adjustments to re-remove lists of tenants that add nothing to the article (as per WP:TENANTS).  But 4 minutes into my beginning to work, Epeefleche started editing the article before I had even posted any of the 11 sources.  I cleaned up the edit conflict and got the sources posted and some other routine edits, only to find two templates on my talk page.  This is one of Epeefleche's MO's, templating the regulars.  I'm already in a dispute with him in an RfC at WT:V, so I decided that I didn't care at that point about losing the work, and anyway it was in the edit history.  So I restored his last edit.  Then I posted at the AfD.  Then I reviewed my watchlist.  I discovered I had created a 2nd edit conflict when I restored what I thought was Epeefleche's last edit.  This was way too complicated, this needed discussion.  So this time when I restored the stable version of the article, it was a straight restoration...and my edit comment said, "talk page is next".  Please see the talk page of the article, as I continued to post there without being aware of this 3RR.  I have made two proposals on the talk page of the article.  I am not aware of any edit warring by either party.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating was repeatedly told in each of a number of edit summaries that uncited material was being removed per wp:v (and some per wp:TENANTS as well). He was also told in a number of warnings and posts to his talk page, reflected above, that his restorations of the uncited material without provision of appropriate refs was a direct violation of wp:BURDEN.  Yet he kept on restoring the uncited material. All in under 2 hours.  He completely ignored all communications regarding the fact that his additions were a violation of wp:v.  Since his last restoration of such material, I appreciate that a sysop has deleted the part of his additions that violate wp:TENANTS. Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No edit warring here; the editor reverted his own additions after being requested to do so. Hope you too work this out on the talk page instead of in edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord -- I believe the confused record has misled you. The editor (Unscintillating) did at one point revert his own additions after being requested repeatedly to do so on his talk page ... but he then reverted his revert, and added back the material in direct violation of wp:burden.
 * After all the above-indicated talk page messages to him. A sysop (wearing his "just an editor" hat) -- not Unscintillating -- had to then revert most of Unscintillating's inappropriate additions, which he did here.
 * And the rest of Unscintillating's additions were then wiped out in a redirect by yet another editor.
 * But your understanding that Un reverted his own additions is, as to his ultimate edits, not the case. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note -- As noted above, the close above by Lord Roem is based on a mistake by the Lord. While it is true that the editor had reverted his own additions, as Lord said in giving his rationale -- the editor then restored the very additions that the editor had deleted. Lord clearly missed that.
 * His close can't be a legitimate close -- as the rationale is based on an incorrect understanding by Lord.
 * I would appreciate another sysop closing this. Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding the repeated comments above regarding WP:V, Epeefleche quotes from WP:V, but omits the following conditional, "Whether...this should happen depends...". I have documented a recent case of an article that Epeefleche took to AfD in which he removed sourced material during the AfD while claiming a WP:V entitlement.


 * Over the weekend I spent a man day working up the details and sequence of events of this incident and posted them at  .  What I have found out is that after I said "talk page is next", nine minutes later Epeefleche was working to avoid discussion.  He did finally post, but ignored my questions.  Since the closing admin hoped that Epeefleche would, "work this out on the talk page", Epeefleche is in violation of the spirit of the closing of this 3RR report.  Please also review Epeefleche's definition of "at length" discussion, as seen at .  It is appropriate that Epeefleche be warned for refusal to discuss.  .  Unscintillating (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I started to dig into Epeefleche's contributions around the time of July 2 tonight, and soon found .   You state, "I've looked at it again. I don't believe they were edit warring; they also appear to have moved their thoughts to the talk page. That is a productive step and I encourage you both to pursue it towards consensus."  You've now told him twice and I've told him once that there was no edit warring.  But subsequent to your 2nd ruling, he/she has found an excuse to not discuss, says words to the effect that he/she doesn't understand your ruling, re-asserts that there was edit warring, and above wants another admin to re-close.  Please support WP:BRD and issue a warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not issuing a warning for a user being displeased at one of my decisions. I think it would be far more productive for both of you to work out your disagreements on the article's talk page instead of prolonging the debate on this noticeboard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lord -- As to your suggestion that the article's talkpage be used to discuss this -- first, that's not the appropriate forum for the gravamen of this report. Second, as indicated above, all the challenged text that Un had been restoring in violation of wp:v and wp:TENANTS has now been addressed, as it has been deleted (again), by other editors. So there is no longer any dispute as to text residing in the article (which itself no longer exists, it has been redirected). Only a dispute as to the reported edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After what has been now almost a week, I do not believe a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. At this point, both of you should be clear on what you should and shouldn't do during a disagreement. You seem to be asking that the other editor be blocked as punishment, which is something I won't do. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lord -- I agree blocks should not be used as punishment. The reason that this has lingered is that your rationale in your initial close was based on a clear mistake.  See above. The goal here is to deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior -- it is not clear that the conduct issues have been resolved, as you have not warned the editor vis-a-vis the above-indicated violations of wp:burden, nor has he indicated - as you suggest -- he is clear on the fact that he is bound by wp:burden (just the opposite). In short, it appears you made a clear error in your close, and are now simply not re-visiting the matter to do as much as tender a warning that wp:burden is a guideline that must be followed. Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you agree to continue this conversation on the talk page of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to discuss there -- inasmuch as the article itself no longer exists, and all the material you added in violation of wp:burden has been deleted by other editors. The only remaining item is a behavioral one. Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, (1) There are many issues to discuss. (2) The AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin (Pinging, FYI.).  The article exists and is subject to editorial control.  In regard to your use of the word "delete", only administrators have the tools to perform deletions.  (3) I challenge you to exactly specify what it is that you claim is "all the material [I] added" improperly, and what criteria you used to satisfy the WP:BURDEN clause, "Whether...this should happen depends..."  Also please explain why you did not use cn tags.  (4) In spite of your attempts at argument from repetition, WP:Burden is not a central issue here.  To repeat what I said in this diff, This is not primarily a WP:BURDEN issue. Epeefleche is interested in reverse-ripening the article for deletion so that he can get articles deleted that would not otherwise have been deleted.  If he believed in the strength of his own AfD argument that the article was worthless, he would not feel a need to tamper with the evidence.  As for the alleged WP:BURDEN, just within the last two weeks, diff, I documented a case in which Epeefleche removed sourced material from an article he had taken to AfD.  So the mere fact that Epeefleche says that there is a WP:BURDEN issue is not proof that such exists.
 * Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating, it's perfectly acceptable for non-admins to redirect articles if consensus exists. Right now, the only issue is that you are displeased with the consensus to delete those articles.  p  b  p  20:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * PBP, you closed a discussion in the middle of the week, immediately after 11 sources had been found. Why did you decide to close this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Telling me what I think is not an effective form of communication, and I don't either have to agree or disagree. Please opine for yourself.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I came to this article on 2 July to add eleven references. One of the things to discuss is what it means when an editor says "restore stable version of article" as was said here.  Does this mean "time to template the editor's talk page and disregard stability of the article", or does this mean "the talk page is indicated as per WP:BRD"?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cornwall Square. Unscintillating (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:2:5780:1CB:1C50:9DAE:D1AA:92E8 reported by User:AlanS (Result: 31 h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:


