Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Chealer (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:Lede requires that only material in the main body of the article may be put in the Lead section.Please stop edit warring WP:EW & violating WP:3RR. Four editors have asked for your reasons on Talk. You have no support on Talk."


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


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


 * Comments:

This can be considered as a continuation of Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive252, which was handled by User:Tiptoety.

In the previous report, I asked for moderation, and the consequence was an imposed self-reversion. After the user suggested he was going to comply and made an edit with the appearance of the self-reversion imposed, the case was closed. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the previous report, the edit turned out to be a hand-crafted revision which only reverted one part of the violating edit. After the intervention of a bot and myself to complete the reversion, the user reverted against the ruling, with no justification but one of the same arguments he had made then had refuted many times. At this point, I did not reopen the case right away, but rather reverted, which - perhaps unsurprisingly - proved useless. The user re-re-reverted, before I issued a final warning on the article's Talk, since the user had requested so. I'm opening this now that the user re-re-re-reverted invoking no argument which hasn't been refuted already, rather implying that I violated the 3RR and pretending that 4 editors have asked for my "reasons", without even specifying which. Moreover, in that last revert, depicted as a simple reversion of my previous edit, he also reverted a recent change without giving any justification.


 * Reviewing made me realize that the above statement is misleading. It remains true that the last revert was more than what the edit summary suggested, but the extra part was not what I initially read (a revert of ). Even though it technically does revert that, I failed to notice that it also removed the fragment ' "more than 50 official policies" ' LawrencePrincipe had added. This fixes an important problem. It constitutes a concession, and certainly was not a reversion of my edit in spirit.


 * I do not withdraw my complaint and recommendation for sanction, but the statement now italicized was a big mis-characterization, and I apologize for that. I should have praised that change, not blamed it. I apologize to you in particular, although I recommend you avoid mixing such changes in a single edit in the future. If you choose to proceed in such a way anyway, make sure your edit summary reflects that.


 * Note to self: Keep assuming some good faith... --Chealer (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC), corrected 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I must re-amend the above after giving a new look to the diff with a much-needed cooler head. I surely understand the analysis error I made now, but I probably understand LawrencePrincipe's error too. I now believe LawrencePrincipe's change to content of the lead's last paragraph was unintentional, which would mean that my original interpretation of the edit was basically correct; LawrencePrincipe intended to discreetly revert my change, but unintentionally removed his own addition while removing my request for clarification, which explains why the sentence was left broken.
 * If that was not case, then I maintain my apologies. --Chealer (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While a week has gone between his last reverts, it should be noted that Wikipedia was locked for 1 week during that period, for reasons not unrelated to this user's behavior. (By the way, this case may be a good opportunity to review the page's protection status. It appears that setting full protection has ironically now brought the article back to No protection rather than the previous semi-protection which it seemed to have, which is bringing more problematic edits than anything else. I would recommend semi-protection or Pending changes.)

In the original report, I wrote I was "sure he [could] become/remain a useful contributor". I am sorry, but I hereby fully retract this statement. Although I will never deny that LawrencePrincipe has already contributed useful work and can continue to do so, his signal/noise ratio has exploded, now that he's opened an RFC and directly tried to get so many people involved. More importantly, his conduct is very mischievous. He repeatedly feigns ignorance and tries to change the subject. I consider several of his comments (such as the edit summary discussed above) as personal attacks. I can only hope that this will change, but have no evidence to that effect. I recommend a meaningful block.

I would probably take an extra day of redaction and an extra hour from your time if I tried to point each error and deceitful behavior I have seen from LawrencePrincipe. Instead of that, I am offering a single example. Unfortunately, although extreme, repeating an error for the nth time, while in the act of quoting me pointing out that n was already >= 10, is far from unrepresentative of the behavior LawrencePrincipe currently displays.

Less than 2 weeks have passed since this case was opened; LawrencePrincipe is surely and understandably not much more skilled with this Wikipedia's language and its conventions. However, these can't explain all the apparent confusion he has shown, and one can hardly use carelessness and inexperience as defense after having opened an RFPP and resorted to important canvassing. A large part of what looks like confusion/inexperience is intentional deception. I have never dealt with a contributor conducting himself so poorly/inconsistently, and I have probably been here for too long already. I honestly wonder who LawrencePrincipe is, and am still unsure at times about an apparent confusion's genuineness, but it is high time to put an end to this.

I realize the above contains lots of accusations and judgments which are not fully substantiated. This is not really intentional. If your review of the situation does not make the reasons behind a certain claim obvious, I am sorry and will be happy to elaborate. --Chealer (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I already reported both users to ANI for this issue a few hours ago. Link: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents.  Both users are edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently no admins want to address this (same with the ANI post).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  17:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User LawrencePrincipe has not edited the article since August 14. Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked two weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the' also on kjiev side is many ..' is kind of pidgin, and not the subject of the article anyhow"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622066536 by Jirka.h23 (talk)check the title - the subject of the article"
 * 3)  "its not 'according to prof' ok - many Russians is common knowledge anyhow"
 * 4)  "its not t'the prof ' saying this, he presented the programme - the tanks has a bbc june ref also - your Russian statement is not reffed"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 622056440 by Jirka.h23 (talk)the refs are at the end of the passage"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 622052445 by Jirka.h23 (talk)voice of Russia better- 4real? - neutral RS source would be better"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 622047296 by Jirka.h23 (talk)just looks lke a Russian propaganda source - is there not a better RS for numbers"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622047296 by Jirka.h23 (talk)just looks lke a Russian propaganda source - is there not a better RS for numbers"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * oh goodness me rgloucester, I  felt to leave the page with an illiterate  and irrelevant sentence was   useless - and also the other editor had left it with ' the prof says -' which wasn't true, he obviously hadn't listened to the podcast that the Boston College professor hosted merely,,  -can not some  common sense be used  here please and over reaction avoided- minor footling  with the language, not major edit war  -Sayerslle (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You will note that with your final revert you did not just remove that sentence, but also wholesale reverted all of the other editor's changes. I will also note that I warned you about 3RR on your talk page. I will also note that this article is under Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, which I also notified you about. I also warned the other editor about 3RR and discretionary sanctions. Whether something is "true or not" is the definition of a content dispute. You are an experienced editor, and experienced in editing in contentious areas. You should've known better than to keep reverting, rather than moving to the talk page. This is especially true after I warned you, and even more true because this article is under discretionary sanctions. There is not much else I can say. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 'wholesale' 'all the other editors edits' - which you make sound something massive - a few footling changes - one total illiterate irrelevant sentence removed -you are always exaggerating - to remove  'also on kjiev side is many' was  nothing really was it ?-'there is not much else I can say' - - well, lets hope so, certainly  as regards me - youve called me childish, and a crusader, and  an adder of nonsense, and impossible to understand without the Lords help,  now you've warned me too - bit much really. - the edit war is over as far as i'm concerned- if illiteracy or inaccuracies about who said what are added, I will have to try and address it on the talk page - the other editor seemed unwilling to listen - my edit summaries told him the prof wasn't the source and the sentence was irrelevant - but back it went - so I assumed debate wasn't going to be listened to really. Sayerslle (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither party's conduct was particularly good in this edit war, but you took the extra step of reverting again after I'd warned you to stop edit warring and take it to the talk page. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * John (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Newmancbn reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622038398 by PiCo (talk) See the talk page and write your complaints there"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622019117 by Dougweller (talk) The Ipuwer section was not listed under archeology at all, but under historicity, it has been now moved to its on section"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622018575 by Zero0000 (talk) Excuse me? The statement 'no archeological research has been found that can lend support for the Book of Exodus' is WP:OR given the Ipuwer. See talk"
 * 4)  "Somehow despite a lengthy explanation the reader is left knowing actually very little about this text or its contents, added the passages from the papyrus in question"

Warned for 3RR at and later warnings by another Admin for edit-warring at other articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Discussion on his talk page and Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus as one of the issues is the papyrus. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * The editor is a WP:TLDR respondent on talk pages, and shows no zero knowledge of the subjects he edits on, and appears to be pushing a fundamentalist POV with extraordinary alacrity over the past few days (see Israelites). There's a limit to how much time editors should be expected to spend wasting hours in handling crank editing over multiple pages. It may be a first time offence, but he needs a strong warning, given the ignorance of basic protocols, to propose edits on the talk page more often.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After replacing some copyvio removed by another Admin he is at 3RR at Ipuwer Papyrus. He seems to have a habit of accusing other editors of being prejudiced when they disagree with him. He's now going through articles replacing "Yahweh" with "YHWH" as he believes that "Yahweh is a linguistically retarded estimation)". Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After seeing this (saying in the middle of an article "his is an article from the Christian perspective and should use links to their terms"), I was about ready to start gathering diffs and go to ANI to bring up a topic ban or a WP:NOTHERE block. I'll still do that if the blocking admin doesn't indef him. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This editor brings nothing to Wikipedia except strong opinions and appears intent on making the encyclopaedia conform to those opinions regardless of any other considerations. Zerotalk 15:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . I predict there will be longer blocks unless the editor changes their approach. John (talk) 20:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

5.221.222.174 reported by User:2001:470:0:CA:0:0:0:2 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

This user makes disruptive edits. He doesn`t use Talk page. If you will check Talk page, you will see, that compromise was found with other users. However, I am not sure, if it is edit warring or vandalism (maybe somekind of trolling, because he became more active after compromise was found). P.S. He also violated 3RR. UPDATE: Now he began to vandalize other pages. He just deletes all Turkish and Azerbaijani names from articles. Some of his actions have no logic. For example, he replaced Ottoman Turkish name for Baklava with Persian name, but Persians not even claim that Baklava is of Persian origin. Now, I am sure that his actions are actually vandalism.

