Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive251

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:Shrike (Result: decline)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Casualties and losses */ remove opinion and OR" this revert of this edit
 * 2)  "/* top */ partial revert of Irondome's change" revert of this edit


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


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


 * Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR. I have asked the user to revert himself. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

An edit war? Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to revert yourself?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And which edit is that? I'm asking because myself and the rest of the involved editors have not been part of a dispute let alone an "edit war". Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You made two reverts of two different users.You may undo your last revert [ and then I will retract this report--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The last one is in agreement with BRD. I fail to see the issue here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is you made two reverts to WP:ARBPIA article .--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Shrike, could you do me the courtesy of examining the 4 cases I cited here? I'm still not certain I understand this rule, but since you do, tell me why (a) those are not examples of what you consider to be edit-warring on the same page (b) if they are, why did you ignore them? Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:BOLD.If you think that someone else broke 1RR please report him.Don't ask any one to do you your job for you--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no. I don't want to stain my excellent record as someone who refuses to take people to arbitration. I didn't ask people to do my job. I did the work, and asked for a judgement. 3 major breaking news articles were written because editors from different POV, once on my suggestion, agreed not to use the IR as an instrument to gain editorial advantages. All the article builders broke it on those three pages, and no one was reported because we peons committed to the composition of articles, and not I/P warring games, know you just cannot write those articles and not break the rule, because it means that after an alteration, everything else all editors can do for 24 hours is just pile in more information regardless of the dissonance and unreadability this would cause. I don't chase 1R infractions or aste time combing someone's contribs to find if I can get him off the page, and make life comfortable for one of two POVs: I look to the merit of each edit, and if it is good or sound, I approve. If it is lousy, I mark it for correction, hoping someone else sights it if I can't revert it. The rule exists to enable article creation, not to create obstacles and enmity among collegues.Nishidani (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . This is getting tiresome. On a narrow technical level, if Al-Andalusi had not stated in the edit sumary that the first edit was a partial revert, other than the change of the word "claimed" to "announced", I wouldn't even notice it. Plus, I don't even know which edit of 's, Al-Andalusi is partly reverting. The second diff is clearly a revert. So, thee may not even be a 1RR violation here, not sure. There is no exemption from 1RR because an article is a current event that is being heavily edited by many, many users with an eye to improving the information and the sources. For one thing, it's hard for an administrator to sort out that kind of content analysis. God knows I'm relatively aggressive when it comes to blocking editors for violating 3RR or for violating 1RR in contravention of ArbCom sanctions, but even I am not favorably impressed by these reports. I strongly urge anyone who wants to file such a report about this particular article to go to WP:ARE. Again, I'm not taking any action here (I officially alerted Al-Andalusi of the sanctions), although another administrator is free to do whatever he or she deems appropriate as I'm not closing the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the report.


 * . Bbb23 says everything I would say. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Therock9998 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Blocked)
Page:

also

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (just on 1979 Australian Touring Car Championship the others are much the same): and now
 * 1)  01:45, July 17, 2014
 * 2)  00:01, July 18, 2014
 * 3)  01:13, July 18, 2014
 * 4)  02:56, July 18, 2014
 * 5)  07:31, July 18, 2014
 * 6)  08:19, July 18, 2014
 * 1)  09:02, July 18, 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Therock9998

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Therock9998

Comments:

On going attempts to get involved user to cease damaging table coding. Evaded a block when applied as an IP editor by establishing this User ID. I hesitate to say Sock Puppetting as this is plainly a new user and would not understanding either the terminology or that it is considered poor etiquette. Refuses to communicate with other editors. Am at a complete loss, and I have probably overstepped the line myself attempting and tender my apologies. Falcadore (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No he or she is just being disruptive and a vandal. On going vandalistic edits across a couple of dozen Australian motorsport articles. --Falcadore (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . I also blocked for two weeks who is obviously the same person. The named account was created just shortly after the IP was blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:9:8180:E85:5977:B6:354C:5E2F reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617271067 by Bbb23 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 617282169 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 617364972 by Gamaliel (talk) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617364972 by Gamaliel (talk) Please stop edit warring Gamaliel"


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


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


 * Comments:

The user has been edit-warring to put similar material into this page for a couple of days. He's reverting against multiple users, including me. The material has WP:BLP issues and sourcing issues. Although one solution is to semi-protect the article, the IP is the only one who is battling; thus, that seems unfair to any other non-autoconfirmed user. Although I did not include even earlier edits to the article, the IP is a WP:SPA. Bbb23 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Let me or this board know if they IP-hop. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mfs104 and User:92.225.129.161 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: bb 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: and

The nature of this battle is too complex for individual difference links. I refer the reviewer to : the edit summaries alone indicate a failure of the two editors to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned the IP; warned the registered user.

I am not involved in this edit war, and have just observed it as a third party. No evidence either party has tried to resolve the issue through any type of discussion.

Comments:


 * . Both are clearly edit warring, thank you WikiDan61. Wikipedia is not the place for an external group to hash out their internal differences. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:67.193.18.194 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Here's the source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien  Instead of deleting relevant, factual information how about helping out!"
 * 2)  "Just add the friggin footnote.  I don't know how.  Never donating $ again to wikipedia."
 * 3)  "Here's the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aline_Chr%C3%A9tien  I do not know how to add it as a footnote in the article.  Helping rather than undoing would seem to be benificial."
 * 4)  "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail.  It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation."
 * 5)  "The link is good enough for this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andr%C3%A9_Dallaire  Deletionists are the bain of casual editors like me."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Proposed addition is synthesis */ new section"


 * Comments:

Also edit warring on Donald Trump Neil N  talk to me 17:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Section break */"
 * 2)  "If we can't remove your list, you can't add a section break. Keep it all together"
 * 3)  "/* Section break */"
 * 4)  "/* Section break */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 617487780 by Ryulong (talk) You're more focused on minor stuff than providing an actual argument. Grow up"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 617488125 by Ryulong (talk) "Refactoring improves nonfunctional attributes of the software" Stop edit warring"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Power Rangers Megaforce. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 617487926 by Harmony944 (talk) stop refactoring my talk page contributions"


 * Comments:

I added a section break to an extremely long thread on this article's talk page. Harmony944 has repeatedly removed this section break because he claims it disrupts the flow, despite my constant requests that he not modify my contributions to the talk page per WP:TPG. He has kept at this. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, it takes two to edit war. His section break was him putting half of a comment on top, then the section break, and then the second half. It was part of THE SAME DISCUSSION. Unless removing a section break and removing a redundant signature is a "drastic change", there is no base to these claims. It's a 21 character removal. That's MINISCULE--Harmony944 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I attempted to start a new line of discussion with my edit, and there were two separate lines of discussion going on. One to Shadowbird and the other asking why it was such a big deal. And a section break is needed for these long and winding threads. You refactored my contributions to the talk page without my consent. That's not allowed.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. It was the same discussion, don't kid yourself. It was the same line of discussion. The three of us were in the same discussion. It doesn't matter how long the discussion is, it has to be kept together unless you want to screw with people so they can't pick apart your argument bit by bit so it can look like you're "winning". You're not, and this report is a sham.--Harmony944 (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The section break was solely for the sake of Ryulong's complaining about the fact that Harmony944 and I were debating his call for a change. It did not serve a purpose except to separate the complaining from everything else, and I personally consider the section break unnecessary. It had nothing to do with actual discussion of the requested change; it merely existed for Ryulong's complaints. Deleting the section break would then be justifiable. I believe this report to be unwarranted.--Shadowbird712 (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The page has expanded by 3 times since I began the discussion. A break is necessary to make it easier to keep contributing even though it's likely going to end soon. There is no reason to refactor mine or anyone's contributions to a talk page, particularly when you merged two comments made an hour apart in one of your edits. I meant for them to be separate. You have no right to merge them.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And now Harmony944 is edit warring with me on my user talk by pasting one of the warnings I gave him that has no basis when applied to me.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? No basis? You disrupted the conversation when you put 2 successive warnings on my page because you didn't like what I was saying on the Megaforce talk page. You couldn't handle being wrong so you started threatening to get me blocked. That's why you're here, isn't it?--Harmony944 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave you the warnings because they were applicable to your modifications of my talk page contributions without my express consent, regardless if it's just a new section header. I told you that wasn't allowed when you cut out the lists twice.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, of all the WP:LAME things I have seen on Wikipedia, this has to be in the top 10. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This edit war or the discussion that led to it?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . The blocks are for edit warring. However, the moves discussion on the talk page is appalling.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Maurice Flesier reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

This is three days later, but there is still no consensus here.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Özil is Turkish origin German."
 * 2)  "Some fixes?? To remove ethnicity, not an satisfactory explanation."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616913338 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Before the back, please discuss on the talk page!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 616939465 by 64.251.94.5 (talk)"
 * 09:03:25 17 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 617233155 by Malerooster (talk) reason?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Mesut Özil. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2014 */ +"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is aware of 3RR, WP:OPENPARA, WP:MOSBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A solution to this problem was "German-Turkish footballer". I agree that the user has breached openpara, mosbio and 3rr.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . There is an ongoing report here at ANI about Walter's behavior generally. Regarding the 3RR report here, it's a bit hard to evaluate other editors' conduct on the page because there's so much activity on the article, both by named accounts and IPs, and some of it involves content disputes, whereas some of it is just obvious vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a single revert there over the time period so please do not cloud the issue Bbb23. The issue is simple: the editor made four reverts here trying to impose a specific version of the article against four separate editors: two registered and two anon. The editor then singled me out on the talk page as I was the only editor involved. This is a clear-cut case. If the editor is not blocked I would expect a detailed explanation as to why this editor can get away with violating 3RR even after being reported, and "stale" is not detailed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 14:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare! Block him. I get blocked for making four edits with guidelines to support my edits with an anon who doesn't explain the edits being made, while this editor makes four reverts against two editors and two anons, and the latter three were all clearly explained. I engage in talk page while this editor make personal attacks on talk page. This is another reason why it's obvious that edit warring is fine in the eyes of some new editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jcam6 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

User was blocked as a vandalism-only account.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 04:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:TheAirplaneGuy reported by User:John (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

User appears to have reverted 13 times in the past 24 hours.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Just going out and don't have time to add all thirteen (!) diffs. Please talk nicely to this user and block if necessary. John (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've reported you as well for personal attack. Wasn't edit warring as well, just taking out bad edits TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and I've notified both of discretionary sanctions. The block as for the 3RR violation only no prejudice on the result of the ANI discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: previous version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: a, b, c and notice by User:Donlago on Darkgfrog24's usertalk

Comments:

Darkfrog was blocked by Nyttend less than three weeks ago for edit-warring within the same article. Darkfrog24 refuses to discuss in talk without reverting in her preferred version of the article first. Every other editor, with the exception of DonQuixote, Donlago and myself, have left the article due to her tendentious nature. She keeps insisting that our consensus is wrong, that the RfC closure opinion rendered by FormerIP was wrong and incomplete…the list goes on. It doesn't matter what any of us say, she just reverts her version in and tells us we are all wrong in article discussion. This has been going on for almost two months, and it has to stop.