 * . - 2/0 (cont.) 22:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: Malformed)
Page:

There is currently an edit war going on over at the page mentioned, I am not naming names because I don't want to get involved, but am getting sick to death of it and think the 2 users warring should be temporally blocked. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Gregorygoyle reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616722044 by Ian.thomson (talk)are you blind? Read the title of wikia CAREFULLY!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 616721427 by GB fan (talk)I'm discussing while reverting edits. See exception in #12, this site seems to be stable."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616721042 by GB fan (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 616720820 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 616720275 by GB fan (talk) doesn't seem to violate a rule..."


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


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

User is either a sock of or needs a WP:CIR block for lacking the sort of understanding of time necessary to make toast. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Block changed to indefinite based on suspected sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:86.159.140.177 reported by User:MrX (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The person who put 'fictional' surely knew that he was audacious in doing so"
 * 2)  "It is clearly not 'only' fictional, and there is more sides to it. Brittanica says it's legndary and not only fictional (it is an encyclopedia, so it's not bad to use it as a source)Added the word 'supposedly to make it neutral"
 * 3)  "My previous edit comment stands, please read it carefully. Restoring source and a more neutral statement. Wikipedia should be neutral, not only favouring one side."
 * 4)  "You are incorrect; it is an improvement since it makes it neautral, the way it is now only leans on one side  - that is clearly evident, what is there to argue. Restoration of a SOURCED word."


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

Ongoing discussion: Talk:Atlantis
 * Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . Warned prior to last revert. Kuru   (talk)  14:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:24.151.10.165 reported by User:Shrike (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* By Israelis */ introducing new material (not edit warring) in which Schocken uses and defines term "apartheid""
 * 2)  "/* By Israelis */ longer Schocken excerpt explicitly comparing to white South African disenfranchisement of blacks"
 * 3)  "/* By Israelis */ +Amos Schocken, publisher of Haaretz"


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

"My edits have both introduced new material I thought was responsive to the edit summaries of others and do not constitute edit warring or reversions."
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

All I/P articles are under 1RR per WP:ARBPIA Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've notified the IP of the discretionary sanctions and separately warned them on their talk page. That's enough for now. BTW, the IP reverted twice, not three times.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I"ve tried to contact both Shrike and Bbb23 via their talk pages. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read your comment on my talk page. I have nothing more to say. You should heed the alert and explicit warning on your talk page, and all will be well.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jax9988 reported by User:Decodet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) May 22, 2014
 * 2) May 26, 2014
 * 3) June 3, 2014
 * 4) July 4, 2014
 * 5) July 4, 2014 (2)
 * 6) July 13, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has been adding unsourced stuff and doing massive changes on the featured list Miley Cyrus discography without discussing. He has been removing singles off the singles table, adding false certifications and restoring stuff that were decided to be removed in prior discussions.

I've been reverting his edits for so long and and asking him to discuss before doing massive changes. The users User:Status and User:Shane Cyrus have also been reverting his vandalism. He keeps ignoring us all. Then I messaged him on his talk page; I told him it was his last warning, but again he ignored me. Therefore I would like to request this user to be blocked from editing on Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot be accepted in here and he already had too many chances to change his behaviour. decodet. (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC) -->
 * . The edit warring against consensus is sporadic. However, the user logs in sporadically. In addition, except for once in January 2014, when the user shouted on the talk page, the user has never discussed their edits. Instead, they roll in, blast the article, and roll back out. There may be other disruptive editing at other discographies, but I didn't review them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Torrian2014 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has crossed WP:3rr by far, with the last one listed coming after a warning about violating 3rr. On top of that they left a pretty vile personal attack on my talk page after the last revert. They are also continuing to edit war in the section after this report. STATic message me!   03:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:OKNoah reported by User:Labattblueboy (Result: Declined)
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: OKNoah is very clearly not a fan of the subject software and has a desire to have it classified as malware, contrary to reliable sources. I've made every effort to return the article to its previous baseline and help address concerns but OKNoah is not interested in working by consensus on the matter. The behaviour has consisted of both blanking sections and classifying the subject software as malware and any attempts to revert and subsequently discuss are unsuccessful. Staglit has also undone one blanking edit by OKNoah, which he/she prompt reverted. I have no interest is getting into a further revert war and request the article be reverted to its baseline, potentially (improved level of citation) and further edits be agreed to by consensus (page protect?). Warnings have been on the basis of disruptive editing not 3RR but we'd crossed the 3RR line days ago. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . This is an old-fashioned content dispute that you will have to work out. There's been no breach of WP:3RR by anyone; the reverts are too far apart.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you having a look. Will try 3rd opinion.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can use. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Kaishia55 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