Comments:


 *  Wifione  Message 17:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Arjann reported by User:Vivvt (Result: No action required right now)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 621913435 by Vivvt (talk) I'm not doing any personal analysis. I've just written what the source says. Just the representation is different"
 * 2)  "The total length parameter is getting violated."
 * 3)  "/* Track listing */ I have not listed anything that is unofficial"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kaaviya Thalaivan (soundtrack). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Inspite of asking user to discuss the issue on the talk, he keeps on reverting the changes. Also, undid the warning given on the talk page. -  Vivvt  ( Talk ) 14:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The matter could have been amicably solved. If the user Vivvt has some issues, he/she may discuss it with me on my talk page. She/he (User:Vivvt) must write on my talk page and not mentioning or initiating the talk/discussion in the comments. It may be well noted through the user pages that no discussion has been initiated by Vivvt. User Vivvt has problems with me since I came on Wikipedia. My constructive edits were always regarded as disruptive by her/him. And I don't think for such matters a block or administrator intervention is so essential. Arjann (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not like that Arjann. You created the article, and it would be natural for you to feel some amount of ownership of the article, which is what may be resulting in the other editor perceiving your unilateral reverts (with not fully logical edit summaries) being disruptive. But I appreciate your logic, that you're ready to take up discussion on the talk page of the article and that this report was perhaps filed in haste. Why don't you start the discussions yourself, instead of waiting for other editors? It will give evidence of your clean hands. I'm closing the report here now, hoping you'll take the lead in initiating conversations with other editors.  Wifione  Message 17:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: Both Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Not sure how to fill this out but you should no what I mean The user mentioned above has been removing the only Genre in the infobox on this album and another. Saying that they should be removed because they are not sourced which is fair enough but I said that it should be discussed and a consensus reached on talk page first before just removing. He has reverted 4 times and I have (I thought I had only done so 3 times) I have asked him to start a discussion on the talk page, he has put a few simple words "explaining" why but not waited for a consensus (he knows about 3RR as he mentioned it to me.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He also broke 3RR on the 18th on the Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) page I made a report out but removed it once he started to discuss after but he is doing it again this time with another Slipknot album. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Luke per WP:BURDEN it is incumbent on anyone adding new info to an article, or an infobox, to provide a reliable source that is [[WP:V|verifiable regarding that info. This includes genres. You have not done that. Also, you can be involved in edit warring even without 3rr having taken place. Also A has started a discussion on the talk page for AHiG and you have not, at this time, posted there. IMO you are edit warring so you might want to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

MarnetteD I suggest you open your eyes, I never added the genre it was on there ages before I ever even edited the page and under (BRD) it is on him to seek a consensus and explain why an edition that as been on the article for years should be removed. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

He is claiming to have discussed on the talk page but hasn't he just explained a few of Wikipedia's guidelines on the talk page. I have said he should of explained why he thinks Alternative Metal should be removed and then waited for another user of Wikipedia (not me or him) to fill in on their opinion and take it from there (because you can't reach a consensus with just 2 users.) I know Andrzejbanas means well and that is exactly why I removed my previous report of him but he should do it differently than just removing a genre without a consensus or discussion first. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also MarnetteD unless you are an administrator who has come here to sort this mess out I don't care about your opinion, I haven't broken 3RR he has. And as for a proper discussion, waiting for a reply and a consensus no he hasn't started one just explained a few guidelines I already knew. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. User:Lukejordan02 has been warned on their talk page about their edits: here, here, here, and on their talk page here and here (which was removed and ignored.) I've made discussions on the talk page of the article with no notice from the user [Talk:All_Hope_Is_Gone#Genre_3 here]. I'm dealing with someone who doesn't want to discuss the issue and no matter what I do point them towards the rules, or discuss with them, it just gets reverted without care. I think I was within my means here.


 * FWIW my eyes are open. First, just because a genre was in an article does not mean that it should stay see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Next, I am allowed to post here and other places whether you like it or not. You have edit warred whether you made three reverts or not and you did not respond when talk page threads were started. Maintaining this kind of attitude does not bode well for future editing. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss because if you'd had sources, i'd be totally good with them. You've also removed tags i've added before on other articles like here:. In fact, in that edit you've also removed genres without a discussion first. You don't have to discuss things on wikipedia when there is no grounds for keeping an item. If you want something up here, find a source for it. Sheesh! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said to you in reply on my talk page - the removal of the tag was completely by accident, I reverted a user who added new unsourced editions and reverted to a version before you added them, you simply re-added them and they are still on there now, and I removed the genres he added under BRD. The genre you are trying to remove is the articles only mentioned genre and has been on there for years so I reverted your removal again under BRD due to the length of time it has been on Wikipedia (years) and I never added it, it was on here for years before I even joined Wikipedia. Lukejordan02 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . Lukejordan02 for 2 weeks. Andrzejbanas for 48 hours. You both have been blocked earlier this year for edit warring. Please read Edit_warring appropriately and try to stick to not breaking the 3RR line again. Arguing about the genre of an album is alright, but not breaking 3RR. If there's a BLP issue, take it to BLPN, especially when it's about something like the genre.  Wifione  Message 18:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Northern94 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 16:39, 20 August 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 17:02, 20 August 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 14:01, 21 August 2014
 * 4) Latest revision as of 18:42, 21 August 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Hi. AcidSnow (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . Indeffed as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:151.225.63.6 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Other warnings
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

And
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

This editor has also apparently been making the same or similar edits from multiple IP addresses. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if a semi for 10 days will adequately address this. It seems this editor returns to the article monthly or so and uses multiple IPs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with MrBill3. This user is tenacious and certainly hasn't been put off by having to wait a week or two, or numerous editors reverting their 'Truth'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.8.113 reported by User:semitransgenic (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This report concerns the following related IPs User:166.137.8.113, User:166.137.8.78, User:166.137.8.79, User:166.137.8.75, User:166.137.8.128 and one IP possibly connected with same user, User:104.33.147.32.There has been constructive input from other editors on the talk page, but no engagement from the IP user. Semitransgenic talk. 10:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Anaphylaxis2014 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Scientific views */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622222104 by LuckyLouie (talk) Marking a citation as dubious does not require a consensus, cut the b.s."
 * 3)  "1) Your new source does not address paranormal materialization per se => original synthesis. 2) Do not remove "dubious" tag until this is really solved."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 622323858 by Alexbrn (talk) See talk page."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 622325415 by Roxy the dog (talk) Original synthesis and dubious source. See talk page and ANI page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Original research */ cmt, see WP:Parity section of WP:FRINGE read NPOV for understanding then take it to WP:RSN"
 * 2)   "/* Original research */ r"
 * 3)   "/* Original research */ r"
 * 4)   "/* Original research */ r"


 * Comments:

As explained here, a citation is dubious and all "reverts" I am accused of, are only made to maintain the dubious flag. It is amazing to see that nobody would allow a simple flag to stay in place and thus being unable to simply challenge a source. Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That is untrue. Three reverts removed a newly added source that has received support on both the talk page of the article and the ANI discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you read the talk page again, you should notice that simply linking to other wikipedia links such as mass-energy equivalence or transmutation was prohibited on the ground they did not address psychic materialization per se. There is no reason (but maybe you will explain me otherwise) that one "original synthesis" should be refused and the other one accepted. I didn't try to put my paragraph back into the article once I was told it was "original synthesis". Anaphylaxis2014 (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for a content dispute. The issue here is you have repeatedly reverted the contributions of other editors. Removing a source I placed and two other editors restored after your removal. You repeatedly reinserted a tag that had been removed by several editors and was not supported on talk. To answer in brief consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . Edit-warring over the placement of a tag is still edit warring.    12:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

IP hopping IP editor reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Protected)
Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

These editors are clearly all the same person, who is IP-hopping using a variety of Italian IPs. He/she is not necessarily in Italy.

The editor keeps making the same edits over and over again:
 * 1) 22:48, 21 August 2014 by 95.75.123.225
 * 2) 12:49, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
 * 3) 13:49, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
 * 4) 14:31, 22 August 2014 by 217.201.195.73
 * 5) 16:37, 22 August 2014 by 95.75.110.99
 * 6) 16:58, 22 August 2014 by 95.75.110.99

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:34, 22 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Russo-Georgian War --Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

--Toddy1 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am protecting the page from anon IP edits for 72 hours to allow people time to work this out on the talk page. BCorr | Брайен 17:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Shotgunz reported by User:VeNeMousKAT (Result: indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622320092 by Frosty (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622320454 by VeNeMousKAT (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622320092 by Frosty (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622320454 by VeNeMousKAT (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

It looks like he tried to avoid the 3 revert rule by editing the article manually and adding what was reverted so that it was reverted without actually undoing it, if you go to the page's history you will see that he added the same line 5 times. (Also he reverted the warnings on his talk page so he definitely saw them). VeNeMous KAT (talk|contribs) 14:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

indefinitely. This wasn't edit warring, it was vandalism. —S MALL JIM   21:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:11raccoon1 reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622369201 by CombatWombat42 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Pure speculation, no reference, and bad grammar."
 * 1)  "Pure speculation, no reference, and bad grammar."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * They're all over the editor's talk page.