The rest of us just want to stabilize the article and ensure that the content added can help it get to GA- and FA-status at some point. Traditionally, I'd be here requesting a block to protect the article. That said, Darkfrog has already stated on her talk page that the initial block by Nyttend wouldn't really have affected her, as per her claim that ("I've taken multi-day breaks before to absolutely no effect"). So, a block would have no effect on her behavior. She'd come off the block and continue edit-warring, as she has done here. I think a topic ban regarding any Game of Thrones series articles is called for at this point. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to the continued disruption, if you believe a topic ban is necessary you'll need to raise it on WP:AN with evidence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll take a wait-and-see attitude after she returns to the Project. Maybe the break will add some perspective for her. Fingers are crossed. And thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Iselilja reported by User:Wujastyk (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)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have been trying to report on a matter of public interest regarding multiple versions of the famous leaked phone call between Nuland and Pyatt. A number of users seem to have little or no problem with this, or sought only reasonable tweaks. But a determined group of users including Iselejla, NazariyKaminski, and TheRedPenOfDoom have systematically and repeatedly deleted all reference to this information, using a variety of questionable appeals to WP editorial policies that have been explicitly addressed after each deletion. The most recent reversion took place in less than 60 seconds after I posted a newly-edited version of the information together with a friendly appeal in Talk that we should discuss any further edits and agree a joint version, in Talk, before further editing the main page. This had no effect, and produced no discussion or justification for the instant deletion. Since this is a matter bearing on the Ukrainian war, it is hard to remain confident in the "good faith" policy of WikiPedia when posts about presumed spying activity ("tradecraft") are being reported. DomLaguna (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . One revert? You're kidding, right? Perhaps you should listen to the other editors about the content, although I express no opinion on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity (Result: Both warned)
Page: Page:

Please speak with User:Inayity about his edits on Ramadan and Hajj. He is edit warring on both. The main discussion is at the talkpage of Ramadan, where he has been active in the last 4 posts. So far only 2 editors have posted in them, disagreeing. He is aggressive and unpleasant, and simply misunderstands WP:WEIGHT. Please see his userpage that I suspect him to be less than neutral on the subject, as in WP:LIKE. Debresser (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The cheek, so If I am edit warring what exactly are you doing. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG Here is your history history of reverting it is strange that you come and say they should talk to me. I did my fair share but my friend you are hiding behind 3rr to WP:WAR reverting on the lineyou have not used the talk page to settle anything, only to edit how you want, and then hold a discussion (reminds me of a certain country) See Your own user page, talk about Pot calling kettle black LOL. --Inayity (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am active replying to you on the talkpages of those 2 articles, with over 20 edits today. Is that how you proof all your arguments?
 * I know WP:BOOMERANG, but I also know that I edit according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which you are misunderstanding and misusing, supposedly to make a point connected with your personal opinions. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure your point, Are you not engaged in the edit war you are reporting? Or am I edit warring with your twin? Do you know what this space is for? So why are you discussing WP:LIKE here? there is a dispute or request for comments for that kind of stuff. And I also have "suspect" about you per your colorful userpage. Anyone can make accusations, making mature points is another thing. So per your contributions you have done more edit warring than me, and on two articles got your version inserted, yet you tell me about Edit warring.? --Inayity (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You can not remove sourced information without good reason, and your reasons are challenged by 2 editors. They actually have been proven wrong already. That leaves us with you edit warring for the sake of edit warring. So why shouldn't I tell you about edit warring? Debresser (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If my reasons were so wrong why then did you have to go and change this edit? So you were reverting me and never check out my objections. Clearly I was not wrong. Now Two editors means nothing, what counts is the ability to make a case using Policy. We do not WP:VOTE and the talk page shows clearly who started the off key remarks, imagine lecturing me about what I know. I never did that, I simply copy and pasted policy for you to see. This nonsense of "You do not know what you are talking about" is for teenagers, it is only you saying so, argue by rationale not "You are wrong", that is just below me. Now the question for bonus prizes, Since you know about Wikipedia, What does wikipedia say about handling Disputes? Did you follow that? What is Wiki policy for avoiding Edit war show the people here the steps you took to avoid it.If I am guilty you are equally so. --Inayity (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record this is the remark that started the whole thing going South: Up until this point no issue No idea why this remark was made? Who is this guy to talk for so many other editors?--Inayity (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . and, you are both warned that if you continue this battle in the article, you may be blocked without any further notice or warning, regardless of whether you breached WP:3RR. The only reason you're not being blocked now is because you both skirted 3RR by the skin of your collective teeth. Debresser, if you want to report disruptive conduct, take it to another noticeboard. If you want to report edit warring, then file an appropriate report with a proper header and diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 (or other willing editors) I posted this way because I wanted somebody to explain to Inayity what he is doing, not to have him punished. He should be stopped from removing information he doesn't like. He continues with this edit, which is so wrong because 1. it was discussed 2. the info is well sourced 3. he is censoring Wikipedia. Can you explain this to him? If not, where should I take this? Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to raise Inayity's conduct but not have him sanctioned for edit warring, then take it to WP:ANI. Make sure you're clear what you're asking for. I make no prediction as to whether such a report will be received favorably.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, raising his conduct was my specifically stated intention. I have some experience at WP:ANI, and am not favorably impressed with that forum. I was convinced the edit warring noticeboard should be the more logical venue for this issue. Debresser (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark Heins and User:Markdabner reported by User:Solarra (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:

Previous version
 * Previous version reverted to:

   
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

The entire page history can be viewed here


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


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


 * Comments:

Give me a minute, TW won't load the reverts, going to have to manually add them. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  18:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Got it built, this edit war has gone on since 10 July, I was going to request page protection, but neither user seems willing to communicate to build consensus on this article. This has been reported at ANI but this is the proper venue for this issue. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  18:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

User:AdmiralMeow reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

IP + SPA adding same WP:BLP violation to talk page 6x times. Note the subject of the article recently filed (and then dismissed) a lawsuit against 4 wikipedia editors.

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Warning was for BLP vio)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No discussion for BLP vio.
 * AdmiralMeow and his IP for one month. In the future, please post the required notice of this discussion to the talk pages of the reported accounts. I rarely block without that notice, but I made an exception in this case.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) deletion at 17:35, July 19, 2014
 * 2) deletion at 17:52, July 19, 2014 (article under 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of warning of 1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions: here ("The article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers ... is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, as laid out during a 2008 Arbitration case, and supplemented by community consensus in November 2010. The current restrictions are:

All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related....

Editors who ... violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.... ") Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: In a clear breach of 1RR, on a contentious article, IjonTichyIjonTichy deleted the same material twice. Within minutes. That is unacceptable.

He is also I believe incorrect (and for example equates attributed non-quote statements with "quotes"). But that is a secondary issue.

This is just the sort of problematic 1RR violation that makes the editing of articles in this area so difficult, and the reason they were subjected to 1RR in the first place.Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I was under the (possibly incorrect) impression my first edit did not constitute a revert, and thus I believed (possibly incorrectly) that my second edit was the one revert I was allowed.
 * I have no intention to revert that material again within at least the next 24 hours, or 48 hours (and extremely likely much, much longer than that). This particular article does not interest me that much (although I am sad for the losses of all the families involved, on all sides of the conflict). Instead, I'd like to explain my view. Just because something appears in a reliable source, does not immediately imply that we are obligated to cite it in the encyclopedia. We (WP editors) are not automatic robots - we are supposed to, indeed we are required, to exercise judgment. (Otherwise we could all be replaced by artificial intelligence software that would edit WP harmoniously and peacefully without any [human] editorial disagreements.) Please read very carefully the WP policies on WP:Weight and WP:V. So-called "off the record" statements attributed to "anonymous officials" should be treated, in my view, with extreme suspicion, to the point where they deserve zero weight, regardless of the nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, race, socio-economic status, geographic location (or any other factor) of the "person" who is alleged to have made the statement. Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You suggest here that you did not understand that your first deletion of the text added by another editor was a "revert".
 * First, that's pretty basic. When an editor adds material, and you delete it (or hit "undo), of course that is a revert.
 * Second, you are an experienced editor, with thousands of edits.
 * Third, you seemed to understand perfectly well that a "first revert" is in fact a revert, when you brought this complaint to the AN/I noticeboard two years ago.
 * Fourth, the 1RR tag clarifies, with an inline link, what "revert" means. Epeefleche (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . I've formally alerted Ijon of the discretionary sanctions. I've also formally alerted User:Catherine Curran. Indeed, given the number of reverts Catherine has made to the article today, it puzzles me,, why you are not reporting her. I'm not taking any other action at this point, but I'm leaving it open to another administrator to take action if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 -- thanks. As to your question, the answer is that I had only today gotten as far as looking at the 1RR problem with Ijon. And one of his two reverts was a revert of material I added.
 * But looking as you suggest at the further edits in the article, I see that those of the very active Catherine appear to be a complete mess -- whatever other problems they include, they also appear to include insertion of whole blocks of text that are uncited, which is problematic in an article of this nature. I support whatever action is deemed appropriate vis-a-vis Catherine (I'm off to grab a bite right now, so I won't have the time to parse here changes/additions, but hopefully my endorsement of your suggestion that her edits be scrutinized closely will move things in the right direction). Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , who said you were allowed to eat? Although I have the authority to block someone without warning, I generally prefer not to, particularly, as in this case, I would have had to do so spontaneosly. Let's just hope now that she's been warned, her contributions will be more carefully monitored by those editors active on that and other related pages. Although I didn't fully analyze them, they appeared to be very disruptive above and beyond the number of reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add,, a self-revert of your second revert would go some ways to showing good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Bbb23 for the friendly suggestion. I wish I would have thought of it myself. I appreciate your feedback here and on my talk page.


 * Dear Epeefleche, the diff that you provided to my edit from two years ago was (a) made under entirely different circumstances and context and is entirely irrelevant to the particular circumstances and context under consideration here, and (b) made two years ago, and thus ancient history. In other words, you'll need to try harder to bring more recent evidence (much more recent than two years ago) that shows that I am prone to edit warring. Good luck with that, because such evidence does not exist.