''All of the below diffs will show the addition of Cuban-.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Cuban-American? */ new section"


 * Comments:

Expect more diffs forthcoming. User is even edit-warring vandalism on other page. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User keeps inserting Cuban- before American, i.e. "Fifth Harmony is a Cuban-American group..." One member of the group is Cuban-American. This hardly qualifies the whole group as such. In any case, user is reverting without consensus and not going to talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

;Page:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Comments:

User put "Hi" on page; was reverted; added it again. Jsharpminor (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . I think there are some competency issues in addition to the disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Le Grand Bleu (Result: decline)
Page:

User being reported:

Binksternet posted this on my talk page. Is this statement true? More experienced users are allowed to revert any edits they think are wrong without explanation or discussion any number of times and their opponent will be blocked? Thank you. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Material violating WP:BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule - and Binksternet is correct in pointing this out. The proper course for you well ought to be to phrase a neutral RfC on the material you feel should be added. Frankly, speculation (the Lewinsky bit is certainly a "contentious claim") is rarely a "good thing" in any BLP, but the bit about "carousel voting" might or might not be usable depending on sourcing. Collect (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Collect is correct in pointing out the BLP exemption to edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had seen this on my watchlist transpiring, and was unaware of this discussion. I will remove protection at this time, but encourage all editors involved to use the talk page for additions of new content.  Go  Phightins  !  15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to keep semiprotection on the page, since there are IPs involved in edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will defer to and  for recommendations on that. I have already stepped on enough toes in protecting/unprotecting ... I checked everywhere I could think of for discussion, but forgot, in all honesty, that this page existed. If semi-protection is deemed warranted by the aforementioned pair, I will do so (or they can).  Go   Phightins  !  15:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that "Material violating WP:BLP is an exception to the 3RR rule". But why did Binksternet's POV on this prevail and mine become a violation? I just don't see how a simple mention of something completely not personal a political figure said in front of dozens of people on TV consistutes libel. She didn't deny she said that. Could someone explain how my actions became "material violation"? Binksternet's POV on that is (in order of appearance): video can be edited, Russia Today is not reliable and neither is YouTube (merely as a storage space for the said video). Isn't this a bit too wide an interpretation of both BLP and IRS? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to get involved in the article itself BUT in case anyone had not noticed, has resorted to using an IP sock  to continue his contribution to the edit war despite this ANI report. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm quite ready to take it to checkusers to see if the IPs (or even geographic regions) match. You should be more careful with accusations like that in future. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Taken to WP:SPI. Edit summaries are far too similar.    DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Revihist reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Account blocked, page semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

01:26, 14 July 2014
 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Results Section */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Results Section */ re"
 * 3)   "/* Results Section */"
 * 4)   "/* Results Section */ cmt"


 * Comments:

Although not in excess of three in 24 hours this is repeated insertion of the same content against consensus after lengthy prior discussion here and several reminders on talk. MrBill3 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's fair to note that since this report being filed, said editor has escalated their edit warring through likely sock puppetry. Immediately after being informed of 3rr rules and that a consensus against the text he is trying to introduce exists, anonymous accounts  began edit warring in his stead. Furthermore, another possible sock account recently vowed to disrupt the article so I find it doubtful that Revihist will ever stop edit warring or using socks and instead discuss the content through the talk page. Freepsbane (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Account blocked; given the obvious logged-out sockpuppetry, I've also semi-protected the article for 2 weeks. MastCell Talk 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:39.47.29.108 reported by User:Saladin1987 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

He has used abusive language and called me names like terrorist here :

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Somebody please run a CU on, you'll likely see that he's a sockmaster who created this account to falsify articles, edit-war, remove sourced content and push his anti-Afghan POVs. He's a Pakistani nationalist editing from the Brisbane, Australia, area. He has been blocked multiple times for various violations but has not learned his lesson yet. Btw, I was already warned by an admin and I realized that what I did was wrong so I'm not going to repeat it. Thanks.--39.47.29.108 (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to speak to you on talk page here but you called me a terrorist and rat here Saladin1987 19:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)