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


 * Comments:
 * In my opinion raccoon is certainly guilty of edit warring and is begging for a block. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another one, from just now., where art thou? Drmies (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Dsr70 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&oldid=617881263]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&diff=622211184&oldid=622163671] 15:42, August 21, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&diff=622249279&oldid=622223049] 21:08, August 21, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&diff=622249659&oldid=622249279] 21:11, August 21, 2014, removing the whole paragraph about "bullet to the head" comment
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&diff=622255858&oldid=622255271] 22:02, August 21, 2014, removing the whole paragraph about Malia Obama
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrea_Tantaros&diff=622313684&oldid=622264815] 09:07, August 22, 2014, removing the fact that "Tantaros confused the FDA with the USDA."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADsr70&diff=622264827&oldid=620295043] 23:31, August 21, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAndrea_Tantaros&diff=622265046&oldid=622245159]

Comments:

Dsr70 has been trying to lessen the impact of negative reaction in the media to a comment made by Tantaros about Malia Obama. Dsr70 has been adding text drawn from sources that do not mention Tantaros, to try and put Tantaros's comment in perspective, to give it more of a positive context. The effort is unfortunately a violation of WP:SYNTH since this is the Tantaros biography, and sources ought to discuss Tantaros. Dsr70 has been grimly resistant to any wholly negative assessment of the comment by Tantaros, despite the complete absence of positive commentary in the media. Dsr70 has resorted to edit warring behavior to make sure the paragraph is not wholly negative. Some 4.5 hours after being warned against 3RR, Dsr70 reverted one more time. As well, Dsr70 has been very resistant to a paragraph about another Tantaros comment where she said that a "bullet to the head" would solve the Muslim problem. This is a separate issue, with discussion from a separate group of editors. Binksternet (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As Tantaros is a political commentator engaging in thousands of hours of, by definition, inflammatory comment, highlighting a single comment in a biography for the purpose of painting her as extreme, or contradictory, or controversial isn't balanced. As discussed with user Binksternet, political opponents do not determine what is controversial.  Indeed, all her comments are controversial for that matter, there is no debate about that.  Selecting quotes, such as "bullet in the head," without context makes wiki articles drive-by political attacks, both left and right.  As written, the paragraph on her Malia Obama comments is balanced and puts her comments, and her opponents', in proper context.  Nonetheless, I do not believe a commentator's comments warrant highlight, but accept the paragraph as currently written as a fair play on both her and her opponents' positions.


 * Further, user Binksternet has shown minimal willingness to see that the original paragraph was nothing more than an attempt to malign Tantaros in the spirit of the cited Media Matters reference, rather than as the paragraph it now is, factually stating and citing the genesis of the "controversy." He is engaged in an edit war against attempts to balance the article. Dsr70 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat concerned by the fact that you only have four edits outside of this article, and those are from several years ago. Are you willing to disclose if you have a connect to Tantaros, or have a personal stake in the way the article reads?  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No connection. I happened to look her up and was immediately taken aback at the tone of that paragraph.  Wikipedia is my go to and I was very disappointed.  I don't want mocking and sniping in bios, it's that simple.  Does the current para that I wrote not strike you as balanced?


 * The "confusing the FDA and USDA" comment is inappropriate, as it's a mocking use of an obvious gaffe. There is no citation of Obama's 57 states comment, for example, in his bio, nor should there be.  This is on par with that. Dsr70 (talk) 19:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted a rather ridiculously non-neutral set of edits by Dsr70 which means I won't block for any EW violation (they are certainly guilty of longterm-edit warring in this article). As far as I'm concerned, though, Dsr should be blocked or banned from this article, since they appear to be incapable of editing neutrally--see this ridiculous bit of commentary, for instance. I wonder if has any light to shed on this. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . The user also seems to be editing while not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong) reported by 108.169.69.162 (Result: No violation; IP blocked)
Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) has repeately violated the 3 reverts rule by edit warring and POV pushing over 17 edits during a period of less than 3 hours on August 17, 2014 on the article Taipei.
 * by Ryulong. I the IP for 72 hours for disruptive editing at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Christopherharttoss reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622335224 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622333892 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622329353 by Materialscientist (talk) I have edited MY OWN PAGE chrsitopher hart and all facts are correct"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622333892 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622329353 by Materialscientist (talk) I have edited MY OWN PAGE chrsitopher hart and all facts are correct"


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor, whom claims to be the subject of article, continues to add contentious unsourced content to article - despite warnings not to. I have discussed with the editor in question, as to why their edits are inapropriate; however, they've resorted to personal attacks + have continued to edit war despite warnings not to. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:107.199.168.97 reported by User:Orange Suede Sofa (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

...and many more
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "too biased"
 * 2)  "too biased"
 * 3)  "too biased"
 * 4)  "too biased"
 * 5)  "too biased"
 * 6)  "too biased"
 * 7)  "too biased"
 * 8)  "too biased"

See User_talk:107.199.168.97
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.244.91 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622411877 by Martin451 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622415079 by RolandR (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622415228 by RolandR (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User is also edit-warring on Report, and is clearly the same as the previous IP blocked earlier for the same edits. RolandR (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am also involved in this. I have requested semi-protection and given a final warning to the IP as well as reverting two five of his vandalisms. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The same edit has just been done by 166.216.165.90 looks like this IP is dynamic. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Report has just been semi-protected. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * by . Tiptoety  talk 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:166.216.165.62 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Protected)

 * 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:

Yet another IP making the same disruptive edits for which several IPs have already been blocked RolandR (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * by . Tiptoety  talk 03:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jeffferrell reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)
 * 20)
 * 21)
 * 22)
 * 23)
 * 24)

This low intensity edit war has been going on for almost two months, so there have been intervening neutral edits and the text over which the parties are warring has changed in detail, although not in substance. The war is over the inclusion in the lead of the sentence, "In 2014, the non-profit organization Breaking Out reported that they had found Kim's story to have no basis in fact", as well as the wording of an earlier sentence in the lead and the inclusion of a final paragraph in the Critical reception section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I stumbled on this low intensity edit war a couple weeks ago. I warned Jeffferrell on his talk page (the editor whose edits Jefferrell keeps reverting had already tried to engage with him on the article's talk page, but received no response). Nothing happened for a while, but Jefferrell is back to reverting every few days, though not often enough to violate the letter of the 3RR. I don't have a dog in this fight, I'm just a bystander, but believe someone needs to do something to stop the conflict. This is the first time I've used this process, so I hope I've done it right. Let me know if you need any clarification. Worldbruce (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . I agree that the user is edit warring, and the fact that he has not violated 3RR doesn't change my opinion that his behavior is sanctionable. It's the only thing he does every time he comes on Wikipedia. That said, the last time was on August 20, which is four days ago. If he comes back and reverts again, I'll block him, but, otherwise, in my view, this report is . However, my view should not prevent another administrator from blocking the user now if they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:211.40.106.166 reported by User:Bcorr (Result: Semiprotected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

This user only has three contributions -- all reverting the same edit within 30 minutes. the last edit was after I posted a warning on the user's talk page: Special:Contributions/211.40.106.166

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Simple case of 3RR

BCorr | Брайен 13:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The article talk page has been semiprotected by User:Dougweller. The IP's edit summaries have been removed by an oversighter. EdJohnston (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:78.181.143.198 reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Enough of your Armenian propaganda. You ruined every article about Turkey with your one-sided and biased narration of historic events."
 * 2)  "The "Crusader mentality" has never died and will never die."
 * 3)  "Armenians must be the most inferiority complexed and mythomaniac nation on the planet. As for the "Crusader mentality", look at the map of the Crusader states and compare it with the post-WWI map of the Middle East, circa 630 years later."


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


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


 * Comments:

He made a first revert some minutes before, with another IP address, but most probably is the same person. Alex2006 (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The article has been semiprotected for two weeks by User:Favonian per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:b10b:900d:b945:d20a:9451:85d reported by User:Comitus (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 1st
 * 2) 2nd
 * 3) 3rd
 * 4) 4th (diffs from previous report, version reverted to is identical)


 * 1) 5th / 1st
 * 2) 6th / 2nd
 * 3) 7th / 3rd (< made after I told him I was reporting him for edit warring again)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I reported this user for the same reasons 5 days ago. That report was archived without a solution. I've since re-added my sourced material and have added new sections, also with references.

Nevertheless, this user continually reverts my additions without discussing his issues on the talk page. He says that the information is unsourced (which it clearly is not) and removes it. My greatest frustration here is that he refuses to list his (specific issues) on the talk page and just reverts my edits. Ideally I do not want to see him blocked, I just want him to discuss the matter instead of reverting. Me starting a talk page discussion is impossible because I don't know what he wants and his only complaint sofar ( in his edit summaries) is that the information is unsourced ... which it clearly isn't.