 * Furthermore, Epeefleche, your edit summary reverting my edit appears to accuse me of editing in order to push a POV, and now you appear to be accusing me of lying. In both cases, it appears you (a) may have failed to assume good faith, and (b) may have rushed to make some serious accusations based on flimsy (actually, non existent) evidence.


 * Additionally, you appear to be conveniently ignoring the view that statements attributed to "anonymous officials" speaking "off the record" are highly detrimental to the encyclopedia and make a complete mockery of WP. And especially when such statements are made in highly controversial articles. And especially when they are made in the lead section. And especially when these citations may also be in violation of the BLP of the persons who have been accused by some conveniently "unnamed" source to have committed very serious crimes.

Best regards, IjonTichy (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ijon -- my point about your AN/I complaint had (I would have thought would be obvious) nothing to do with the substance of the AN/I. Your comments at the AN/I -- along with the other three points I make, above -- simply brings into question your assertion that you do not know what a revert is.  Since it appears that as far back as two years ago, per that complaint, you understood quite well that a "first" revert is indeed a revert. Epeefleche (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Unless I'm missing a significant detail, IjonTichy has self-reverted and has made no further edits to the article in question. There's nothing stopping y'all from having a cordial discussion at the article's talk page. Kuru   (talk)  14:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Renee00124 reported by User:Stalwart111 (Result: 48 hours)
Article:

Editor:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Original edit
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the latest of several warnings

Comments:

Several editors have reverted this editor's changes to the article in question and all have warned him as required. I then realised I was reverting his fourth revert (five if you include the original disruptive edit).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Four reverts, not including the original addition. Was warned prior to the last revert. Kuru   (talk)  14:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that per the discussion at WP:FTN, at least some of the material added by this contributor appears to have been copy-pasted from elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Fixed4u reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617736620 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) My edit provides reliable information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 617731810 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) "BELIEVED to be in the region of 15 million euros" = GUESS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 617730534 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) S.L. Benfica announcement to CMVM > your unreliable source"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 617727339 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) "The deal IS SAID to be worth ABOUT €15m (£12m).""
 * 5)  "/* Zenit */"
 * 6)  "independent.co.uk IS WRONG"
 * 1)  "independent.co.uk IS WRONG"


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


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


 * Comments:

I warned the user not to change the edits, I then added further sources, I then warned him on his talk page; he repeatedly ignored and reverted the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

False. I didn't ignore you and even explained you why your edits are wrong. Fixed4u (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Both users violated WP:3RR (by quite a bit). I blocked RealDeal for 48 hours and Fixed for 31 hours. RealDeal had a very recent edit warring block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:HesioneHushabye reported by User:Seattle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "you just ruined this whole page you asshole ."
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) "you do realize that what you just did deleted over a years worth of updates to the page, including last years nominees? it's now out-dated and ruined."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments : That discussion over two years ago led nowhere, and the user reverted without consensus to his preferred version. The page remained the way it was until I reverted the page to its featured list status today. Any change should be rationally discussed, and from the discussion two years ago, combined with the tone of the reverts today, it doesn't seem as though the user has any interest in being rational. Seattle (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , I don't want to read that 2012 discussion in detail, but when did Hesione restore their preferred version, and what about the intervening edits between 2012 and now (I'm assuming you went all the way back but I haven't verified that)? The only thing that is clear to me is that Hesione has an attitude (based on edit summaries).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Over the span of April 26–27 2012, from the version that passed as a Featured List after a communal discussion. After the FL promotion, an unrelated discussion formed a consensus to change the font size, which was implemented. In 2013, after encouragement from HesioneHushabye, another user changed the article to HesioneHushabye's version, again without consensus. The user updated their version through the next two years, while it remained stable as the unproven version. After updates, not much else changed in terms of format. Seattle (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That advances me some,, but not all the way. Three more questions. First, I see the cause and effect of the encouragement diff, but I don't see how Heisone's comment on the other user's page provoked a change to a different article. Second, what about those "updates" after the change to the other version? Did you lose them when you restored the article? If so, did you evaluate them substantively? Third, why are you coming back to this so late in the game? I realize nothing compels you to monitor the article, but I'm still curious.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. See, which changed the Drama Desk Award format to the same format at the Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play article, indicative of some connection between the two. The updates didn't affect the format that passed as a FL, but did add information without a consensus. I'm coming back because I want what's proper for Wikipedia, to uphold consensus and not the will of the individual. I asked another user to represent my interests a while ago, but I want to represent my own interests now. Of note is his response to HesioneHushabye: . Seattle (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for your responses, . However, ultimately what tipped the scale for me was Hesione's last revert, which said that you deleted "last year's nominees". Yet, Hesione's version has fewer entries (through 2012) than the version he reverted. I also don't like the aggressive, attacking edit summaries. That said, @Seattle, if the recipient table is still missing the latest entry (2014?), it should be added. In addition, I noticed in passing that there is an "image" of Bancroft with a link that doesn't exist. All that said, you shouldn't be the one to implement these changes at this point, or you will have violated 3RR, regardless of Hesione's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I removed the Bancroft image earlier, but HesioneHushabye reverted that edit as well. I'll leave well enough alone for the period prescribed at WP:3RR. Best, Seattle (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NewsAndEventsGuy reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "3RR exemption libel;    Michael_E._Mann  and what's the status of Mann v Ball anyway?"
 * 2)  "/* Science */  3RR exception, stealth reference to libel claims in media now in federal court"
 * 3)  "/* Science */     Subtly propogates statements now being litigated in federal court.  We aren't a platform for libel."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 617618369 by 216.36.172.107 (talk) "the debate" and "is over" are too vacuous to be relevant"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Got to the article via the BLP board, please note there are no names mentioned in the content being removed, so the claim of a BLP exemption is spurious Darkness Shines (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a report is specious because (A) I deleted the material four times (B) Edit summaries state a goodfaith claim for a 3RR exception (libel) (C) Following the 4th deletion I made a substantial contrib to the talk page discussion and explicitly stated that I would not remove the material again (diff) Sorry, I'm pretty sure I typed that somewhere along the line, but now I can't find the diff, but in any case my subsequent actions are consistent with that statement (D) I also started a discussion at BLPN
 * Response by NAEG

OVERALL, blocks and the like are for PREVENTION and not PUNISHMENT. I stopped reverting and participated substantively in the talk thread, and due to the BLP problem intersecting with plausible deniability, also started a thread at BLPN per the part of BLP policy saying "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis."

QUESTION, since the goal of admin action is prevention etc and since I am involved in two talk threads and am not reverting, just what is the purpose of this report? Prevention or...... something else? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR. On an article which is covered by discretionary sanctions. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) This report clearly intends to harm a very productive editor and not much else. Darkness Shines opened this after NAEG opened the TP section and even raised the issue over at BLP/N, explicitely stating that "My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN". The deletion he is referring to is what Darkness Shines calls NAEG's second revert, which means that NAEG only reverted 3 times, not 4, since that is not a revert but a removal of content. This is one of those issues that need to be swiftly dismissed with a warning issued to Darkness Shines to avoid opening false reports in the future. Regards.  Gaba  (talk)  21:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LMFAO, removing content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's editing WP. NAEG was not trying to restore the article to his prefered version, he made an original contribution to it by removing content he considered unsuitable. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear god in heaven, see WP:3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Removing content is a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Help:Reverting: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version. Removing content needs to restore the article to a previous version to be considered a revert. If it creates a new version of the article, it is simply a WP edit. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  22:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . There is no doubt that violated WP:3RR. The BLP exemption is misguided although apparently sincerely held. WP:3RRNO states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." It would have been more appropriate for NAEG to take the issue to BLPN no later than after the third revert, if not earlier. In addition, the article is under discretionary sanctions, and NAEG is aware of those sanctions, having been officially notified of them in January of this year. Despite all that, I am reluctant to sanction an editor who (1) says he will not revert again and (2) believes he was doing the right thing. But NAEG is warned that if this kind of conduct recurs, he should seek guidance before reverting and that a repeat violation of this type may lead to a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

E/C


 * I concur only with the result, but respectfully think Bbb23 has not seriously weight the substance underlying this matter. For the record, I "officially notified" myself about DS. (Hmm, come to think of it, before I did that I earned a notice for restoring to a stable version in response to Darkness Shines' edits.)
 * I was trying to post the following at time of E/C and will now get back to real work
 * Dear devil in hades, there was no edit war due to the 3RR exception, and even the non-edit war back-and-forth editing has been supplanted by discussion
 * Blocking policy says, "The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment."
 * Having been asked whether the purpose of the complainant is prevention or something else, the complainant says, "The report is because you were edit warring, and broke 3RR."
 * I'm not asking for any admin action, but in my opinion WP:BOOMERANG applies per "Do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point"
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You're confusing me using DS for discretionary sanctions when DS is also used to refer to Darkness Shines. :-) You were notified of the discretionary sanctions by . I'm not going to address your other points. Let's move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wrong on both counts, B. Careful reading will show context that I also meant discretionary sanctions, and also corrected the record to say when I was first notified so you didn't really need to thump me there.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize this was hatted, but for posterity I'd like to add diffs to my DS self-notices in case this file is reviewed for background in a future proceeding. They are

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Self notice Under old system but self reverted after ARB clarification motion discussion here
 * under the new system


 * Comment I looked at the content in question and it is not properly sourced and what i call a very questionable addition. As it is, i would have reverted it too i guess. prokaryotes (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With a closer look it appears as if Darkness Shines talk attempts to introduce doubt and denial into the article, since the poll created controversy, see climate change denial. prokaryotes (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * More detail, Darkness Shines used sources which are/were highly misleading, see], the poll came after the manufactured Climategate controversy and was very vague. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Protected)
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is a new WP:SPA pushing a specific POV wrt acupuncture. Was just reported for edit warring here two days ago. Results in page protection and now editing warring on a new page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

1. added comment, not a revert,

2. a restore of content removed without discussion

3. copy edit and removed commented material that was restored during edit was, not a revert

4. a restore of content removed without discussion

5. addition of new material, not a revert

If I'm trying to push a specific POV about acu then why did I leave the 2002 acu study off in the #3 revert? Doc James is either very careless or intentionally trying to mislead the noticeboard. - - Technophant (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Case against User:Jmh649 for edit warring and unwarranted content removal:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617789980&oldid=617789658
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617788419&oldid=617788077
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617700823&oldid=617695506
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myofascial_meridians&diff=617548300&oldid=617542779