 * This does not appear to be a bright-line issue of a WP:3RR violation. The IP&mdash;two IPs, technically&mdash;has only made three reverts within the last 24 hours and has not violated 3RR. That said, I strongly suggest that the IP not attempt to re-add the contentious material to the article but instead engage in a civil discussion at the article's talk page. The IP is also reminded to focus on content, not the other editors, and that any attempt to reveal personal information about an editor could result in an immediate block. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:190.161.186.94 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616346746 by AlanS (talk) rv retard"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615283165 by AlanS (talk) rv dickhead"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Wind wave. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Please note edit summaries directed at me. This user appears to be same person who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on Paul Keating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:190.44.133.67 AlanS (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please note the flagrantly false accusation of vandalism. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You consider the insertion of offensive language into wikipedia to not be vandalism how exactly? AlanS (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did no such thing. You are a liar, and from your talk page it's clear that you struggle to understand a lot of Wikipedia policy.  190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there has been some incivility here, but no edit warring. I would encorage both parties to discuss the edits in question, and try and get on with more civil behavior towards one another. With no warning for edit warring, I would advise that this is not yet at AN3 level yet, and furthur discussion is needed. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the reason given for my edits, and the reason given by "AlanS" for reverting them. What exactly do you think needs to be discussed?  And you yourself then joined the attack, reverting my carefully made edits which removed false and irrelevant information saying "I feel this is better before".  If you like putting factually incorrect information into articles, you're a vandal.  190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There was no support in the blocking policy for what you did. 190.161.186.94 (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reblocked by Bbb23 for a week for resuming edit warring and attacking other editors. Actually Bbb23 beat me to it. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will make one technical comment. I think that the characterization of the IPs editing as "vandalism" was incorrect.  The use of highly offensive edit summaries is not vandalism, but personal attacks are a valid block reason.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Djmex9205 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 48 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (last five reverts constitute a 3RR breach)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It is difficult to quite understand what is going on from the diffs, but a SPA keeps adding an age prescription to the US entry for the PG certificate. As explained in the article (and on the article talk page) and backed up with a source, the PG rating does not carry age guidance. It's clearly wrong, it goes against the sources, but the editor keeps reverting. Betty Logan (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * by Acroterion. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:BLZebubba reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616938338 by Ahunt (talk) You engage in edit warring and then complain about others' edit warring - what a riot."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 616928105 by Fnlayson (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616926634 by Fnlayson (talk) How about discussing content changes on the Talk page first, rather than in edit summaries in here, and how about  you fixing the lD and grammar stuff?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 616918228 by Fnlayson (talk) Fnlayson's edits alter content without justification nor explanation, therefore reverted."
 * 5)  "Restored an over-zealous edit that removed remarks making clear that the recent engine fire occurred at the start of a training flight in a delivered (i.e paid-for) aircraft."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See long discussion on Talk:Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . Clear reverts, was warned prior. Reverted again even after this report.  Kuru   (talk)  23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:Indefinite block )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Read the Source. Is the same as the others from Romania added in this article by others."
 * 2)  "Makedonovlah moved page Aromanians to Macedonian (Greek Latin): The "proto-romanian" language (7th century) doesnt exist. Our language is proto greek and proto latin."
 * 3)  "Makedonovlah moved page Aromanians to Macedonians (Greeks Latins) over redirect: I apologise but when i make one "edit war" i get blocked immediately. And when i ask consensus nobody talks. I will make the change."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Aromanians. (TW★TW)"


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

Dear wiki Friends. I asked consensus. Why Mister Δρ.Κ. doesnt talk on the talk page? Why he only wants to block me? I asked consensus and i gave the source for my change. Mister DrK has something personal with an user? Thank you. (Makedonovlah (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Statement by Makedonovlah


 * Comments:

Longterm vandalism, edit-warring, move-warring on Aromanian-related topics. Last block of two weeks did not work. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like a hopeless case, I can't see him contributing usefully given his past edits. I'll see what others say but I would impose a long to indefinite block or get a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Thank you Doug. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed a hopeless case, incapable of conceiving of the notion that his pet theory might be wrong, or of providing any decent source to support it, not to mention throwing tantrums like this. One of the oddest POV-warriors I have ever come across, advocating a fringe Greek nationalist view while being incapable of writing in proper Greek himself. It says something when a Greek nationalist cannot write the word "Greeks" properly in the Greek language, to the point I initially believed that he was trolling. The sooner he is blocked, the sooner the mess he causes every now and then at Aromanians will stop. Constantine  ✍  12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I previously issued a two-week block per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=614313943#User:Makedonovlah_reported_by_User:Dr.K._.28Result:_2_weeks.29 the last 3RR report]. This guy seems to be a very determined crank who is unreachable through ordinary discourse. He adds strange things to articles and moves them to bizarre titles. I recommend an indefinite block. Topic bans are only for those who have the wit to follow them. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I agree. I don't think this guy has the ability to edit constructively here. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * as clearly WP:NOTHERE Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616936349 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Rv. tendentious edit by editor who can't even justify inclusion, and hasn't tried"
 * 2)  "[Reverted multiple edits] Again remove source-misrepresenting, OR-containing, POV-pushing material reflecting non-notable opinions"
 * 3)  "[Undid multiple edits] -- Three editors NONE of whom has ever touched this article, much less responded to the objections to this material.  Rev'd this highly inappropriate material yet again."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 616566829 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) AGAIN revert tendentious edit by editor who has not said 1 word at Talk"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Very serious POV problems */"
 * 2)   "/* Very serious POV problems */"


 * Comments:

User was warned, has several previous reverts - three editors, myself included, have judged the material acceptable or at least not worthy of wholesale removal. There is no basis for claiming the BLP exemption as the material removed is reliably sourced. The editor has an evident issue with some of the criticism in the article, but instead of attempting to come to consensus about the material or engage in dispute resolution, they are simply revert-warring to enforce their POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Instead of not edit warring and resolving this content dispute at the article talk page you celebrate the edit war, continue the edit war, and then bring it here. By celebrate I mean your summary "Yay slo-mo edit war" for this revert. You should, perhaps, not engage in and celebrate edit warring yourself. Certainly you shouldn't edit do it aggressively and then complain here about it as the aggrieved party. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Material in question is manifestly inappropriate for a BLP, for the reasons endlessly stated in edit summaries and at talk. It takes the tone of a political attack ad, misrepresents the cited sources, and pushes non-notable criticism and material with strong defamatory potential.
 * I removed several violations weeks ago, with a separately stated justification for each edit, after which User:Sepsis_II showed up to revert all the deletions in a single edit with the comment that it was all "notable sourced criticism". Besides taking issue with that, I note he did absolutely nothing to respond to my objections that the material misrepresented its sources.
 * Even after I rewrote the material to closely track cited sources, Sepsis and a number of other users all insisted on restoring the prior (highly objectionable, axe-grinding polemic) version . I encourage all reviewing editors to inspect the two competing versions and ask themselves who is violating policy here.
 * Another editor opened a DR case, but it was closed for (IMO) failure by the chief anti-Rubin editor (User:Aua) to show up and participate.
 * Since then a number of other editors have showed up to reinsert the inappropriate material, without any attempted discussion whatsoever.
 * Unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory material doesn't go in BLPs, and in my opinion that's the end of the story. And I am certainly not the only person noting the inappropriateness; OP merely seems to have forgotten to mention all the editors who didn't take his side.
 * (Oh and I should also note that some of these specific POV problems were already raised by another editor over 18 months ago, with Sepsis and Aua engaging in extensive talk-page sophistry to keep the material in the article, against policy.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that none of the material you've removed is unsourced or poorly-sourced. You admitted as much when you declined to invoke the BLP exemption in your edit summaries. You used every single possible word to justify your reverts except "this is removed because of BLP." That can't be by accident - obviously you understand that you can't invoke the BLP exemption to 3RR to remove material that isn't unsourced or poorly-sourced. It's obvious that you disagree with the material that you're removing, but all of it comes from impeccable reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I'm not invoking the BLP exemption to 3RR. Admins should feel free to sanction me without risk of hurting my feelings.  I am invoking the BLP exception to WP:CONSENSUS; put bluntly, I don't need consensus to uphold core policies at a BLP.  WP is not a popularity contest, and WikiMedia Foundation doesn't have a flush cash budget to fight defamation lawsuits by disgruntled BLP subjects who have ample access to legal counsel.  Nor am I inclined to repeat valid, clearly stated objections that were never answered by anyone in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 22:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was mainly using "poorly sourced" as a gentle euphemism to refer to material that badly misrepresents its sources, or that is sustainable only by a feat of OR because the WP article text does not faithfully track the cited source itself. If material misrepresents its cited sources, it's a bit of a semantic question whether it is "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" or something else entirely.
 * But using a Beirut newspaper as a source for claims about alleged "Islamophobia" and "promot[ing] a call for Palestinian genocide" does also seem to raise source-quality issues (though there is much overlap with questions of WP:WEIGHT). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 19:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no source-quality issue with Al-Akhbar, any more than there is a source quality issue with Commentary or Accuracy in Media, neither of which you have seen fit to remove. They are reliable sources, at the very least, for opinions published in their pages.
 * Are you claiming that you're entitled to remove references from The Jewish Daily Forward under BLP? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that an editorial condemnation appearing only in a newspaper in Beirut is not entitled to any weight at all in the English Wikipedia BLP of the target of the condemnation. Which you would know if you had been participating in Talk instead of just reverting and filing cases against me.
 * Besides defamation concerns which are unique to BLPs, WP generally does not republish niche views, except perhaps in articles about the persons or organizations espousing such views. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 19:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't discriminate against sources because of their location. Your assertion that it is a "niche" view is interesting, but that is a subject for editorial discussion, not a cause of action to revert under the BLP exemption. Al-Akhbar meets reliable sources criteria and material from it is neither unsourced nor poorly-sourced.
 * Is Accuracy in Media similarly a niche view that we should remove? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Source misrepresentation all by itself is enough to render material improper and subject to removal. And then there's the POV editorializing by WP editors which is never supposed to see the light of day in the first place.   Maybe you could just restore the material that doesn't do stuff like that, instead of restoring all of the material (including obvious policy violations) without paying attention to its content? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As (apparently) the "chief anti-Rubin editor," I just have to say one thing: dealing with Factchecker_atyourservice is an absolute nightmare. He uses personal attacks ad-lib (check out Jennifer Rubin's talkpage), removes whatever he doesn't like, and posts terse, completely unreasonable posts justifying the removal. It's an absolute nightmare trying to maintain the integrity of the article with someone hounding you every single second because they don't like what the sources say. The general approach he takes:
 * 1. There are no sources to back you up,
 * 2. OK, maybe there are sources, but there are not enough of them,


 * 3. OK, maybe there are enough sources, but they are all crap,
 * 4. You're stupid.
 * Rinse and repeat. It's impossible to make any progress or compromise. I almost give up.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 20:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This from the editor who brought us (and remains committed to fighting for) encyclopedic little BLP gems like the following:


 * In a follow-up column, Rubin acknowledged that her decision to blame Muslim extremists for the Norway attacks was premature, but she did not apologize for her remarks nor did she condemn the right-wing anti-Muslim ideology that motivated the attacker, Anders Behring Breivik. Jeffrey Goldberg defended Rubin's initial article that falsely accused Muslims of perpetrating the attack.


 * Reader, do you find yourself wondering where we got this wonderful editorial analysis noting that Rubin never apologized for her remarks, noting that she failed to condemn the extremist ideology of a mass murderer, and implying that she was somehow unique or noteworthy in mistakenly assuming that the shooting was carried out by a Muslim? Spoiler alert: you needn't waste your time looking for such views in the cited sources. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 20:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Urm...no? I didn't write that. Maybe I restored it when I reverted massive removal of content and pleaded for BRD. But nice try. Back to the issue of 3RR violation and constant refusal to accept RS. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 23:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the material somehow become less violative of WP policy because you didn't write it, only repeatedly reinserted it despite unanswered objections that it violated policy? What, in your mind, must be done to satisfy WP:CONSENSUS before inappropriate material can be removed?  Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 17:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Nishidani reported by User:Tritomex (Result: )
Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Tritomex (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

The article is under 1RR, with clear warning. (Arab-Israeli conflict) Comments:

Statement by Nishidani
Well, certainly, if I have erred there, I will certainly accept the due sanction. I have often asked editors to tip me off if I break 1R, because I still have difficulty with it, and when their complaint is justified (I usually ask for a neutral expert on my page to examine the diffs and tell me what the legal call is) I revert. I'm confused however about the above complaint. That is an extremely fast evolving article, with high frequency edits by most regulars. As the edit history shows, after its inception, I tended to edit it just once a day or every other day, to avoid precisely this risk (I think a large number of editors could have violated the rule over the last several days, but this sort of article requires some collegial understanding, and I don't hunt for such infractions if the editor is a serious contributor). In any case, reviewing Tritomex's complaint (the last of a long history of A/I complaints against me)


 * The first diff is an (a) update of casualties, which change by the hour and (b) an addition to the lead per NPOV as explained on the talk page to balance the insinuation by one party that the civilian deaths were a result of Hamas using human shields. The NGO cited doubts that, and the unilateral statement required balancing.