Could an admin please tell this user to present his issues or leave the article alone, possibly by semi-protecting the page against IP's if this user refuses to discuss the matter? Thank you. Comitus (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. You and the IP are both edit warring. The material you want to add looks to be editorializing or WP:Original research. You don't have a reference to show that anyody writing about the song in a reliable source has made these observations; they are your own personal theory. Whether they are a correct description of the geography of central Europe in 1841 is not the issue. So far nobody on the talk page supports your change and there is one editor against it. See Talk:Deutschlandlied. Whichever of you reverts the material again (before getting a talk page consensus) may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:146.90.55.4 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

All articles on Israel/Palestine are under 1RR restriction, as everyone knows. These are two different reverts by the same IP within 24 hours. I reverted him once with three edits offering detailed summaries to thoroughly explain why his POV-pushing and misrepresentation of sources was undue for the lead, but he reverted me back. He had earlier reverted my rephrasing of a misleading statement to better reflect the cited source. In neither case did I respond, but the IP has justified both his refusal to address my concerns with any concrete response and his uncontested 1RR violation by claiming that my earlier rephrasing of sourced material was also a revert (I was not aware of who wrote the original text at the time). If that is so, and we are both guilty, then I will accept any appropriate punishment. However, I believe the IP bears primary responsibility for this situation, and am willing to take that chance in the interest of ensuring our rules are actually followed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is not the correct venue, but since this dispute two new IPs have popped up to make strikingly similar edits to the same sentences this IP crafted. There may be sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry at foot, particularly considering this IP's first edits are by no means the work of a novice. On the other hand, perhaps these are all well-meaning folks whose IP addresses change occasionally and who edit sporadically, who happen to share the same opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . 146.90.55.4 and 87.112.106.223 geolocate to the same place and are dynamic, meaning problably the same person (although I have't looked at the edits), but I wouldn't call it socking as they could have been assigned different IPs each time they edited. The other IP geolocates to a different continent and is static. Geolocate is not always reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't intend to respond at length to the wall of text below, because this is now about conduct rather than content, except to point out that the sources are being used selectively (Buzzfeed, which is way out of date considering new developments, also says "Other Israeli officials have argued that the Islamist movement was behind the deaths of the three teens") and in other cases blatantly misrepresented (how can an article from August 6 cast "doubt" on a statement from August 20?, how can a former Israeli human rights activist's blog or a European politico speak without attribution for the intelligence community?, ect). My earlier comments are not retroactively discredited because my opponent has just now added a new source in which Hamas finally makes its official position clear.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Israeli human rights activist, actually an ex director of B'tselem is putting forth his opinion being as he has expertise in that area, you seem to think he has no expertise for some reason.The European politico, as you put it is a member of the European Council on foreign relations, a think tank and a reliable source by wikipedia standards, they are quoting him in the Guardian newspaper.I am sure he knows what he is talking about otherwise why would they quote him? Your excuse here seems to be that these people are not worthy to be included in wikipedia articles but you have not presented a valid reason for such a claim.Your claims on dates, I do not really get? Has every source got to be todays date? Because you can go go back and changed the whole wiki article to news items from today. The links provided cover the statements that were posted.My view is that you reverted them because you did not like the actual content and I get that from your excuses for reverting which are very flimsy.You cannot just revert things that you do not like if they are backed up with proper sources, which the statements were. GGranddad (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I do not see anything wrong with what was posted on the article.All that was posted was backed up in the links provided. Your excuses for reverting it twice were not very good, one of your excuses was that you did not feel the sources were right but it is not up to you to decide if main stream sources are right or wrong. Just so long as they actually back up the written word of the editor should be all you are worried about.

Your first revert excuse to remove the Buzzfeed link was this:

A Hamas activist says they would have used the kids as hostages, but this was a hostage situation gone awry. Buzzfeed says Israelis are divided and the investigation is ongoing with commonplace qualifiers. Source is way out of date.

Actually the Buzzfeed link backs up what was stated in the wiki article.The wiki article say that the Israeli security services doubt Hamas were involved. This is the actual quote:

Last week, Israeli intelligence officers told BuzzFeed they had not found a direct link to Hamas in their investigation into the kidnapping. “If there was an order, from any of the senior Hamas leadership in Gaza or abroad, this would be an easier case to investigate. We would have that intelligence data. But there is no data, so we have come to conclude that these men were acting on their own,” said one intelligence officer.

So there you are deleting a perfectly good source which backs up what was posted in the wiki article. Your excuse for doing so is feeble as far as I can see.

You then changed this piece in the article:

Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts, other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.

to this

Other Hamas officials have declined to confirm or

Your excuse this time was this

Hamas has not denied involvement. If your sources say so, they are wrong. They praised it, but will not confirm or deny. Guardian cites one European politico, not "all Israeli intelligence and expert opinions". Blatant misuse of source in bloated lead.

Fact is Hamas have denied involvement,a link has been added to the article stating this. Also the claim that Hamas murdered the Israeli teens was doubted by experts, Hamas officials and the Israeli security services. As can be seen above from Buzzfeed link, that covers the Israeli security services, the Guardian link covers experts and the Israeli security services and Hamas.The Telegraph link covers yet another expert in the field.

Buzzfeed link

Guardian link

Telegraph link

Israelinationalnews link

All those links cover everything that was posted in that section of the article as in

Salah al-Aruri claim was doubted by experts,other Hamas officials and the Israeli intelligence services.

There is no denying that really.

The other piece you took out was this

Mitchell Plitnick, former US director of Israeli human rights group B'Tselem, dismissed Mr al-Aruri's statement in a blog post, saying that Israelis had already identified the al-Kawasmeh family as being responsible "So all al-Aruri said was what we already knew: the Kawasmehs carried out the act."

Your excuse for taking that piece out was that you considered the guy to be wrong, that is not an excuse to change something in wikipedia. The guy is the ex director of the Israel human rights group B'tselem and I am sure he knows much more than you do about what is what. Anyway, this was your excuse for removing that section

This man's willful blindness may belong in the article, but not the already massively undue lead. 

That piece has been edited down to just the link now as he is an expert. So, I cannot see why you have removed anything that was posted because it was all backed up with links from reliable sources. GGranddad, talk, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month, due to edit warring by IPs who don't participate on the talk page. Since this article is under WP:ARBPIA we expect that anyone who participates there will make special efforts to get consensus for controversial changes. Someone who doesn't join in discussion at all (like the IP reported here) is not showing good faith. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis reported (Result: Malformed report)
Edit war currently going on in RealClearPolitics 198.147.191.15 (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Declined as a malformed report. (See the instructions at the top of this page). This may be the same dispute as the one described below. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tom harrison reported by User:Fearofreprisal (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:, ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Rationale: (BOLD, revert, discuss. Also, I don't think "Jesus of Galilee" is used often enough to justify its inclusion.)


 * 1)  Rationale: (not common enough)


 * 1)  Rationale: rmv per previous rationales; get consensus first)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I am filing this AN3 because I'm at 3 reverts today. This is edit warring on the part of the users listed above, because they are all experienced Wikipedians, who intentionally ignored the WP:BRD cycle.

The original text was: "Jesus... also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus of Galilee..." This was properly cited to a reliable source. It is accurate, and non-controversial.

In each case, the users removed the "and Jesus of Galilee" portion. After the first two reverts, I added additional citations, including one directly to the bible.

I posted a talk page discussion after a first revert by (Who is not included in this AN3, as he did not ignore BRD.)

Subsequently, the page was reverted by each of the users included in this ANI -- all of which ignored the talk page discussion, and failed to try and get consensus.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * AN3 is not a means of obtaining leverage against consensus in a content dispute. BRD is an essay, not a policy.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Jahgro reported by User:TParis (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

This was brought to dispute resolution here and the consensus was that until a reliable source is found that specifically says "X was founded by Conservatives" or which describes the founders as conservative, it is improper synthesis to describe them as such and a violation of WP:BLP.--v/r - TP 04:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, User:198.147.191.15 appears to be a sock of Jahgro.--v/r - TP 04:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * User:TParis Please don't accuse me of using sock puppet accounts unless you have proof. Everything I do, I do under my own name. Please do not attempt to defame me. Jahgro (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that the IP and Jahgro are the same person -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If not socking - they are at least meats. IP comes out of no where magically right on que to file the report above.--v/r - TP 05:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The claim is covered by WP:BLP and the sources do not substantiate the claim as made. There is a salient discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons. Collect (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . you are formally warned that you may not restore the material to the article unless there is a clear consensus for doing so. Any violation of this warning may subject you to a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan reported by User:Liquid4life (Result: Liquid4life indeffed)
Page: User being reported: Betty Logan

She first started in August 21 2014 at 22:58 en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Rating_System&diff=622262049&oldid=622130529

I had added links instead Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Rating System&diff=622262049&oldid=622130529]
 * 2) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Rating_System&dff=622281815&olidid=62221815]
 * 3) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Rating_System&diff=622570806&oldid=622559780]
 * 4) [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motion_Picture_Rating_System&diff=622265910&oldid=622265024]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan&diff=622595966&oldid=622556039

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

Comments:

This user has not generally violated the 3RR code but he did revert more then 3 time on each day. Please go to Motion Picture Rating system and see history and you will see Betty Logan has keep reverting. also she kept reporting user and was taking things too serious. User:Liquid4life talk) 12:08 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . Sock puppet indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Petershatner reported by User:Evanh2008 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Peter Shatner */ new section"
 * 2)  "/* Peter Shatner */ new section"
 * 3)  "/* Peter Shatner article from The Wall Street Journal */ new section"
 * 4)  "/* Peter Shatner article from The Wall Street Journal */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "quit"
 * 2)   "/* Stop editing my talk page */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Peter Shatner */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Peter Shatner article from The Wall Street Journal */ this went through twice"
 * 3)   "/* Peter Shatner article from The Wall Street Journal */ knock it off"


 * Comments:

Also warned for warring at a separate article here. Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 14:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . There appears to be a resolution on a related issue on the reported user's talk page. Please comment here if the talk page disruption is still a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:Kasir (Result: Warned)
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)

Comments:

User:Qed237 in Article Diego Costa Undo repeatedly makes disruptive, Please check. Kasir talk 11:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Response from QED237:

Okay lets see if I can respond to this in a way so User:Kasir finally understand and also the admin looking at this. To me it seems like this editor is only upset that I reverted him, without listening to the reason both given in edit summary and at his talkpage User talk:Kasir.