I've asked for the page to be fully protected until the merge discussion is over on 25 July. - Technophant (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting the number 1 and 5 involved you adding the same material. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected. So we both have 3 reverts in 24 hours. Best thing to do is protect the page at pre-war condition, with the Clinical section.- - Technophant (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's apparently an ongoing content dispute on this article, and related acupuncture article, between Technophant, Doc James and a few other editors which Technophant brought to NPOV noticeboard []. Looking over Technophant's edits, it's hard to tell if they are reverts, but glancing at the edit history for Myofascial meridians shows Doc James made 3 very clear reverts in past 24hrs, which is short of threshold, but seems to suggest mutual edit warring. Perhaps both editors should be warned.  --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected one month. Edits of this article show a high level of boldness, and there is not much tendency to wait for consensus to be found on Talk. Protection is one way to ensure that discussion takes place. Use edit protect requests to ask for changes that have consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Technophant was recently involved in edit warring against consensus at acupuncture. See Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Technophant claimed "A group of editors have repeatedly removed large sections without discussing on talk page first." But I did start a discussion on the talk page for the MEDRS violations. QuackGuru ( talk ) 06:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah? User:Adjwilley, User:BoboMeowCat, User:EdJohnston please take a closer looks at the diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) July 20th, 7:12 Adds "Biophysicist James L. Oschman states that "acupuncture meridians are the" and the NPOV tag
 * 2) July 20th, 11:18 Adds "In a 2011 study Biophysicist James L. Oschman stated that "acupuncture meridians are the" and "Several continuing education courses in Anatomy Trains"
 * 3) July 20th 16:13 Adds "Continuing education courses in Anatomy Trains"
 * 4) July 21st 02:45 Adds "In a 2011 study Biophysicist James L. Oschman stated that "acupuncture meridians are the"
 * 5) July 21st, 03:01 Adds "In a 2011 study Biophysicist James L. Oschman stated that "acupuncture meridians"

So basically within 20 hours this user added content and than attempted to re-add it four times. Technically 5 reverts. How is this not edit warring?

Additional issue is the refs used such as this recent translation of an early 1900s German alt med text that introduces a new body system. This is similar to using an early 1900s astrology text to introduce a new planet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Themann007 reported by User:Dman41689 (Result: prot)

 * 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:

user only created account to edit war Dman41689 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Themann007 claims to be the article subject. The image is not inappropriate, but he is trying to edit in policy - there was something wrong with the license for the alternate image, but that can likely be fixed in the next week. Please notify my or request at WP:RFPP if this resolves before then. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:58.172.180.117 reported by User:PrinceSulaiman (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

This IP Address has been editing dozen of articles without providing reliable source and most of the edits are unconfirmed informations. I would suggest a 1 week block in order to avoid much more damages. <font style="color: rgb(22, 159, 250); font-style: oblique; font-weight: bold; font-family: helvetica neue, sans-serif;">Prince Sulaiman Talk to me 11:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Revert warring is not really the primary problem here, but a one day block seems in order anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 (Doc James) reported by User:Technophant (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (rm link to free url for content that didn't exist, uncalled for)
 * 4)  tendentious

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (User has not edited talk page section.)

Comments: User is removing cleanup tags without proper justification or discussion, tendentious editing, and wikihounding.

I believe user is acting out of bias and anger and is not trying to improve WP. I'm trying to nip this one in the bud before it escalates. - - Technophant (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice. Two difs. And look you have restored some so very close paraphrasing / copy and pasting in your last edits
 * Currently you stand at three reverts.
 * 
 * 
 * which is fairly brave as this was the exact same content you tried to edit war about before the article was protected.
 * The pmc was already linked in the ref in question if you notice the pmc= parameter. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note at least 2 other sections just above (19-20 July) reporting Technophant for edit-warring in the context of WP:MEDRS violations, also involving User:Jmh649, who is a very respected medical editor. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks like a WP:POINT is being made. Alexbrn talk 12:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Was only involved with one of the reportings. A different user reported him the other time  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User also warned me of copy/paste when the edit clearly did not violate copvio due to it's simplicity. He also threatened my editing privileges. Clearly another attempt to hound me. - Technophant (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the facts here. The edits I made were constructive, appropriate, and completely unrelated to the previous incidents. Jmh649 actions were tendentious and motivated by personal reasons. - Technophant (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the admins here can address the hounding issue. If not I will have to take it up separately. - Technophant (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've decided to retract this complaint and take it to more appropriate forum. - Technophant (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Very nice. As you only have 2 difs you have added one from another page and used one dif twice. Not that 65 and 66 are the exact same ONE edit. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Two reverts can constitute edit warring, esp. considering extenuating circumstances. - Technophant (talk) 13:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes technically but what are the extenuating circumstances. That you wanted to use a 1900s German text to support the introduction of a new body system that conventional science has missed? So you want to move this discussion here ? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The reverts by Technophant 07-21 02:28 and 07-21 10:14 (one of which is mentioned by Doc James above) concern some of the same material that led to the article being protected from an AN3 report just yesterday. Note that I am WP:INVOLVED and that the article is covered by standard discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Involved editor comment: Tendentious invalid filing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action against User:Jmh649, given that User:Technophant has been topic banned per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=617897481&oldid=617896865 a discussion at ANI]. There is no need to review the same dispute at two different boards. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Renfield1031 reported by User:EricSerge (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617779095 by EricSerge (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 617638158 by EricSerge (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 617506879 by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 617394169 by "


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Alexander Haig. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alexander Haig. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Editor has not responded to talk page messages about edit warring and continues to reinsert un-sourced commentary. EricSerge (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

User has also edit-warred on HandsomeFella (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:109.157.151.98 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617851259 by Dougweller (talk)everyone know that he is"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 617846191 by Anupmehra (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 617845746 by Anupmehra (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 617845406 by Anupmehra (talk)"
 * 5)  "scholar"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Continues inserting the word "scholar" after a series of warnings. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 17:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see on my talk page he's attacked me for being anti-Muslim, while meanwhile I'm being criticised for being pro-Muslim. Looks like I'm getting it right then. Anyway, clear edit-warring and needs a block. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * by Euryalus. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Burnside77 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 2)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */ Removal of inaccurate and biased information..."
 * 3)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 4)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 5)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 6)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */ Added refernace source to prevent furthur censoring from pro-Irish republician supporters."
 * 7)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 8)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"
 * 1)  "/* Removal as Brigadier */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Billy McFarland. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Billy McFarland. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has been edit warring for a couple of days now, using two accounts Burnside77 and Burnside55 (an SPI is pending on the latter) to add questionable material sourced simply to "UDA volunteer" and "UWC 1972" which are obviously unacceptable in a BLP. Another user opened an RFC on the talk page in an attempt to avoid an edit war, but Burnside has refused to engage there and has simply continued to readd the material, oblivious to advice given. Valenciano (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * by DeltaQuad. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:192.136.67.2 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 00:07, 21 July 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 19:46, 21 July 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 19:54, 21 July 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 19:59, 21 July 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An IP has been blanking material on the grounds that he/she "do[es] not agree", it's "theory", etc. He/she has in the process been reverted by various editors and surpassed three reverts. Another IP with the same geolocation also concurrently attempted to blank the same material; probably is the same user. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Page protected for 1048 Planck times)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restore removal by User:QuackGuru and added second paper from Journal_of_Pain with impact factor of 3.24, add NPOV tag"
 * 2)  "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ add RS secondary "synthesis" statement from abstract"
 * 3)  "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ ce"
 * 4)  "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ QuackWatch doesn't meet MEDRS, or even RS, rm"
 * 5)  "clarify AMA's position"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 617489583 by QuackGuru (talk) restored with corrected url (copy/paste error)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 617489583 by QuackGuru (talk) restored with corrected url (copy/paste error)"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * Previous warning by another editor diff removed diff. Notice of discretionary sanctions diff. Discussion of edits link. Discussion at ANI link. MrBill3 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This editor looks an awful lot like Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. Exact same behavior, paranoia, topics, assumptions of bad faith, attacking other editors, etc.. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's what you believe,, then add the editor to the SPI, along with diffs, of course, backing up your assertions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Technophant restored the text again. See 16:29, 19 July 2014. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:16, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Could someone clarify what material the diffs above labeled #2 and #4 are reverts of? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like the original addition of substantially similar text in diff 2 was added by Technophant 12:39 07-17, then wholesale reverted 05:54 07-18 before trying the text above. The text in link 4 appears to have originated 15:03 07-18, then been edit warred 06:57 07-19 and 16:29 07-19. This is probably better treated as a case of tendentious EW than as a simple 3RR. Thank you for taking a look, Adjwilley. Note that I am WP:INVOLVED here. Also note that the article is under discretionary sanctions. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * MrBill3, this doesn't look like a 3RR violation to me, because as 2over0 says, there's too much time lag. That, combined others' active reversion of Technophant's edits and with the active discussion at the talk page, makes me think that blocking anyone at this point will be counterproductive; I'm going to impose 86400 seconds of protection.  Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2/0 for the analysis. I agree that it is tendentious...hopefully the user will take this as a warning. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more just and more consistent in accord to the previous resolutions that MrBill3 would have faced an official warning to be indefinitely blocked, just like in these cases concluded by administrator Kww: a 3RR case & an ANI case. We are not going to apply different rules for different users, are we? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The last time edit warring was reported here for the acupuncture article was a short time ago back in May. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive246. <font color="Red">QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In light of the fact that Technophant is now indefinitely topic banned from all Alternative medicine articles, can we just close this case? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Technophant reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Topic ban per ANI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "moved Quackwatch opinion to new Sceptics subsection"
 * 2)  "/* Public organizations */ add non-controversial info from highly respected source"
 * 3)  "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ cleanup"
 * 4)  "/* Scientific view on TCM theory */ add pov-s"
 * 5)  "ref update"
 * 6)  "/* Public organizations */ clarify"
 * 7)  "/* Public organizations */ style"
 * 8)  "/* See also */ rm Perkinism, can't see the link"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 617787110 by Technophant (talk) revert, kinda see the link"
 * 10)  "/* Public organizations */ repost revised edit"
 * 11)  "/* Public organizations */ remove redund ref"
 * 12)  "ce"
 * 13)  "/* Scientific view on acupuncture theory */ fact checked, added cleanup tags removed without dicusion"
 * 1)  "/* Public organizations */ remove redund ref"
 * 2)  "ce"
 * 3)  "/* Scientific view on acupuncture theory */ fact checked, added cleanup tags removed without dicusion"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Appropiateness use of QuackWatch */ RTFM"
 * 2)   "/* Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 2 */"
 * 3)   "/* Edit warring rather than getting consensus */ new section"
 * 4)   "/* Protected edit request on 20 July 2014 2 */ r"