 * The second diff added a source and text to the page, without, as far as I can see reverting anyone. The fine print looks as I examine it, as if in changing ‘rejected the proposal’ for ‘stated’ I was reverting Tritomex’s words, (which as I noted on the page consisted in (a) choosing a damaging statement without NPOV parity (b) the ‘rejection’ of the proposal is odd, because the source I introduced states that the Al-Qassam Brigades were not consulted about the proposal. How, as Tritomex spins it, a party to the dispute can ‘reject’ a proposal it says it never heard of, is bewildering. Still this may, in the fine print, look like my first revert. My memory is that the new material I introduced (not reverting) required a change of grammar, and in doing that I restated the earlier language, but that is a personal motivation, not an excuse.


 * The third diff is, again, just updating a rapidly evolving article’s factual details because the death count changes by the hour. I added a cit needed request because in altering the number I didn’t have time to substitute the BBC source which gave the outdated 148 figure, for the point of this edit was to add the statement


 * "IDF Major-General Oren Shachor is on record as stating:“If we kill their families, that will frighten them.” (Gideon Levy, 'Israel's real purpose in Gaza operation? in another section, and I happened to notice while doing so, that in the paragraph higher up, the fatality figure was totally outdated (as Ma’an News had reported an hour earlier)."


 * I simply can't see where the 1R rule was broken. I was, in two diffs, adding new material and incidentally en passant adjusting figures falsified by new statistics available to anyone. The only real revert here surely was diff 2. The others consist of, unless I am mistaken, corrections of patently outdated statistics, as is normal with rapidly evolving articles. Still, if I have slipped up, I'd appreciate either that an expert inform me what I need to revert, or, elsewhere, just take the due rap.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23. I don't mind where it goes. If if should be shifted to A/E, no objections. I'm still nonplussed that after some hours I can't get this damned issue of IR clarified for some guidance. This fuss could have been avoided had Tritomex exercised the courtesy several editors have in the past of notifying me, on the talk page or on mine. I dislike edit-warring intensely, but if the 3 reverts, diffs do add up to that, well, 'tied to th' stake,' I'll 'stand the course,' without further comment, and hope also fellow editors desist and leave it to the judges, before comments get out of hand.Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, just to show how intricately difficult it is for editors to work articles like this, in the 2nd diff., I gave a report that Islamic Jihad was unfamiliar with the truce, because that's what Ma'an news said some hours ago. Unfortunately that now turns out to be untrue. In the reedited page, 'Hamas heard of ceasefire 'through media' we now read at 5 pm
 * "'Islamic Jihad said the group was officially notified about the Egyptian initiative response.'"
 * So my edit is now falsified by the facts within 3 hours, and has to be altered, but I, who track these details rather obsessively throughout the day, can't do it. With other editors, through the talk page, in rapidly developing articles, a self-correction would have been no problem. And useless energy is wasted in pettifogging. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If I have, and I have no problems with taking one admin's word for it, I broke 1R, I shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. The fact that, under the reading of changes in casualties, probably 10 editors broke that rule, is not a defense. As SH and others have remarked, thus interpreted, it translates into a directive not to make more than one edit every 24 hours, for everyone, because the fluidity of the text is such that all sections are subject to frequent change, and keeping track of what constitutes a revert is, at least to my ageing (no excuse) mind impossible.
 * If no sanction is applied, or if Tritomex declines, as is his right, from taking this to A/E for a sanction, then I guess I'll have to sanction myself, as I have in the past, given that an infraction appears to have occurred. I'll suspend myself for 48 hours. If elsewhere that is considered insufficient, then of course, I will accept whatever length of time arbitrators determine is appropriate given my record. In closing, I would point out that Tritomex states in his complaint that
 * "the third revert made by Nishidani in last 24 hours was actually mine."
 * meaning I guess, 'the third revert Nishidani made altered two words in my edit.'


 * Well, yes, but I noted immediately on the talk page, which I use exhaustively to discuss changes with colleagues, and where Tritomex is mostly invisible, that this selective use of any number of quotes was an egregious POV spin to the lead that had to be removed. Aany POV spinner could have a field day trying to cram Israeli sound bites of a similar tenor into the lead like '"Bring the Gaza Strip back to the Stone Age"/"We do not even need to bomb houses and empty areas! We should simply deny them electricity, water, food and medicine until they fall on their knees." ) but, unlike Tritomex, they refrain from fixing the lead  to engender outrage: -all the guideless insist on this.
 * Yet in drawing his attention to this I stated,
 * "I couldn't remove it, because of Irr but it has to be taken out and moved below,"
 * meaning, when I adjusted that section, I thought I was not touching Tritomex's essential contribution, though believing it an egregiously pointy edit set down to spin an impression of unilateral 'evil' because I had understood that doing so would have made me trip the 1R rule. I tried to be fastidiously scrupulous, and, that rule is so weird, it gets the better of me every time. But, rules are rules, even if I'll never understand where I infringed them!Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
It's quite absurd to treat bringing a statistic up to date as a revert. A conflict is ongoing and the (claimed) casualties keep increasing, so editors update them. It is good editing, not edit warring. It should only be considered a revert if it undoes a previous update. The first and third diffs only show such updating together with insertion of new material. The second diff consists of addition of new material together with the minimal adjustment of previous text that is necessary for the new material to fit in. I think this report is worthless. Zerotalk 11:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Question from Sean.hoyland
Tritomex, would you be able to explain what made you select this particular editor out the large number of editors who have been routinely making more than one revert (strictly speaking)/day as the Operation Protective Edge current event article is developed?