First of all when reporting a user you should notify them so that they are aware of the report and can defend themselves, now I was lucky to be here looking at an other report.

Secondly, did I do those reverts? Yes I did but they were in my opinion totally valid and I explained why in the edit summaries (one time I accidentily used an incorrect summmary) and on User talk:Kasir. I will explain why:
 * 1) Livescores. We have a consensus at WikiProject Football not to add livescores which is why Livescores editnotice has been created and used and consensus can be read here and here. That is reason for reverting the live updates.
 * 2) Lead. The revert regarding the lead of the article is that the leagues are being removed on article (should not be inserted) as the team can be relegated and promoted without the player article being updated and also today teams are not only playing in league but also in other competitions around the world. You can read discussions regarding the player lead here were there is consensus how they should be written.
 * 3) The timestamp. The majority of undoing and the reason why I reverted Kasir, was as I explained to him, that the timestamp was not updated. This causes problems. Not updating the timestamp but adding statistics to an article about a player makes that article incorrect as for example the player has not scored 2 goals as of 12 August (he had as of 23 August) so that makes it incorrect update to a BLP and should be removed. Also when not updating the timestamp the next editor comes and see "ohh it has not been updated" and adds the same goal again which for example happended here directly followed by this. This is not good to a BLP and article gets very instable and incorrect.

Thirdly I would also like to mention that I have already taken this concern (before being reported here) to Football project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to see if we can minimize these kinds of disruptive edits.

So to summarize, did I do those reverts? Yes I did. Did I feel I had to do them and that I did them correctly? Yes. This seems more like an editor not agreeing with me and not understanding he has to update the timestamp (even if I told him) so he reports me instead. I usually revert and inform the users (so that they are aware of the issue), and then self-revert/undo and add the timestamp when undoing myself so not many users come do the same thing again, but last night I was having a lot to do and was never able to do it before the new edits, so I am honestly sorry for making all those reverts. I should have updated the timestamp myself sooner, but those edits were still incorrect and User:Kasir should learn to update the timestamps. Perhaps even WP:BOOMERANG? QED<b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . you are warned that if you revert again on the article, you may be blocked without notice. Your "method" for dealing with this leaves a lot to be desired, and your apology only goes partway.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * message recieved I will not revert there again (at least for a long period) unless very clear vandalism (in which case a revert must be okay?). Since I want to improve my editing here on wikipedia could you tell me what I should have done? Should I just leave the update without timestamp leading to the situation given above when a new editor comes and make same edit? And can the user who reported me keep updating without updating timestamps? <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . Really clear vandalism (what some call "poop vandalism") may be reverted. You have to decide whether you think the editing is conduct- or content-related. If it is the former, you can report it to the appropriate administrative board. If the latter, you're going to have to take it through the normal WP:DR mechanisms. Either way, you can't edit-war.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:65.205.13.26 reported by User:Kirin13 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * – reverts 1-3
 * (before his three week block) – revert 4

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Warned twice that he broke 3RR and adviced that 3RR is a bright-line rule and he should self-revert to avoid block:, . IP and replied on mine , but has refused to self-revert.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Specific diffs to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard
 * Talk:19 Kids and Counting
 * Talk:19 Kids and Counting
 * Talk:19 Kids and Counting
 * Talk:19 Kids and Counting

Comments:

This is part of an ongoing edit war that I acknowledge partaking in. The edit war did not exist in the three weeks IP was blocked, but with his reappearance, reignited. I'm specifically reporting the WP:3RR violation. I have advised IP twice to self-revert his 4th revert in less than 9 hours. He has replied by and telling me that explaining policy is a. Since he's made clear to me that he doesn't care about policy, I'm filing this report. Thanks, Kirin13 (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit war did not happen for three weeks because you got me blocked. I guess that is what you are attempting now.
 * You told me to self revert or else. That is a threat. I did not refuse. Bright line rule is not mentioned on wikipedia policy page.
 * I do care about policy. I wish you would follow it. You do not own the article but you act as if you do in reverting mine and every other editors changes. For example, two other editor added Jill's pregnancy --with a source!-- to the chart. You reverted it--imsurprised you didnt also say that editor is me as a sock --and said it does not belong there. Why do you and you alone decide what goes where ? I am reading different pages to better use wikipedia. On other articles when there is a dispute the section is removed until the dispute is over. I have done this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19_Kids_and_Counting&oldid=617916281
 * and here    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=19_Kids_and_Counting&oldid=622398863
 * but even that kirin reverts.


 * I also asked for help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:_19_Kids_and_Counting
 * 65.205.13.26 (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I filed an SPI. From it, IP did not get blocked, only a warning. It was his behavior afterwards, completely without my assistance, that got him blocked. Over six admins reviewed the case. It was concluded by behavioral and checkuser evidence that IP was socking. See the talk pages (pre-blanking) for more info:, . In IP's three week absence, no one argued for his edits.
 * I advised IP of WP:3RR. It clearly states "there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR)" and "the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours". I advised him to self-revert since that would cancel the 4th revert, and then he could not be blocked under 3RR. He took my explanation of policy as a threat and decided to intentionally keep his 4th revert, thus intentional break Wikipedia policy.
 * Where IP got the rule that if 5% of section is in-dispute, then 100% section should be blanked, I have no idea. IP has failed to provide any evidence of this policy or practice.
 * The four links he's provided: 1st link is an edit I did not revert making his claim false. In fact, I was the one making sure the ref's were in place. 2nd and 3rd link are the section blanking following IP's rule that if one line is in-dispute, then section must be blanked. 4th link is discussion I already linked above and am participating in. At that discussion, IP is making the very interesting claim that.
 * Kirin13 (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI: Report about 68.50.21.190 below is same user (per behavioral & checkuser evidence). Both IPs have just gotten off three week block. (See pre-blanked talk pages:, .) Kirin13 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . I wanted to block for longer, but because it's the same person, I matched the length to 's block of the other IP address he uses (and claims he doesn't). Another option would be to increase both blocks, and that should probably be considered, but I was unwilling (albeit very tempted) to do it at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I only kept it down to two weeks because 68.50.21.190 is supposed to be dynamic. But I guess, in view of the contribs history and previous blocks, it's not that dynamic. I've upped both blocks to a month. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

User:68.50.21.190 reported by User:Versace1608 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:68.50.21.190 is currently violating Wikipedia's edit warring policy at P-Square. He/She keeps adding this self published source which isn't reliable. I told this user that self published sources are not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. This user can't be reasoned with. He/She was blocked in the past for doing the exact same thing. This IP doesn't want to follow Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Instead, he/she wants to do their own thing and believes that their actions are justifiable. Wtwilson3 has also warned this user regarding his/her edits to the P-Square article, but to no avail.  V e r s a c e 1 6 0 8   (Talk) 16:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI: Report about 65.205.13.26 above is same user (per behavioral & checkuser evidence). Both IPs have just gotten off three week block. (See pre-blanked talk pages:, .) Kirin13 (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reverted deletion / overwriting of above edit by 68.50.21.190 here Jim1138 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 65.205.13.26 refactoring WP:ANI/EW 1 2 3 Jim1138 (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note. I only kept it down to two weeks because 68.50.21.190 is supposed to be dynamic. But I guess, in view of the contribs history and previous blocks, it's not that dynamic. I've upped the block to a month, in view of previous blocks, this SPI, and User:Bbb23's comment here. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Nthill reported by User:Jschemgeneration (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: This user keeps editing false info and withholding info that can lead someone into being arrested or worst

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:24.102.148.42 reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
 * 2)  "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622566516 by Chosen Um (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 622563919 by Vig2013 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 622563551 by Vig2013 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 622563430 by Vig2013 (talk)"
 * 7)  "/* Mixed martial arts record */"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 622562953 by Vig2013 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 622562725 by Vig2013 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 622562525 by Vig2013 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

The editor has been changing the results of various MMA fighters to match what they think happened. The Wikipedia MMA project has reached consensus several times that we are to use the external site Sherdog as the official record for what happened. This IP knows this and has argued against it in the past. Now the editor is taking things into their own hands and inserting their own interpretations of events instead of discussing them. Looking through their recent contributions you can see a very clear pattern of edit warring. They were warned and made the same edits after that warning. SQGibbon (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lifeontech reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Decline)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

These are just straight up POV pushing, original research edits and a 3RR violation. This is also obviously a sleeper sock, most likely of User:L'Aquotique (when I have a a few minutes I might file an SPI)

Comments:

Lifeontech (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC) Lifeontech (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) No tree reversions of content were made thus no violation of WP:3RR I reckon.
 * 2) My account is no sleeper: generally I contribute financially not editorially.
 * 3) Previous page versions referred to biased or single POV sources of information or based of unconfirmed data. No alternative sources were represented which led to violation of WP:POV


 * for edit warring and with a discretionary sanctions alert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TheFallenCrowd reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Inserted referenced material"
 * 2)  "This has to do with the sentence given to two other people, and is irrelevant to the allegation made by the SPLC against Kemp. The sentences handed out to other people belong in their Wiki entries, which already exist."
 * 3)  "This is allegedly evidence led pertaining to other people in the court case, namely the sentence passed on Derby-Lewis and Walusz, and has nothing to do with Kemp."
 * 4)  "Deleted details irrelevant to subject. Hani court proceedings must be in separate article."