 * Comments:

Rather than strictly considering this in terms of 3RR this deserves evaluation as using a practice of edit warring over time. Note immediate resumption of edits against consensus as soon as protection was lifted (and forum shopping, tendentious editing, and what looks to me like clear POV Pushing). Let me know if this should be an ANI instead. MrBill3 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC) NPOV NB, EW NB, Identifying reliable sources (medicine), ANI and there are many others... - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All of these edits have been discussed in other 3RR discussions. There's nothing new here. - Technophant (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Such a proposal has recently been made at WP:AN/I. Alexbrn talk 14:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This can probably be closed as the ANI discussion has resulted in a one year topic ban for the reported editor. I do have a question about the removal of warnings and discussion notices on the user's talk page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action here. User:Technophant has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=617897481&oldid=617896865 indefinitely topic banned] from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed per a thread at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Removal of notices of that type is perfectly in order. Once a user deletes such a notice, it is deemed that they have read it and fully understood it.  That the notice has been deleted will not get them off the hook here or at any other noticeboard.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Brownwn 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:
 * Their initial edit adding content @2014-07-18T22:43:03‎- 2014-07-19T00:28:33 edit summary = "Add context regarding Richard Falk bias and judgment".
 * @2014-07-20T14:42:25‎ - 2014-07-20T15:05:26
 * @2014-07-21T19:53:58 - 2014-07-21T20:10:12
 * @2014-07-22T04:22:41‎
 * @2014-07-22T04:56:27

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

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

Comments:

Could an admin please stop Brownwn's edit warring (and editorializing/WP:NOTADVOCATE violations). Astonishingly, the editor is telling readers what to think about a living person and exploiting edit warring to achieve that objective. e.g. "Richard Falk's allegations must be considered in light of strong criticisms of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias coming from many directions." and "His judgment in general must also be questioned..." etc.

This is completely unacceptable behavior in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * and alerted to discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Algyx0262 reported by User:Backendgaming (Result: Warned)

 * 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:

Continues to revert my edits w/o any proper reason. Added the term Business magnate to encompass all the industries Lebow was involved in, not just tobacco. Backendgaming (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC

Reason for difference was provided on my talk page. Continues to alter the orignal text. Use of term tobacco is more specific. Use of term financier is inclusive of business. Therefore, prefacing the word "financier" with "business" is redundant.

Just because LeBow was extensively involved in the tobacco industry does not merely make him a "tobacco magnate". I said this before again and again within my previous revert edit summaries. I added the term "Business magnate" since it is used to encapsulate ALL of LeBow's business industry involvements, REGARDLESS if the main industry LeBow involved in was tobacco. What's specific about just including "tobacco" to the lead paragraph considering that LeBow has also owned a trading card manufacturing firm (SkyBox International), started a computer company, purchased  Western Union (a financial services and communications company), Brigham's Ice Cream (an ice cream manufacturer), MAI Basic Four (a computer company), and became the CEO of Borders Group Inc., (a music and book retailer) all of which as nothing to do with tobacco. Other business tycoons such as Donald Trump, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and Howard Hughes all use the same term "Business magnate" since all of them have been involved in more than one business industry, despite being known in one particular industry. Donald Trump is famous for being in real estate, but he is also involved in the entertainment and hospitality industries and not referred to simply as a "real estate magnate" on his article. Howard Hughes was well known for being in the aviation industry, but Hughes also made a name for himself in aerospace and defense, movies, real estate, hotels, and oil but is not referred to as an "aviation magnate" on his article. Warren Buffett's main business is insurance, but the article does refer to Buffett as an "Insurance magnate" as he invested in numerous companies that have nothing to do with insurance. Furthermore, the term "financier" is not redundant considering the subject has made several investments in numerous companies, several of which I already mentioned above. Look up the article (despite being unreferenced) for the term if you want a vague but somewhat rather accurate comprehension of what a "financier" does and then compare the definition pertaining to LeBow's investments within his article. Backendgaming (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ., you must provide diffs at this board. and Backendgaming, you are both edit warring. You are warned that if this sort of conduct persists, regardless of who thinks who's right, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthtruthtruthtruth999 reported by User:Ktr101 (Result: Blocked)

 * 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:

User is insistent on removing text that they don't agree with, which is contrary to the truth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . This has been going on for some time with different accounts. I suspect meat or sock puppetry., next time, please provide diffs as you are required to do on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, as I was having an issue with only some some differences coming up. Oddly enough, this is also the first time that I can remember posting here, so my apologies for that mistake. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Damián80 reported by User:Musicfan877 (Result: Resolved dispute)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

The user has been reverting every single edit I try to make in the 'Synopsis' section from grammatically correct English (translated from Spanish) to a poorly translated summary of the show. Nearly every single edit someone makes for correct grammar or style is changed by this user into badly written ones without any explanation or compromise. The user has changed multiple sections of this article for revisions that are incorrect in grammar and/or proper spelling. This has been going on for weeks. There are huge errors such as referring to female characters as "him", for example. They gave no reason for the changes either. I explained many times that their summary of the plot was too long and has too much unnecessary information about the show. I feel like a properly translated summary of 2-5 sentences is simple and easier for readers to understand. I have tried communicating via their Talk page (all I got were confusing replies.) and I even reedited what they had with a more simple, grammatically correct version, but they still reverted to their previous edit. Musicfan877 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Serious?, Those issues are not yesterday and came to edit wars. Even leaves a last message By explaining to reach an agreement, here is the message. Musicfan877 that it has ignored is none of my business. Here, I place another complaint, in his discussion clearly explain a reason to reach an agreement, and this user wants to make this a great dispute.-- Damián  (talk)  23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . You're both at three reverts. Although I won't comment on the substantive content, your English, is often almost incomprehensible.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that fits the translation of the article, but the user wants to remove everything and leave the short frame. But if this is going to continue and better retirement and everything ready.-- Damián  (talk)  23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your first sentence, but I have no clue what the second sentence means. Frankly, unless you can edit in intelligible English, I think it would be better to accept one of Musicfan's versions. If you really don't like it, you could always seek input from other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked at your latest edits, and it appears that you have adopted one of Musicfan's versions. Does that mean that the two of you are okay and this report can be closed?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Truth does not follow the subject, have pleased the user to end this.-- Damián  (talk)  00:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm closing this as resolved unless objects.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Wilcannia reported by User:John (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:79.101.146.89

 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * 


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 01:31, 22 July 2014


 * 04:42, 22 July 2014


 * 13:43, 22 July 2014


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Правичност is many times to get messages from user to violate rule 3RR, was is blocked.


 * 20:37, 1 April 2013


 * 22:12, 9 April 2013


 * 11:51, 10 April 2013


 * 19:44, 28 August 2013


 * User:Wifione blocked him to 24 hour!


 * 15:01, 10 February 2014


 * 20:09, 22 July 2014

Very interesting while Правичност was not active, IP has vandalized page in the same way and the article has been protected! , protected Serbs‎, example of work User:Правичност IP. --79.101.146.89 (talk) 12:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * 03:29, 23 July 2014 --79.101.146.89 (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, learn proper english instead of using google translate if you wanna use english wikipedia, second of all, you and your pal Shokac 121 were pushing these changes without trying to reach concensus since last year, you still are pushing unconstructive sources such as those who count language speakers and passports of one country, anything except counting or estimating ethnic groups and then you use same methods to protect yourselves doing it, accusing other people who try to maintain reasonable sources and figures. You push astronomical figures on Croats (for a few million) with circus sources so you could reach number of Serbs by lso degrading numbers on Serbs article, what you are doing is childish games of nationalism and internet frustrative vandalism... whoever you are hiding behind an IP adress, you have no right to accuse or suspect that i was hiding behind IP adresses while being non active. Only you can and your pal Sokac 121 are capable of such things as your reason on wikipedia is to do anything against Serbian related articles. get a life. Greetings (Правичност (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC))

User:173.12.152.214, User:68.59.48.216, User:12.237.80.67, and User:216.162.148.49 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

The IPs have few, if any edits, other than to the target page. There was some previous edit warring, but the "Previous version reverted to" below is when the IPs version became stable.

Previous version reverted to: 03:40, July 18, 2014 (as #1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08:28, July 18, 2014 as #4
 * 2) 22:58, July 18, 2014 as #1
 * 3) 00:36, July 20, 2014 as #3
 * 4) 04:45, July 21, 2014 as #1 plus personal attack
 * 5) 22:22, July 21, 2014 as #3
 * 6) 04:49, July 22, 2014 as #1
 * 7) 03:01, July 23, 2014 as #1
 * 8) 07:21, July 23, 2014 as #2
 * 9) 08:03, July 23, 2014 as #2
 * 10) 02:09, July 24, 2014 as #2
 * 11) 03:02, July 24, 2014 as #2
 * 12) 03:30, July 24, 2014 as #1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) 00:40, July 14, 2014
 * 2) 14:09, July 13, 2014‎ pointed to discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: July 13, July 14 (after waiting for the IPs to respond)

Comments:

I haven't submitted the AN3 warning yet, as it's possible there are other IPs the editor has access to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted 8 of the 13, 3, and  and I both modified one of them.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring by a fluctuating IP. This break will allow time for the editor behind these IPs to read the WP:Sockpuppet policy. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:146.200.179.28 reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (this one was made a few weeks earlier behind a different IP)

User was warned of 3RR here:

Comments:

This person has made 5 identical reverts, 4 within one day. 146.200.179.28 and 146.200.1.76 both have the same ISP and geolocation, so it's safe to assume that this is the same person. The problem on this page relates to the Archive.is uncertain stalemate that's currently undergoing community discussion. The IP user first reverts 2Flows's revert of an indef blocked user (Prebyslaff), but I revert him with an explanation; unsatisfied with my explanation, he reverts me, and at this point I suggest that he discuss on the talk page, however this does not occur. In my opinion, the IP user does not have a convincing reason for removing an archive.is URL link from a citation, and is merely removing it for the sole reason that it is an archive.is URL, despite that there has been no community motion whatsoever for mass archive.is URL removals. -- benlisquare T•C•E 07:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 618103062 by Qwertyus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 618101779 by Qwertyus (talk) revised, may please discuss at talk page before further removal."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 617429012 by Qwertyus (talk) unjustified removal. Rather removing please make it  important information readable."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"
 * 2)   "/* Summary of 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) */"


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


 * Comments:

Main resolution initiative is Special:Diff/618163654. For some reason I cannot mark it as such in the Twinkle ARV box. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reply: The present matter inserted is quite different then initial one, taking due care of the objections raised by reporter to make the presentation NPOV. However the following makes the thing further clear:


 * Reporter User:Qwertyus's following revision speaks of the unjustified removal being done by the reporter, even after request made for discussion.