Is it <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 11:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * a) because you have used an objective decision procedure that resulted in the selection of this particular editor out of the large set of editors who have broken 1RR since the article was created on 2014-07-08, and if so, what was that decision procedure ?
 * or b) because the editor made some content decisions that your oppose (including changing content with the stated aim of improving balance, content that you added) and that you believe the 1RR restrictions can be used to selectively target editors in cases like this ?

Comment by tritomex
I did not pick up anyone, the third revert made by Nishidani in last 24 hours was actually mine. By saying this I agree that anyone who violates the 1RR has to be sanctioned, regardless of his/her opinion and regardless of any issue. The same rules applies to all of us. Especially this is truth for sensitive 1RR articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict and ongoing war. I did not checked other editors, nor it is my task. Also, I pointed out to Nishidani that one of this reverts, the edition of editorial opinion from Gideon Levy from the article named "Israel's real purpose in Gaza operation? To kill Arabs" published by Haaretz should not be used as source for following claim  "IDF Major-General Oren Shachor is on record as stating:“If we kill their families, that will frighten them.” If such record exists, it should be sourced from reliable secondary sources and not with editorial opinions, especially if this is done without proper attribution to source (Gideon Levy)   as this could be seen as serious allegation (of war crime), against living person,  which could violate WP:BLP--Tritomex (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed but in three of these recent articles, beginning with 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, as per the talk page, we had a collegial understanding that an intensely edited article under rapidly evolving events meant we'd not go round scrutinizing each others' edits to get evidence against each other. The strong editors understood that and I, for one, had an excellent understanding with User:Epeefleche to that effect. We disagree about everything except that WP:NPOV, collegiality and a gentleman's word are important, and edit-warring is something one associates with clear abuse, not the frailty of missing things by accident (if this is the case). The article, very difficult, developed fluently precisely because no one used it to catch out anyone. Nishidani (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This report is formatted like one at WP:ARE. Why not bring it there if we're going to have this kind of extended discussion (statements)? I understand it's acceptable to bring an ArbCom 1RR violation here, but one doesn't usually see this style of report. Also, here, the general rule is one administrator will make a determination, whereas at ARE more admins generally look at the issue and reach a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Bbb23 for your comment. I didn't wish to engage in dialogue on my report but as I was asked specific questions by Sean.hoyland, I felt the need to answer. That is why my simple 1RR report may look as ARE case. The purpose of my report is that everyone has to respect 1RR which equally applies to all of us, for years. Especially this is a case for experienced editors who are knowing well the rules.--Tritomex (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the three diffs. From a technical perspective, User:Nishidani breached 1RR. I can't follow the casualty/sourcing issue. From my limited vantage point, it looks like the changes he made were not supported by the cited sources, but it's not clear to me whether there is a conflict in the sources. If there weren't so many editors accusing Tritomex of bad faith, I would probably block Nishidani, but I'm reluctant to do so unilaterally based on the comments of others. This is why I believe this report, if it belongs anywhere, belongs at WP:ARE. Another administrator may choose to act, but I'm not going to do so. All I've done is officially alert Nishidani to the discretionary sanctions because it's been over a year since he's been alerted or sanctioned, and that's housekeeping, not a "warning". I'm not going to decline the report, either. I've made my comments, and I'm done.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Redtigerxyz reported by User:Eshwar.om (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Consecutive edits count as a "single revert" - no edit war is found, though th editor does seem to make quite a few edits on the topic. Collect (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Reported user has made one revert in the last 24 hours. The reporting user is forum shopping as well. See here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

User:WeirdPsycopath reported by User:Damián80 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff one, my edition
 * 2) diff two It is is the issue that makes the user

I explained 2 times the user about editing in discussion and not seem to mind anything, so I request the intervention of an administrator and. Besides several messages that the user has left on my talk are insults and personal attacks.-- Damián  (talk)  23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Account indefinitely by  as compromised.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Panhead2014 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 616985390 by Chris troutman (talk) Violates WP's policy on neutrality. WP is about facts. See Talk."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 616977992 by Flat Out (talk) It wasn't included by a consensus, rather an attempt to slur the individual with ambiguous language. Wholly irrelevant and biased comment."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616976239 by Flat Out (talk) This content has no place in the article other than to present a biased outlook on a solitary incident that is wholly irrelevant."
 * 4)  "Biased, negative and defamatory content. Irrelevant and unnecessary. Its inclusion is not in the interest of fairness and suits a certain agenda designed to slur the person."


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


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


 * Comments:

User has been engaged on their talk page as well as on the article's talk page, to no avail. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC) Comment agree there is a source which should be deleted due to login requirement. I am happy reconsider wording of the passage to better reflect reliable sources. There has been a reluctance by Panhead2014 to engage in meaningful discussion on their talk page and the article's talk page but the latest entry is a start.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . First, the reported user has not breached 3RR as the fourth revert is well outside the 24-hour window. Second, although one of the sources is not available to me because it requires a password, the others do not support much of the material that the reported user is removing. That would be a WP:BLP violation and is exempt from edit warring. Also, the user has participated in a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:50.157.101.36 reported by User:AlanS (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617145169 by Thebestofall007 (talk)"
 * 2)  "added well known facts"
 * 1)  "added well known facts"
 * 1)  "added well known facts"
 * 1)  "added well known facts"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Constantly removing speedy tags for no reason. AlanS (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Probably unnecessary as the article has been deleted and salted. However, I blocked the two named accounts involved in the article for sock puppetry, and the IP is obviously also the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Siggasonswein reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"
 * 2)  "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"
 * 3)  "/* Connections between the Barnsdale area and the Robin Hood legend */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kirk Smeaton. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Barnsdale. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Castleford. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Kirk Smeaton. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Talkback (User talk:Loriendrew) (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User adding WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR to a number of articles. User had been blocked yesterday as a warning but continues to add content despite warning. Note that user admits to being the author of the thesis from which content is being added. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  11:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by . The user is fortunate that another administrator blocked first as I was prepared to block the user indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm feeling benevolent this morning, but blocked primarily for promotion and retaliatory disruption after many warnings.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just a clearer and more specific basis than mine, which was shorthand for the same thing. My guess is an indef is inevitable, but I have no objection to a little benevolence.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sakhal reported by User:Denniss (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also operates as User:62.42.27.232 - use Wikipedia to promote own website. Despite multiple warnings to stop adding spamlinks he doesn't stop. Similar behaviour in 2008 and 2013. Denniss (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are also grounds for suspecting that the website in question frequently contains material uploaded in breach of copyright: this example (linked in our Me 262 article) certainly does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you move this to WP:AN/I. First, you have filed an incomplete report. Next the user has only edited the article twice that I can see - the IP is most likely the same person so you might also file a WP:RFPP. Both of these can lead to this being closed with no action taken. OTOH yours and 's concerns merit the attention of an admin. This is just a suggestion so please feel free to proceed as you wish and thanks to you both for your vigilance. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah - this probably isn't the best place to deal with this issue. An RFPP isn't going to help much though - multiple articles are being spammed with links, and we can't protect them all indefinitely. I suspect blacklisting the website may be the only effective solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely as a spam-only account. The IP is currently blocked but not for very long. If there is a problem, please let me know, and I will block the IP for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Techy-rat reported by User:AlanS (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* See also */"
 * 2)  "/* See also */"
 * 3)  "/* See also */"
 * 4)  "/* See also */ added a link ..."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Single purpose account. Has only edited one page in its lifetime. AlanS (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for one month by.