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


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

Long time edit warrior on this article. In the end the only solution may be a topic ban, although so far they have managed not to be blocked. See and at another article a report here.Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Comments: The latest insertions in this article detail the sentencing of Clive Derby-Lewis and Janusz Walus to life imprisonment for the assassination of Chris Hani. These facts are already covered in the Wiki entries on all three those individuals, and have nothing at all to do with Arthur Kemp as a subject. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is what has been repeatedly deleted: "Kemp gave evidence against Clive Derby-Lewis and his wife saying they admitted to involvement during a lunch the three had together two days after Hani's death. Clive Derby-Lewis and the actual assassin, Janusz Walus, were found guilty and sentenced to death (both death sentences were later commuted to life), while Gaye Derby-Lewis was acquitted." Details about Kemp's testimony which are clearly relevant. Not that it matters, 3RR is 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And just deleted again by


 *  Wifione  Message 11:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Cold Season reported by User:Elfie99 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621926069 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622558910 ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) From https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621443903 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=621926069
 * 2) From https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620341275 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620343368
 * 3) From https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622554027 reverted to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=622558910
 * 4) From https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620347276 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Han_Chinese&diff=622559001&oldid=620420147

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

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

Comments:I hope that he or she will be blocked permanently


 * Reporting editor... Obvious sock.  Wifione  Message 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Hoops_gza reported by User:24.98.52.106 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottie_Pippen&oldid=621659950

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622495502&oldid=622494959
 * 2) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622522918&oldid=622517781
 * 3) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scottie_Pippen&diff=622531175&oldid=622527625

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoops_gza&oldid=622527477#Scottie_Pippen_.282.29

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hoops_gza&oldid=622527477#Scottie_Pippen_.282.29 See also edit comments where I implore him to talk to me, but he just refused to do so because he is an unreasonable person and a bad editor.

Comments : He has to be stopped! I really don't know what to do. I was looking up some information on Scottie Pippen and noticed that it mentioned in the lead paragraphs that he was in some lists on Bleacher Report. It's been a long time since I've been a regular contributor to Wikipedia, but even I know that Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, because it is user-generated content. Being number one on some list on Bleacher Report is no more significant than being number one on someone's Tumblr or Facebook page. So I removed it, mentioning in the summary that I was removing references to Bleacher Report.

Without comment, Hoops-whatever reverted me! Being a responsible user, I looked through his history, and notice that a lot of his edits are reverting vandalism on sports-related articles, and, assuming good faith, like a good Wikipedian, I left a helpful notice on his talk page, informing him of the reason I made my change and requested that he discuss the issue with me if there was something objectionable about my edit. I then reapplied my edit.

But then he reverted me again, without comment: nothing in the summary, nothing on my talk page, and he also reverted my edit to his talk page; the one where I asked him to discuss the change with me if he had a problem with it!

Assuming good faith only goes so far; it is clear that we are dealing with a malicious user, and so I warned him that if he reverted the page again without discussing it with me, he would be reported. But now he's done so. I really am a martyr for putting up with this type of behavior. It's why I left Wikipedia all those years ago.

It's not my place to tell you what to do. That said, considering he's been around for a long time, and has been blocked for edit warring twice before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AHoops+gza), there doesn't seem to be any reasonable thing to do other than ban him forever.

Thank you and have a nice day.

24.98.52.106 (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The IP that reported this has continuously removed sourced content from an article despite several warnings to stop their behavior. Their claim for doing so is apparently that one of the (three) sources is an unreliable source. However, there appears to be no reason of why it would be an unreliable source. I'm afraid that this IP is simply wasting admins' time. - Hoops gza (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone claims the source isn't reliable, you need to prove that it is (or that the RSN has already dealt with it) before re-adding the panda ₯’  00:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When I reverted the IP's edits, I was under the impression that they had removed significant content that had multiple sources. Now I see that they in fact removed one source which the editor felt was questionable. However, it was difficult to assume good faith based upon their edit summary. How are we supposed to prove that a particular website is reliable? - Hoops gza (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that their behaviour wasn't great, but that's being dealt with separately (see WP:NOTTHEM).
 * If you are in a disagreement about article content, the first thing you do is, stop editing it.
 * It doesn't matter who is "right" or "wrong"; edit-warring does not help the encyclopaedia. Whether they're adding or removing... unless it is something truly awful (such as an attack on a person, or really clear vandalism), then it really doesn't matter if the article is "wrong" for a few days.
 * Then you can discuss it on the article talk-page. If you can't agree, get more opinions. In this case, you could ask on WP:RSN about the source - but it's best to get several people commenting on the talk page. You could ask more peple on the project pages listed on the talk too - WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Basketball, WikiProject Olympics, etc.
 * Once there is a pretty clear consensus, then the article could be changed - and after that, if the other person still refuses, then there's a clear place showing what was agreed (on the talk page), so their edits would be disruptive and that can be dealt with. 88.104.23.102 (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Or look at it this way: you said they "continuously removed sourced content". They wouldn't have been able to continuously remove it unless you had continuously re-added it :-) 88.104.23.102 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that they had removed significant content that had multiple sources. Now I see that they in fact removed one source which the editor felt was questionable. - I find this comment telling. You admit here that you reverted my changes and had me blocked without even looking at my revision. How do you justify such irresponsibility? 24.98.52.106 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I was in the wrong for reverting your edits on Scottie Pippen, it was an honest mistake. I am sorry. This is not the place to discuss the reasons for your block. You did several things wrong with your edits, which have been discussed on your talk page. - Hoops gza (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

User:188.29.165.48 reported by User:MrScorch6200 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Edits to original creators request."
 * 2)  "We have a problem. Google it, and shall attain the correct name is Hadzhi Dimitrovo."
 * 3)  "Previous edits reported to Wiki. Leave this page alone idiot. Source data is incorrect."
 * 4)  "Hadzhidimitrovo edited Hadzhi Dimitrivo, of is the correct name of the village."
 * 1)  "Hadzhidimitrovo edited Hadzhi Dimitrivo, of is the correct name of the village."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "name spelling"


 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:79.65.56.4 reported by User:AntiCauliflower92 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622723464

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622756889

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_British_Resistance&oldid=622792068

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.65.56.4

Other editor's have warned this user about their actions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:79.65.56.4

Comments: The editor is believed to be the "leader" of the group the page is about, and has repeatedly edited the page in contravention of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. They have also removed factual content that has citations. AntiCauliflower92 (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)AntiCauliflower92