   
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

The complete point wise justification for inclusion given to User:Qwertyus, who is adamant to force his version, which is conveying a wrong and incomplete message contrary to information available in reliable sources.


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

  Thanks,--Md iet (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to administrator: while Md iet has it seem like I violated WP:3RR, the last two diffs are the same link and the first one is a week earlier than the other two. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Jusgtr reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 618244997 by STATicVapor (talk) Yes, well, I am focusing on keeping it with the EA Sports usage."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 618219295 by Koala15 (talk) Yes, I also update BEMANI games with new info"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 618125633 by Koala15 (talk) Well, Static & you should be blocked. I win"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 618082206 by STATicVapor (talk) Get out! Static, I kicked out Koala"


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


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


 * Comments:

Just look at the page history of Run the Jewels (album), this has gotten ridiculous. Now they have violated WP:3rr after being warned about it a second time, and I was able to report it before it became stale. STATic message me!   09:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . Clear reverts, was warned. Kuru   (talk)  11:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Bumblebee9999 (Result: User:Ryulong blocked for 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 10:18, 25 July 2014‎ "this warning is invalid, it doesn't belong in the "see also" section if it belongs at all"
 * 07:42, 25 July 2014‎ "Reverted 3 edits by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Bring it up on the template talk page. I removed it because it is not relevant to the whole of the topic. (TW)"
 * 1)  22:01, 24 July 2014‎ "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): It doesn't belong on the template because it is not about general power rangers stuff. (TW)"
 * 19:41, 24 July 2014‎ Ryulong "Reverted 1 edit by Bumblebee9999 (talk): Doesn't seem like a valid separate page. (TW)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:"/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"

Comments: There are four reverts in 24 hours and not to mention he is doing the edit warring for false revert claim. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This report is retaliatory to the one above it. I've self reverted to the original version of the template which means that there are 2 reverts now. I've made all attempts to encourage discussion on this in the proper locations but Bumblebee9999 refuses to let me edit his user talk page and is going out of his way to try to get me punished, which included a threat to report me to a non-existant "Wikipedia Board of Directors".— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the sentiment behind it, it is clear that you instigated the whole edit war and broke the 3rr first.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've self reverted so that means there's no more broken 3RR. And this happens every time I get into a content dispute with someone who doesn't know anything about how Wikipedia works. I revert. I begin a discussion. He reverts back to his version because he thinks he's right and I'm trying to take over Wikipedia. And I can't even direct him to the proper place to have a discussion on this content dispute because he doesn't want me on his talk page despite the fact we are currently discussing issues on multiple pages.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It still is a revert and it counts or so I been told, it does not matter if you did not actually revert with the "undo" button, you were still reverting/deleting what I posted, regardless. Also so he cannot claim that I did not give him a warning of this report I direct you to his talk page history where you can see he reverted and removed it because he seems the type of person to do that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A self revert is effectively a -1 revert. And those are not warnings. Those are notifications of this thread which I am already fully aware of.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Others manage to avoid it. Maybe have a read of Please do not bite the newcomers. If you see a 3RR about to occur, stop and discuss before attempting to use this page as a sledgehammer to punish them.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted once and attempted to discuss it with him but because of the AFD he has failed to assume any good faith of my actions and now forbids me from editing his user talk at all.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And just to be sure, am I supposed to add back his poorly written all caps and false commented out warning too in order to properly self revert?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL! ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS! LMFAOROTG! A self revert is not a -1 revert, it is a revert, LOL! Oh, thank you for more proof dude, you are a riot, you will make anything up to get your way and be right LMAO! Agrue away. I am so done with this. LOL! I hope we both get blocked. LOL! And no you have not tried to discuss anything with me, you have done nothing but cause trouble since I started List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases as you went and nominated that right after I reverted you, dude every thing you did is right there in the history of everything and they can see that you did not handle this right at all right off the bat so of course I would not assume any good faith in your actions and forbid you from editing on my talk page at all because why would I want to do with and work with someone who goes off and starts off on the wrong foot right off the bat? Keep trying to insult me to get me down, you did wrong bud sorry but you did but as I said I am done with this and I hope we both get blocked for 24 hours. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I am done commenting because I been trying to post for the past 20 minutes and I keep getting an edit conflict, screw that. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:Self-revert and Template talk:Power Rangers.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Ryulong for 1 week. Looking at his block log is depressing, he clearly knew what he was doing and was gaming the system.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please feel free to block me for 24 hours if you wish. I will take responsibility for my violation of the 3RVT. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bumblebee9999 reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 618315637 by Ryulong (talk) until AFD is done."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 618332767 by Ryulong (talk) A list of Power Ranger home media releases is not "general power rangers stuff", uh yes it is!"
 * 3)  "It is relevant as this is a template for Power Rangers and it is a List of Mighty Morpin Power Rangers home media release. Stop making false claims to remove stuff and edit warring."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Link to List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases */ new section"


 * Comments:

Bumblebee9999 boldly added something to the template. I removed it because I felt it was not suitable for the template. It was added back despite attempts at discussion his user talk and on the template's talk page which has been ignored because he does not want me to talk to him despite our current direct content dispute(s). — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How much more are you going to do to get your way? I am reporting you now as we speak because you have just pushed my last button by going way to far to get your way with this stupid List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases. You are the one edit warring making false claims of irrelavent when they are both fucking Power Ranger subjects. How do I report him for harassment to the Wikiboard cause I have had it with him. Look at all the crap he has been doing stalking me, leaving threatening crap on my goddamn talk page and I only reverted once today and now he making false accusation of edit warring when you can see clearly that one on different day. Please tell Ryulong to leave me alone and stop trying to intimidate me to get his way with List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You made more than 3 reverts to restore your preferred identical version of the page content within a 24-hour period. That is a violation of WP:3RR. I have attempted to discuss this with you in multiple places but you refused and you added this bunk warning to try to intimidate me or other users. And it is not stalking you when we are in a direct content dispute.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude, just anything to get your way with the List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases, you were editting warring by making false claims to remove it saying it was irrelevant when it is not as both have to do with fucking Power Rangers the template is "Template:Power Rangers" and the list is "List of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers home media releases" so if anyone was edit warring it was you by reverting my edits with unfounded reasons. All you are doing is trying to get your way with that damn list and you need to stop and back off me. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please leave all discussion of the dispute on the template talk page where I have detailed my objections to the addition as I have in multiple other places.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You only want me to do that because you are actually the one who is edit warring and I just posted proof of it. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've posted no proof. You're just trying to further the content dispute discussion on this page rather than where it should have taken place.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 10:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh and look who just did over 3 reverts in 24 hours themselves, dude you are so full of it. This is all so you can get your way, admins please do not give him his way. And yes I did you were edit warring with me making false claims of not relevant to the topic of the template when it is relevant as they are both Power Rangers' and that is proof you were edit warring first to get your way and now are putting on me and you just broke the 24 hour 3 revert as well so you reported me to get the crap of you and you should be blocked just as well if I get blocked. In fact I will go ahead and make a report just like you did. Bumblebee9999 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not performed more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. The contested content that you posted is still there, but I've moved it to a more proper place. If it was gone entirely then yes I would have broken the limit. And I reported you after you restored everything despite all of the attempts I made to begin a discussion. Making a retaliatory report is not going to solve anything.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And to be transparent, I've restored the original version of the page that Bumblebee9999 created.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 11:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Holybeef reported by User:0x0077BE (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First reversion
 * 2) Second reversion
 * 3) Third Reversion
 * 4) Fourth reversion
 * 5) Fifth reversion

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning was issued before the 4th reversion. (History link)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Current version of the section in the talk page regarding this issue.

Comments:


 * I am a neutral third party in this dispute, brought in by a notice on the Wikiproject Physics talk page (history link). From the talk page, it seems that has been resisting any efforts to build consensus on this matter. He/she claims that the removal of this particular section is vandalism, despite strong evidence that these are in fact good faith efforts. I suggested that the principals involved here stop editing the page until a consensus is reached.  seemed willing to do this.  devised and implemented a compromise version diff here, which  reverted, after I had asked him to stop editing the page in the talk page and after I had warned him using , in clear violation of WP:3RR. (Note: I erroneously suggested that he had already been in violation of WP:3RR after his 3rd edit, which  correctly pointed out in the talk page).