User:Ccpb101, User:66.87.131.105, and User:66.87.131.82 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 18:35, July 16, 2014 (type 1 only)
 * All edits remove
 * ", but in reality no such things are present." from the lead, or
 * "indicating that there were no disease organisms present in Morgellons patients" in a later paragraph.

Unless otherwise specified, the diffs in question do both 1 and 2.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:57, July 16, 2014 (type 2 only)
 * 2) 19:12, July 16, 2014
 * 3) 21:39, July 16, 2014 (as 1st IP)
 * 4) 23:08, July 16, 2014
 * 5) 15:06, July 17, 2014 (as 2nd IP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: To named editor:
 * 23:07, July 16, 2014 (nw-3rr template)
 * 18:39, July 16, 2014 (nw-ewsoft template)

2nd IP warned
 * 15:18, July 17, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't, but there is consensus on archived article talk pages that this should not be done, and the user was informed of this consensus.

Comments:

If either then the 4th revert was after the warning. Otherwise, technically, not.
 * 1) the ewsoft warning is considered adequate, IP1 is the same as the user, or
 * 2) IP2 is the same as the user,

If edit#1 is not considered a revert, then both IPs must the same person to get a count of 4 reverts. However, I'm pretty sure the new text in the second section has been in the article previously, but perhaps only before 2011, when the new reference came out. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I will note in passing that while Arthur Rubin didn't start a thread on the article's talk page, he did make a point of reaching out Ccpb101 on Ccpb101's user talk page here, noting the existence of prior discussions in the article talk page's archives, and briefly explaining some of the problems with the sources that Ccpb101 was using. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. An IP who claims to be from the CIA has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morgellons&diff=617341573&oldid=617341164 removed the contents of the article], stating "This article has been deleted due to controversial and sensitive matters". EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:108.4.147.159 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
 * 2)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area (including Costal and Territorial waters) */"
 * 3)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
 * 4)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
 * 1)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"
 * 2)  "/* Countries and dependencies by area */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

It appears that all this IP's edits have been reverted as unexplained, against consensus, and/or vandalism. Also is just 12 days out from being blocked for 3 months for the same thing. —&#160;&#160; &#160;&#160;Bill W.&#160;&#160;  &#160;&#160; (Talk)&#160;&#160;(Contrib)&#160;&#160; (User:Wtwilson3) &#160;&#160;— 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the list of edits this IP has made, they don't seem interested in being a constructive contributor to the project. It seems like basically the user is making changes that don't appear to be vandalism but basically amount to it. I have written on the IP's talk page, here, and indicated in the edit summaries to go to the article talk page but nothing has been done by the editor. XFEM Skier (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . I didn't block the IP for edit warring or for breach of 3RR as they reverted only twice in a 24-hour window. Rather, the block is for a resumption of their disruptive editing after the last block, which was for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

User:FactStraight reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Talk:Ferdinand I of Romania Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

The "editing war" turns grotesque in my opinion. I think it is due time that you put an end to such destructive attitudes which scare away in disgust any decent editor: already 10x time spent waging editing wars than usefully editing... Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't checked the page (nor does it appear that I will have time to), but I don't see any diffs.  Dustin  ( talk ) 06:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FactStraight has only made one edit to the article since it was created. DrKiernan (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jhakeyborras reported by User:AlanS (Result: Page deleted and salted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
 * 2)   "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Jake Borras. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Jake Borras"


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


 * Comments:

Constant removal of templates when user is creator of page that is being templates. AlanS (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * A user trying to  persistently  create an autobio. The article has been deleted three times in  rapid succession  and now salted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mario252 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff La malquerida, Editing Mario252
 * 2) diff La malquerida, my edition
 * 3) diff Lo que la vida me robó, Editing Mario252
 * 4) diff Lo que la vida me robó, my edition

Comments:

Hello, sought to punish this person, because I'm tired of explaining about their issues, all it does is ignore my messages and delete them, which seems to me a lack of respect by the user, the same user if read messages but ignores them. On the issues generated wars and explain my reasons, but he did not seem to care nothing and continue with the same, nor cares to reach consensus. I have placed a complaint here, but I see that so far no decision was taken, and as time passes the user continues to fall in edit wars with me and as I have tried to explain in his discussion but is useless.-- Damián  (talk)  06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey someone can address my request, please?.-- Damián  (talk)  14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)