 * . The IP is dynamic, so the lengthy block may be an exercise in futility. There is also the account that created the article. There may be further problems on the article or the AfD. If so, please let me know. One option is semi-protection. If I'm not on-wiki, ask another administrator for protection or go to WP:RFPP. You can always link to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:31.52.130.119 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622897561 by WNYY98 (talk)"
 * 2)  "No cause stated. Invalid."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622894547 by WNYY98 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Your statement appears to favour my understanding. “Having a single legal system does not imply the same country”. England & Wales is a legal jurisdiction which constitutes the UK alongside other members of the union."
 * 5)  "If they represent seperate entities how can this page exist? I would like to direct any reverters attention to paragraph 4 of history of jurisdiction section."
 * 6)  "The United Kingdom represents a political union, the union members of comprise of England & Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. "
 * 7)  "You have provided no evidence of agreed consensus in relation to this issue. Unless you can substanciate your claim, as I previously have, your opinion has no basis in fact. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPREADING PROPAGANDA."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User warned https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:31.52.130.119&oldid=622886137 Dawn Bard (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:FireboltLeviosa reported by User:Skr15081997 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622840926 by Jonesey95 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 622768706 by MKar (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 622765958 by Fideliosr (talk) i dont support BOI only....its just that 90% in this page is also from BOI...if u want, u must add new content and reference"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 622763506 by Fideliosr (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 622750674 by Fideliosr (talk) corrected incorrect BO figures...final gross should be from BOI, i converted crores to millions. then removed all content without reference.."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 622750674 by Fideliosr (talk) corrected incorrect BO figures...final gross should be from BOI, i converted crores to millions. then removed all content without reference.."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The editor had received an edit warring notice on 8 August for the same article. Skr15081997 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Two kinds of pork reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Offered the option to self-revert and avoid this report, to no avail. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I am not advocating for a block, as the user is making good contributions, but I believe a strong warning is needed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempts to discuss edits with Cwobeel have been repeatedly ignored. Between 3 other editors (myself included) agreement on the text has been apparently found. I grow weary of these games. Note, I did not make the last edit to this section. Someone else did and I thanked them for it as well as discussed their lat change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , and myself have  rejected your edit, but you continue reverting to your preferred version. That is called edit warring and it is not acceptable. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will be happy to remove this report, if you can make a public statement here that you will allow consensus to emerge without resorting to reverting multiple times to your preferred version. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You want a statement out of me? I'll make such a statement provided you publicly agree to respond to (reasonable) questions directly addressed to you.  You can't say "i object to this edit" and then refuse to respond.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything, but not with myself!!!  It's BRD, not bold, revert, ignore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)
 * Look, I am trying to be reasonable here. I and others engaged with you in talk to no avail, but you continued edit warring. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You did not engage, you simply refused to respond. Repeatedly.  The rest of us did discuss.  I find it outrageous that you bring a complaint against me when your behavior is what precipitated the problem.  I'm done here.  Should this happen again, I will meticulously document blunt refusals to discuss.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I engaged in talk. See Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown, and Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite selective memory. Case in point.  You objected to text as being "original research".  And at least 3 (frankly more, but I'm not spending the time to look them up) requests to explain why it was original research, you failed to do so.  I even used the notify system, so you were certainly aware that I was asking for an explanation. Ok, let's move on to today.  Both myself and  commented on your response disagreeing with your position. I asked you directly to elaborate.  You chose once again to address other matters and not give the courtesy of a reply.  I asked Bob on his talk page about what text he would suggest, and he answered. I implemented the text.   had an objection with part of the text and changed it.  He explained his rationale on the talk page, and I agreed with him.  Seems to me is that is how discussion is supposed to work.  One side talks, the other responds.  Try and do better the next time please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your belief that I did not respond fast enough, it is not an excuse for breaching 3RR. I have refactored my comment above about not suggesting a block, as it seems that you don't want to assume any responsibility for your edit warring. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fast enough? You ignored before.  You were notified.  You chose to work on new sections.  You still didn't respond.  Your stated intent was "this is the best we can do" and frankly showed no interest in moving forward to assist with a consensus.  You still haven't responded.  Guess what, my "preferred version" was changed.  Have I edit warred that?  No!  Because guess what, someone actually communicated.  So you want a public statement?  Next time, I won't edit war.  I'll do what's required and then when I've documented your behavior of failing to discuss and gamesmanship, I'll bring it to whatever noticeboard is required.  Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for committing not to edit war in the future. To reviewing admin: You could close this without further action. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To reviewing admin: Please consider admonishing Cowbeel for failing to follow BRD.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW: "clean hands" is an interesting precept. Warn them both. 5RR by my count on Cwobeel, alas. Collect (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel posted to me -- only 2 of the five are absolute reverts, three may be, depending on the admin looking at them, as they refer to content from more than one edit or so back. Collect (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'm a "reviewing admin", not that I've reviewed the article, just the discussion here. I'd like to propose a new way of closing one of these reports. I can put "Confusing" in the result. Or perhaps "Bickering"?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * May be bickering, confusing, or both, but user “Two kinds of pork” is continuing his trend. Three more reverts in the span of a couple of hours, not a good way to start the day:, , -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm implementing the non BLP version suggested at BLPN, as well as removing some POV edits. I don't see you reverting them, nor even asking me to discuss them.  I note you are not Inlcuding other "reverts" to the article that I made which include tightening content, matching sources etc.  If there is something you object too, please mention it at the appropriate page because I don't watch this one.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And I want to object to the diffs presented. The caption was a BLP violation.  The third edit, please?  Improving the prose is edit warring? The content/tone remained the same. I'm not allowed to make more than 3 edits per day?  Clearly this is not the intent.  If reverted, I'll either fix the problem if requested, as Cowbeel did in this case, or talk on the page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Both editors have apparently expanded their edit war to 2014 Ferguson unrest and have both been warned. I don't advocate a block, but they do need an official final warning.- MrX 18:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked Cwobeel for 48 hours (one block for 3RR before) and Two kinds of pork for 24 hours (clean block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:J3Mrs reported by User:Pennine rambler (Result: Resolved)
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:

response to edit warring warning has been (→‎Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion: as if I care, it takes two)
 * . Both and  have breached WP:3RR. If either of you doesn't want me to block you, you'd better come here and comment. I'd also like to know whether you've resolved the dispute because after going back and forth, it looked like you were getting very close to an agreed version.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to compromise on the edit and suggested a number of methods on the talk page, I hope that can be seen, --Pennine rambler (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the edit despite going to talk page it was not resolved. The reported user simply edited out the change, reverting it back to his own edit, messages were sent via the article talk page but did not resolve the matters, I even suggested we seek a resolution, instead my edits were just reverted, oddly adding the double words 'sold sold' again, the current result is an inconsistent article, so I cannot say it was resolved. --Pennine rambler (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This content dispute has lasted more than three years. The editor has used the names Rovington, PL.-Snr, Pennine Rambler and various IPs, and all are adamant that for some reason, Lever may not be described as owning the manor. The VCH and Irvine are used in the article, I do not see why they cannot reference the sentence I added and he keeps removing. This editor has pushed for the removal of Lever and Lord of the Manor in the same sentence for years. His idea of compromise is removing reliable references and any mention of the manor. See Hall/manor where he agrees the source is valid and my attempt to explain at Unreliable sources. "sold sold" was a typo made in exasperation. J3Mrs (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see any justification in the comments above for breaching 3RR. hasn't offered any, and 's comments aren't helpful. I am not going to go back three years and look at the content dispute history. As far as I'm concerned, this content dispute has become a misconduct problem, and it is being handled very poorly by both editors. As for the implicit accusations of socking, don't do that here. Rovington was renamed to Pennine rambler by a 'crat. There's nothing wrong with that. The other named account mentioned I can't even find using that spelling. And I'm not going to look at IPs when there are no IPs involved in the recent skirmish. At this point, your only hope is that you promise not to edit the article for a week, no matter what state it is in. Otherwise, I have no faith that this edit war will not resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from my watchlist. I won't be editing it. J3Mrs (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Pennine rambler (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * . Thank you. I am closing this discussion with no further action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:NeilN (Result: Closed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored per talk."
 * 2)  "That's not his name either. See talkpage, please ('Neutrality disputed (July 2014)'), and acquire consensus for this change before re-introducing it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The article is on WP:1RR as noted on top of the talk page and Talk:Abu_Bakr_al-Baghdadi. I gave the editor a chance to self-revert but he simply erased my message. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The user is attempting to introduce a change through transparently exploiting 1RR. The change is currently discussed and opposed on the talkpage (a fact the editor was pointed to), but he doesn't apparently feel the need to or justify his edit in any way - when he can simply ignore WP:BRD and take advantage of the 1RR through edit-warring. The only explanation we got from NeilN is that his edit introduces the person's "NAME", when he is in fact introducing his nickname... -- Director  ( talk )  04:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The subject can be called Mighty Lord of the Grasshoppers for all I care. The fact remains, titles don't precede the subject's name in infoboxes as I pointed out on the talk page. And breaking WP:1RR is breaking WP:1RR. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm afraid you are mistaken if you believe the commonname, which is used for the title, is necessarily the name that ought to be used in infobox parameters. These are selected by different criteria. What you've got there is the template. There is a reason why we're supposed to discuss after we've been reverted. --  Director  ( talk )  12:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The only reason I'm not blocking is because it happened 6 hours ago. But I've officially notified both users of the general sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Mistery Spectre reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

We have been trying to discuss with this user to provide reliable sources for his claims, but he has not provided any reliable sources and continues to edit war with NukeofEarl even while discussing the issue. This behavior has also occured at Quicksilver (comics) and Iceman (comics). 129.33.19.254 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . With the exception of one revert today on Scarlet Witch, the other reverts, on that article, and on the other articles, all occurred several days ago and are obviously stale. Plus, the reported user has not breached 3RR on Scarlet Witch with just one revert. I suggest you continue your discussion of the content dispute while I try to get used to the fact that there is a category called Jewish Superheroes.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the episode, but I want to note that the dispute arose from the fact that the user has repeatedly rolled my editing by repeating the same argument, and the first time, openly ignoring my explanations Mistery Spectre (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:66.102.129.154 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: )
Pages:

User being reported:
 * I'll focus on Carnival Is Forever, but this user is causing the same issues on the articles listed above.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (The editor has appeared to comply with WP:ACCESS, so that section can be ignored for the purposes of this case.)

Comments:


 * This editor is adding content from an unreliable source, ignoring WP:RS, WP:ALBUM/SOURCES and (linked from WP:ALBUM/SOURCES), to Template:Album ratings. The reviewer (Dave Schalek of About.com) this editor insists on adding has no music notability, no evidence that he is a professional music journalist (required per WP:MOSALBUM), and in general is not reliable for purposes of music reviews (Schalek does have a Masters in Physics and teaches high-school physics, but these articles are not related to physics in any way). The editor has provided no evidence to contradict this, and thus this source fails WP:RS.
 * This editor is also adding non-rating reviews to the same template; the template documentation only shows using numbers, percents, star ratings; essentially, a rating. Per this discussion, there is much opposition to using "favorable" as a rating, as it is not actually a rating, and summarising a review as such probably amounts to original research. This information is better suited to being included in prose form in the Reception section of the article.
 * The editor in question refuses to actually discuss their edits, simply reverting claiming "no guidelines" (despite having provided several guidelines, policies, template documentation, and consensus discussions on their talk page). I'm asking for a block of this editor, as they have no interest in discussing their edits, or reaching any sort of consensus. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sfs90 reported by User:Lucy1994 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sfs90 is a person who is vandalizing because he is reverting again and again a decision taken on a requested moved, proposed by himself.