 * I see no evidence that has used sockpuppets, so I would recommend that  be temporarily banned from editing this particular article while we work this out. I think the article should be reverted to the compromise wording in the meantime.<font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Response There is no edit war here, not only because there wasn't one technically, but also due to the essence of the issue. Deleting (by user SCZent w/o discussion) an entire section (after it was previously discussed at length and agreed upon months ago) which contains only quotes from reputable secondary sources and nothing else (so there's no room for interpretation, only counter-references, if any) is bad faith. So I base my judgment on VANDAL. Also, this isn't the Dark Ages and there's no forbidden literature, so we don't delete reliable secondary references just because we don't like them or because we think they're slander. In this case: if Linde's statements were indeed slanderous, editors-in-chief of SciAm or Financial Times (referred to in the section) would have certainly vetted such statements. User SCZenz is clearly trying to impose his WP:POV by judging reliable secondary sources and top scientists' statements, and he's doing it in an aggressive manner, so I think he should be banned til he cools down a bit. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will note here that is unique in his assumption of bad faith on the part of both  and, which is prima facie evidence that it is possible to WP:AGF with regard to  and 's edits. It's not clear what is meant by "not only because there wasn't one technically", here, as this is a clear violation of 3RR, and the violation occurred after  was warned on this both on his talk page and on the Alan Guth talk page. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well "technically" meant edit war occurs after third edit (4th and on), not on third edit. But that's besides the point since it's not an edit war to revert edits that were based on bad faith and thus constituted vandalism. Also, you should stop seeking consensus on this matter, see WP:NOT. Simply: there is no voting on the issue of whether or not reliable secondary references could be included or not, since finding and including such sources is a right and a duty of every editor so that we can make a better encyclopedia. I explained above why it's bad faith and vandalism to delete such references or sections that contain only such references and no interpretation. You can question neutrality of interpretation by arguing this and that. But in order to counter reliable references alone, you too must provide reliable references that counter the ones you don't like or don't agree with. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Despite my repeated admonitions and suggestions to the contrary, has continued to revert good faith edits to the page, even after this official report has started. Obviously he knows what he is doing. I suggest at least a 24 hour ban if not more. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're overreacting: note my comments in talk page, where I stated per your request that I do find the Dilaton version to be a compromise. I find it also disrespectful that you're not objecting to SCZenz edits at all (of not only mine but now of Dilaton's compromise version also), and a (edit) war takes two sides doesn't it? At any rate, I voiced my opinion and proposed a compromise as per your request. Why didn't you respond to it, instead requesting a ban for me? Note also that 24 h lapsed so I'm not in violation of the 3RR rule, but SCZenz is again close to it yet you take no action. Thanks. Holybeef (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 's reversions have no bearing on this matter. You were warned and reverted 4 times within a 24 hour period. Read WP:3RR. You don't get 3 edits every 24 hours. Your reversion is very obviously edit warring. If you want to know why I've reported only you, it's because only has 3 reversions and while I disagree with the number of reversions he has, I don't feel like he's being nearly as disruptive - which leads me to err more on the side of adherence to the exact wording of the policy. Additionally, despite what you may think, I did admonish him for his 3rd reversion not only on his talk page but on Talk:Alan Guth as well. You must have seen that, because you used it as a justification for your most recent reversion. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 19:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . Holybeef did actually violate WP:3RR, although I blocked them for edit warring and for describing other users' edits as vandalism. Holybeef's first revert occurred on July 24 at 11:54. Their fourth revert occured on July 25 at 11:28. There was another revert at 11:28 and then yet another at 13:53. Those three edits were consecutive, but that doesn't change the times of the first two, which are inside the 24-hour window. If the third edit had eliminated the reverts, that would be a different story, but it did not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarc reported by User:R3ap3R (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 618432530 by Choor monster (talk) - it is a factual, neutral statement sourced to metronews.ca.  In all your WP:* page citations, give WP:CRYBLP a read-through sometime"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 618426999 by Choor monster (talk) - It is not a BLP vilation to mention the basic facts of the subject fiuling a lawsuit"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Yank Barry */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried to give friendly warning; user removed notice, with edit summary of "Don't template me, nubcakes." R3ap3R (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a confusing report. You need 4 reverts in 24 hours to be in violation of the 3RR.  There are only 2 given. Also, I couldn't find anything on page that suggests 1RR restrictions were imposed, but if that's actually the case, edit history shows multiple users are over 1RR currently, so wonder why Tarc is being singled out here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc wasn't singled out, I left notice on two editors talk pages. Instead of commenting or replying to their fellow editor like a normal editor, Tarc decided to remove the notice with a snide comment. Perhaps he should read No personal attacks R3ap3R (talk) 12:46 pm, Today (UTC−5)


 * I agree with . I'm not seeing any indication that is some sort of notorious edit warrior or anything. The big problem seems to me that  was potentially uncivil to  in an edit summary, deleting a 3RR warning template. I'm thinking this is something that should have been worked out on the talk page before taking it here. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 17:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea on earth why this was filed, I reverted twice, and there is no 1RR enforced on the page that I can see. This...filer, isn't even actively involved in the article at all; they attempted one very ill-informed speedy deletion almost 2 months ago and that is all.  About the only thing I find more irksome than a WP:DNTTR faux pas is a busybody. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:DNTTR is an essay, not a rule as stated in the lead "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines". WP:DNTTR further states: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template." R3ap3R (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps next time, you will do more than a shallow examination of the situation. If you had, you'd have seen that neither the 3RR warning nor was the "edit warring" report here were applicable. What you see as bad faith I see as a fundamental lack of due diligence. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A cursory overview of your talk page's history shows that I am *far* from being the first person to claim you have an issue with No personal attacks R3ap3R (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, guys, can you take this somewhere else? If the discussion is about 's civility, this isn't where the discussion goes. It's pretty obvious there was no 3RR and there's no ongoing edit war. Honestly, I think you can both just let it go and walk away. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears Tarc's version is much better supported by the talk page consensus (to the extent that there is one), he edited only twice, and has not edited the page since the warning. I'm left with no good explanation for why Tarc is the only one being reported here. I'm not saying either should have been reported, but that only Tarc did strikes me as very peculiar. The only thing I can guess is that its in retaliation for the mean edit summary. Reporting someone for edit warring in retaliation is an abuse of the process. Unless there is a good reason to keep this open, I say close it no action. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and please pay attention to 's comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:5.45.192.102 reported by User:92.228.99.255 (Result: Semi-protected)
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=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=prev&oldid=618423050
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=617841923&oldid=617770136
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=prev&oldid=617434932
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness&diff=617359664&oldid=616847129

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothness#Yet_another_solution_proposed.3FDiff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: The editor in question is reverting edits that remove mention of an article he himself wrote. As well as edit warring, there is also a clear conflict of interest.


 * (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day (Result: Malformed)
There has been some dispute regarding the year of Day's birth (1922 v  1924), but a talk page consensus had been reached to use 1922 based on a preponderance of evidence including census records and her official biographer (David Kaufman), who unequivocally states she was born in 1922 and used that year exclusively in his bio of Day.

Recently, Mussobrennon changed the year back to 1924, overriding consensus and a note to editors at the beginning of the article stating not to change the year without attaining a consensus. After a few tit for tat edits (see ) it seems that it would be best to nip this edit warring in the bud.

I politely left notes on his talk page, the first of which he blanked without replying (see ), and I left another (see ) after the second tit for tat (see ).

Thanks, Quis separabit?  02:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Farrahferguson reported by User:Manway (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* References */"
 * 2)  "Adding public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's Biological daughter. Requesting this page be protected to include Ego Ferguson's daughter Farrah. Asking the user removing this public information to be banned. www.officialfarrahferguson.com"
 * 3)  "Ego Ferguson's daughter is worth mentioning. She is a public figure in her own right because of her own social standings. This is public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's biological daughter."
 * 4)  "Adding public information"
 * 5)  "Adding public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's biological blood daughter. This information is public and well known. Adding Great info."
 * 1)  "Adding public information. Farrah Ferguson is Ego Ferguson's biological blood daughter. This information is public and well known. Adding Great info."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ego Ferguson. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Username indicates it is a person adding herself to the page. Man way  03:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So what should we do about being involved? He's been reverting the additions more than three times, but I'm assuming in good faith, since he did say the additions are uncited.   Zappa  24 <font color="#039">Mati   03:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (e.e.):The additions are continuing.. I think the one I undid has gone in 5 times now. And note that the username indicates an imposter, not a person adding herself to the page, since the additions state that the daughter Farrah Ferguson is all of 9 months old. Meters (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, I see my undo actually didn't happen due to a conflict. Oh well, my comment stands. Meters (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mussobrennon reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: prot)
Page: User being reported: (edit warring, not 3RR)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:   

Diff of edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (blanked) and

Comments: There has been some dispute regarding the year of Day's birth (1922 v  1924), but a talk page consensus had been reached to use 1922 based on a preponderance of evidence including census records and her official biographer (David Kaufman), who unequivocally states she was born in 1922 and used that year exclusively in his bio of Day.

Recently, Mussobrennon changed the year back to 1924, overriding consensus and a note to editors at the beginning of the article stating not to change the year without attaining a consensus. After a few tit for tat edits (see ) it seems that it would be best to nip this edit warring in the bud.

I politely left notes on his talk page, the first of which he blanked without replying (see ), and I left another (see ) after the second tit for tat (see ). Quis separabit? 12:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . I am seeing only three reverts and enough discussion that I am not comfortable blocking. This looks like a contentious and well-discussed issue, so hopefully a few days of lock will resolve the issue. A bit more politeness is in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Aleko rubin reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 618551930 by Dougweller (talk)Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 618547881 by Alessandro57 (talk) This was the stable version over years, your actions are biased..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 616160802 by Yerevantsi (talk), reverted to stable revision content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Sanctions alert */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Your edits */ new section"


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

Not sure if I should have reported here or elsewhere as I gave the editor a sanctions alert yesterday. Please also see my comments on his talk page. 15:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Oops, meant to say that an AE enforcement could obviously include a 1R restriction, etc., not just or even a block. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all I reverted to previous revision, that was removed by Yerevantsi. Instead of removing content, try to find reference sources, or at least mark it as needed citation. Just removing content, which some of the user deliberately do, doesn't contribute to article at all. Added reference, just now... Aleko rubin (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , what you're saying, even if it were true, doesn't justify edit warring. Yerevantsi made several edits, so it's impossible to even know which version you're referring to. As for adding a ref, you added one, yet you made many changes. The proper course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss rather than reverting, and against so many other editors. And calling one of the reverts "vandalism" is over the top and undermines any credibility you have. Unless you can show some insight into your behavior, I see no reason not to block you (you also ignored the alert about WP:ARBAA2).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've looked a little deeper, even though it's not really relevant to the edit warring issue. Your second revert reverted Yerevantsi's edit of July 9 at 00:30. However, your first revert did a fair number of other things. In any event, you don't get to decide unilaterally that Yerevantsi's edit or edits were wrong. If challenged, as you were, you have to justify it on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree on the last note. But in the same spirit Yerevantsi's desition to remove content was unilateral indeed, as no discussion about the mater apears on talk page. Consequently my latest action to undo it is justified. I refer to the edit done by Yerevantsi on 00:30, 9 July 2014. I meant to undo aforemention users action, so initially I added the removed content manually, sinced I didn't know how to revert it. Subsequently my new edit was undone, while the original edit of Yerevantsi has been reverted. This was my intention. Aleko rubin (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If I recall, your manual edit was much more extensive than the simple revert of one of Yerevantsi's edits as you did later. However, let's assume you started with the plain revert. Nothing wrong with that per se. The problem is you were challenged, and you continued. As I said, just because you think Yerevantsi was wrong does not give you the right to battle in the article over it. It then has to be discussed. Yes, the others could have discussed it, but each of three editors reverted you once and then stopped. Doesn't that tell you something? I now understand your stated intention. I still see no understanding on your part as to where you went wrong. You're lucky I'm even continuing this discussion rather than just blocking you, but I'd prefer to see you make a step forward on policy rather than just sanction you. If you want to show some good faith, revert back to before you started and go to the article talk page and establish a consensus. Your conduct would be disruptive on any article, but it's even more disruptive on an article subject to discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to discuss content as justification is not a reason for edit-warring. The argument about Yerevantsi is not material here either. I won't take part in the discussion about content unless I find a pressing reason to do so, but as Bbb23 has said, the other editors stuck to 1RR - I was very surprised that you reverted again Aleko - you definitely need to change your behavior and show that you can work with others, even when you are certain you are right. Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I don't see a general WP:1RR restriction per WP:ARBAA2 or a 1RR restriction placed on Armenia; am I missing something? That said, disruptive editing is subject to DS, and that would be the basis of a block unless I see some concrete insight on the part of .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I do acknowledge that it wasn't correct to push back and on, on the mater without consensus. I've added now some references to the content that was previously removed by justification that it wasn't atested (mythical). If you're not biased, you shouldn't allow some users remove core content, then blame me for preventing it. In same sence co-editors that initiated this cause should be urged to discuss the matter before removing important content without any justification whatsoever. I'm sorry, and deeply regret that I funded wikipedia to supprt its biased, amature work. Never again... Please remove my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleko rubin (talk • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for edit warring per WP:ARBAA2. I've commented on Aleko's request to remove his account on his talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Theyuusuf143 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: retracted; subsequently blocked)

 * Page:
 * Page:


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to (by me and others)


 * 

One Somaliland:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

On Military of Somaliland:
 * 
 * 


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

One Talk Page (By me):
 * 


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

 


 * Comments:

User is clearly not here to contribute this project. After informing them that he was edit warring, they instead choose to continue and on other pages as well. He has continued to add unsourced content on both pages and add his own personal opinion as well. AcidSnow (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ., you failed to notify the user; I've done so for you. There are only three reverts at Somaliland (you listed two that are part of one revert). The user hasn't reverted at Somaliland since your warning although they did revert at the other article. Your notion of discussion with the new user is odd. "Can you please come to the talk page?" How is the user even supposed to know that you've posted that message (at both talk pages)?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, my bad and thanks! I am not sure what happen with forget their username though. AcidSnow (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have gone and fixed the talk page. Should I retract this report? I had planned to send this in when he broke 4 on one of those articles or if he continued to revert 3 times then move on to another page. AcidSnow (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * AcidSnow, please not that Theyuusuf143 is very new and is unlikely to be familiar with the collaborative norms of editing here. please take your concerns to the respective talk pages (click the "Talk" tab at the top of the article). Edit warring your preferred text will lead to your account being blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like he does not care at all about the rules. He has been edit warring on Hargeisa and has made 5 reverts. He also plans to "desyroy all somalia especially punrland" . As we can clearly see he is not here to contribute to this project. AcidSnow (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Alcatrazzrapper reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Malformed)

 * 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:

Unfortunately there is not one page that is an issue but since Late last year beginning of this year this editor has recieved multiple warnings on genre changes including 6iX Commandments several times and has continued despite several warnings to stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want administrators to review a user's overall conduct, then you should take it to a different board. If you want us to look at edit warring across multiple articles, then you have to list the articles and the diffs for each.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23 if you take a look at the talkpage it isn't rocket science, it is very minimal effort required to see all the warnings how long and what they are about. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Atlas-maker reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), 2014-07-26 14:47:01
 * 2), 2014-07-26 15:01:25
 * 3), 2014-07-26 17:45:33
 * 4), 2014-07-26 23:19:26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, and here, and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here
 * . I was a bit reluctant to block the user because, although he clearly violated WP:3RR, he appears to be leaving Wikipedia based on his last contribution to his user page about 12 hours ago. Still, I've seen users say they're leaving but then come back and, meanwhile, they managed to avoid the consequences of their actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Slomo edit warring, sort it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved 3rd party here - here is a link to where they sorta tried to work this out. Here is the warning issued. Frankly, I'm not sure why  wants to bring light to this issue, because it looks like he and Keysanger are equally guilty of edit warring, since they're just reverting each other back and forth. <font style="color: #0077BE">0x0077BE  [<font color="#0033BE">talk/<font color="#0033BE">contrib] 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected two months. This article has been in dispute for seven years. Use Edit protect to ask for changes that are supported by consensus. The other option would have been to block both parties. User:Darkness Shines must feel he [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADarkness+Shines doesn't have enough blocks already]. This article has been the subject of many complaints at AN3 and at ANI over the years, but I haven't noticed any sustained admin attention to addressing the problems there. Arbcom has tackled Argentine History but that case has no overlap with this dispute (except for having at least one editor involved in both). Since User:Keysanger is one of the most senior editors working on this article it's disappointing to see how eager he is to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:‎S20003 reported by User:26oo (Result: Indeffed + master)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) 1


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Keeps removing cited work, vandalising.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Article talk page
 * 2) Summary
 * 3) User talk page


 * Comments:
 * The user keeps blanking sections and replacing it with texts such as This page contains misleading information, and cannot stand. It should be challenged or deleted. I've messaged the user as well as having posted a message on the article talk page. I believe he's using a second account called User:K200003. 26oo (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's clearly him. AcidSnow (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * . K is the master and S is the puppet. Both have been indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tasnuva tahnin reported by User:APerson (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: I'm a completely uninvolved editor who was notified of this on the IRC help channel. Tasnuva tahnin was never warned, and no discussion was carried out on the talk page. I think indefinite semi would be a good idea on the page, too; it's been an IP battleground for a while. APerson (talk!) 02:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week. There have been a great many problems with non-autoconfirmed accounts. The reported editor is not autoconfirmed. However, the editor the reported editor has been battling with recently is autoconfirmed, and although that editor hasn't breached 3RR, I'm not inclined to block the reported user given the circumstances. He's also apologized on his talk page. I took an unusual step and reverted the last edits by a new user who made a BLP and formatting mess of the page. What concerns me is whether there's anyone editing this page who is sufficiently responsible to do so in a constructive manner; in other words, what's going to happen at the end of the week? My guess is a repeat of the chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Israel retreated. that's a fact and NPOV. the fact that you want it to be indecisive is an attempt to save face for the IDF. making it non NPOV"
 * 2)  "stalemate is an POV view. withdrawal is fact. check your biases before you post"
 * 1)  "stalemate is an POV view. withdrawal is fact. check your biases before you post"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2006 Lebanon War. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user was warned by admin not to edit war and yet he reverted after the warning Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

24.36.80.217 reported by AcidSnow (Result: Protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Latest revision as of 06:58, 28 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 04:59, 25 January 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 06:55, 28 July 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 20:06, 3 July 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 07:50, 3 July 2014
 * 5) Revision as of 05:10, 7 June 2014
 * 6) Revision as of 04:35, 4 June 2014
 * 7) Revision as of 04:54, 30 May 2014
 * 8) Revision as of 06:28, 16 April 2014
 * 9) Revision as of 07:12, 12 April 2014
 * 10) Revision as of 06:17, 11 April 2014
 * 11) Revision as of 06:40, 5 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All though they have not broken 3Rv, they clearly are being disruptive and refuse to corporate no matter how many times told to. AcidSnow (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Since this is a very slow-burning edit war, and the reverts seem to have been prompt and left in place, what administrative action would change the situation? Short of a multi-week block, all I can think of is an new note requesting that the issues be discussed on the talk page  -- SCZenz (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, can we protect the page at least? AcidSnow (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * for a short time, and Pending Changes implemented indefinitely <font style="color:#ffffff;background:black;"> the panda <font style="color:#000000;background:white;"> ₯’ 16:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:46.7.249.19 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result:36 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 14:08, 28 July 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 15:01, 28 July 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 15:18, 28 July 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 16:28, 28 July 2014
 * 5) Revision as of 17:26, 28 July 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Apparent block evading ip sock of User:Theyuusuf143. Began disrupting the same pages a few minutes after the main account was blocked for 3RR. Along with the just blocked socks User:S20003 and User:K200003, appears to be a meatpuppet associated with the indefinitely banned User:Reer Woqooyi. Also see here ("its mine (somaliland) not for somalia, somaliland army is watching you online, just like we defeated you on the ground") and here ("And yes I asked people on a blog to come and edit some pages"). Middayexpress (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked this editor yesterday at 18:14, 28 July 2014 without knowing about this report. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Kayastha Shiromani II reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result: 36 Hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In my defense, I have been inviting editors for discussion but no one seemed interested. The page has been subject to recent edit wars and I had reverted it to an earlier stable version. A topic has been started by me on the talk page and I would take this opportunity to again advice the editors to act responsibly and not aggressively. --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani, The Second. (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Kayastha User:Arjayay as well as I have attempted to discuss. The alleged "an earlier stable version" is not actually an earlier version, but a new version added by you. Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by JJ: Invitation? Walk your talk, and discuss, instead of revert. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  12:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Relax, my friend. This is in fact one of the most stable version which stayed on for many years on wikipedia with minor changes here and there. Here is one instance https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kayastha&oldid=277047083. I thank you for crediting me with such scholarship. Also you can find the article in sync with this primary authentic source published in 1877. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=AH0IAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP9&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false. You are most welcome. --का.शि.. Kayastha Shiromani, The Second. (talk) 12:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * regentspark (comment) 14:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:77.97.151.145 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  (note as this is a war on a talk page, discussion took place on user's talk page)

Comments: Attempt to start an RfC to rename the article to "Mega Drive". Not in itself problematic per se, but the user has previously been blocked for similar discussions, and a long standing consensus is that new discussions that bring nothing to the table is disruptive. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I stopped reverting, but McDoobAU93 and Ritchie333 are colluding with one another and edit warring via each other also so they never hit 3RR, and Ritchie has already conceded he is fine with the RfC and the RfC is nothing to do with these users, it is to seek outside opinion as these users opinions are well known and they enforce their views on others with an iron fist 77.97.151.145 (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's correct the record, shall we? You stopped after the 4th revert, and then launched spurious ANIs against two of the three different editors who are tired of this nonsense (including one who is as British as your IP suggests you are). And yes, Ritchie said he was fine if no other editor reverted it. Well, one did, and you couldn't just let it go, so revert #4. Time to move on. -- McDoob  AU93  17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Sergecross73 has closed the ANI, so that is no longer an issue. The IP's behavior, unfortunately, still is. -- McDoob  AU93  17:40, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Indrian reverted him also.  He has previously been reverted for starting this up yet again in the past.   D r e a m Focus  17:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * by . This should be dealt with, now. -- McDoob  AU93  17:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Tomwikiman reported by User:Theironminer (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

I'm new to wikipedia, so this is my second report on a user, but I'm not 100% clear on how this works. There was a user who kept repeatedly editing the genre for a movie on a page and never stopped. User has been asked to stop but has not responded and continued to edit the genre.

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Warned. User seemed to be engaged in mass genre-changing of thriller movies to mark them as action movies. This may have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)