This user Sfs90 has to be blocked forever. He is not interested in getting consensus, he is interested in imposing his point of view beyond the consensus achived on the requested move and beyond any rule of Wikipedia.46.24.1.4 (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Doing some research in Google, and confirming that in English the most used version of the party's name is "Union, Progress and Democracy" (with a comma, although the real name in Spanish doesn't include it), I apologize for the edits on that article because there's evidence about the tipying of the English name with a comma. However, User:Lucy1994 doesn't give me any correction or indication on my talk page or the article talk page about that error; instead, he attacked me, treating me as a "vandal" and making personal accusations (I said this because in this same noticeboard it clearly says: "If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" and Lucy1994 doesn't talked to me in any of the previous cases, only some days ago when he said on my talk page about this "edit warring" warning). Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you are a vandal because you have made many editions against the decision taken on consensus in the requested move. Secondly, there wasn't anything to talk to you because the issue had already been discussed and taken the decision on the article talk page. Thirdly, you have been warned by Valenciano besides me through the edit summary.Lucy1994 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've already made my apologies, according to WP:EQ. --Sfs90 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Guido Lonchile reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) and  which contains a fifth reversion of the same category along with a resumption of an old edit war on the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a diff, but an RFC on what is effectively this issue from a year ago. has a long history of reverting any mention of Dalla's orientation. starts a discussion of the category specifically.

Comments:

Of course, there's more than one revert without discussion by me in there. Sorry about that. If that means a block, fair enough; but I honestly feel the issue is clear-cut enough. What _can_ one say to someone who simply won't accept that the subject of an article was gay - that, in this case, hasn't been hashed out already? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Editor157 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

All times are in (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 16:19, 25 August 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19:48, 25 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622760040 by Drmargi"
 * 2) 07:57, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622786985 by Drmargi"
 * 3) 13:08, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622856214 by Drmargi"
 * 4) 14:50, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Series 22 is correct and HAS been confirmed"
 * 5) 15:11, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622893515 by AussieLegend"
 * 6) 15:55, 26 August 2014 Edit summary: "Undid revision 622895780 by Davey2010"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:45, 26 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:50, 26 August 2014

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:


 * 08:53, 26 August 2014
 * 13:58, 26 August 2014

Comments:

On 7 July 2014 Top Gear host Jeremy Clarkson made a confusing tweet in response to a request by one of his followers about the premiere of the 22nd season. It is not clear whether "13" in the tweet refers to the date in January or the number of episodes. 13 January 2015 does not correspond to the day on which Top Gear airs, and no previous season has had 13 episodes. In December 2013 there was a lengthy discussion about a tweet by Clarkson referring to the start date of seson 21 that prompted the BBC to respond that they had no idea what Clarkson was talking about. Ultimately Clarkson's tweet was shown to be wrong, so they've subsequent tweets been treated with caution since then. For this reason we ultimately settled on this revision as the best way to handle the tweet.
 * Background

On 25 August made this post, incorrectly changing the date of Clarkson's tweet and adding announcement of a Christmas special, sourced to a website that identifies itself as the "Unofficial Top Gear UK fansite". As fansites are not considered to be reliable sources,  properly reverted the addition, noting "Fan site interpreting Clarkson's tweet is not reliable" in her edit summary. That was subsequently reverted by Editor157. After Editor157's second reversion, I left an edit-warring warning on the editor's talk page. I followed that up with clarification about the reliability of fansites. However, the reversions continued. After the 3rd reversion, Drmargi opened a discussion on the article's talk page and a note on Editor157's talk page. I later changed a word, fixed punctuation in the article and removed a reference that seemed irrelevant. Editor157 then made a 4th revert. I reverted that and so Editor157 reverted for the 5th time. That was subsequently reverted by, but he was reverted as well. This was Editor157's 6th revert in 20 hours. Editor157 has not participated in the discussion at the article's talk page. Although unrelated, Editor157 is now edit-warring at Story arcs in Doctor Who as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit war


 * I had no idea of the tp discussion, I simply reverted as A.) fansites aren't reliable sources and B.) There were alot of "probablys" so per WP:CRYSTAL I reverted, Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  17:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * He isn't going to stop. He's unaware of and unwilling to read policy on reliability of sources and verifiability of content, has convinced himself that they're filming series 22 and 23, thus the 13 episodes, and doesn't appear willing to discuss, despite multiple warnings and attempts to discuss both on his talk page and on the article page.  And as AussieLegend has noted, he is doing the same thing in another article.  He refactored one of my posts on his talk page to add all manner of speculation; I have subsequently restored my original comments given they are part of this discussion.  He has not responded to multiple attempts to help him understand why the content he is attempting to edit war in is not acceptable, but appears to lack the competence to edit.  --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will add that this editor is engaging in the same behavior at Story arcs in Doctor Who, where a section on speculation on the latest season has been removed, and discussion started on the talk page about it, but this editor keeps adding it. It is a 3RR case there as well. --M ASEM (t) 13:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the only edit made by Editor157 since I posted this report was yet another reversion at Story arcs in Doctor Who. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apropos of this editor's two edit wars, a new editor The Editor Class popped up this morning. He/she has only made one edit adding unsourced information about the possible identity of The Stig, via mobile, to The Stig, a character on Top Gear.  I'm not suggesting this is, but the topic, unsourced nature of the content, user name and timing (a couple hours after Editor157's last edit, and in the time window where he/she ordinarily edits) merit a heads up.  --Drmargi (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I note that, despite 's suggestion on Editor157's talk page that he defend himself here or likely be blocked, no such defence has been made. Instead he has no moved onto The Great British Bake Off (series 5) and ignored everything else. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Kevin Murray reported by User:MrX (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is subtle POV editorializing this lead.  Add conjecture and opinions in the text below, but let's at least start out neutral - please."
 * 2)  "This lead is an un-encyclopedic POV mess which essentially restates verbatim a section in the body.  Frankly this article is an embarrassment to the project.  The talk page is mired in minutia.  It is time for a bold beginning."
 * 3)  "I'm going to be bold here and try to post what I think might be a consensus from the Talk Page.  I invite editing because this likely is not done, but please try to edit rather than revert.  I mean this with all good faith."
 * 4)  "Trying to address concerns leading to the reversion -- please add back what you like rather than arbitrarily reverting"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Major changes to the lede */ new section"


 * Comments:

This editor has ignored several requests on the article talk page and my talk pafe, from several editors, not to disruptively make major changes to the lede. This article, and especially the lede is the result of 289 editors collaborating on a challenging current event topic. - MrX 03:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * After Kevin Murray made his fourth revert, he was warned and then given opportunities to self revert here and here.- MrX 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, If the administrator will kindly read through the talk page, you will see that I (1) made a bold change toward neutral point of view(2) sought consensus on a line--by-line basis after I was reverted, (3) posted my interpretation of consensus, (4) discussed and acknowledged more suggestions all the time working toward an article that incorporated all specific suggestions. Yes, I posted over several knee-jerk reversion, but each time specifically making changes suggested by the person who had reverted. If this is not a good faith effort toward building consensus, I'm not sure what is. If in your best judgment I should be blocked, then I understand. My contributions are seldom anymore; I only try to clean up when I see a departure from encyclopedic content and POV pushing. As an Admin, block me, but please take a close look at the POV in this article and look for some form of neutral intervention. Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You sought consensus for some items and reinstated other edits that either (1) were entirely undiscussed and had nothing to do with whatever consensus was reached on the single item on which you appeared to gain consensus or (2) explicitly contravened the consensus OPPOSING those edits. You deleted large portions of the lead that had been the subject of a great deal of discussion and compromise over the last couple of weeks.  And you did this while repeatedly reinstating your preferred edits on the page and demanding that other editors leave them in place because, in your estimation, they are "better." I think you're operating in good faith but in wild ignorance of Wikipedia's policies. Dyrnych (talk) 04:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I too think that you are operating in good faith, and thank you for recognizing my honest attempt. I am a bit rusty in WP protocol.  But if you look back at my edits this evening, you will see that these progressively include not my words, but words and ideas from the discussion, trying to work more like a secretary than a writer.  The 3R rule is meant to prevent reversion warring, not incremental changes reflecting the thoughts of others.  Don't spend much energy here Mr. X.  I'm going to bed, so I leave WP to better minds.  Best regards, and I definitely learned a lot in the process of working with all of you.  Best regards! --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you. You are 1000% right and I appreciate your advice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , just a quick note: I don't see the need for a block since the party seems to be over; however, it seems to me that you are certainly edit warring in spirit, whether you broke 3R or not. Let it not happen again please. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:LouisAragon reported by User:209.50.138.253 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Middle_Eastern_American&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Middle_Eastern_American&action=history

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Middle_Eastern_American&action=history Comments:

209.50.138.253 (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The template has been protected for two weeks. Use the talk page to reach agreement on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Lordjoshua420 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)
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:

Editor has been reverted by three different editors so far but he is extremely persistent. It may look like we are going back and forth between unsourced dates, but the dates, context and sources are all provided at The_Wizard_of_Oz_(1939_film) and fully explained on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * There's also no need for vandalism to my user page over this either. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect some socking vandalism going on here too... and  from a newly-registered vandalism only account. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. and User:Elmasmelih reported by User:武士道 (Result: Submitter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Reverted without a proper reason by User:Elmasmelih

Reverted with a false allegation by User:Dr.K.

Please look at the History section of the Turkey article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&action=history

Comments:

FWIW the reporting editor is involved in a content dispute with multiple editors. This is not the correct venue to deal with this. You want WP:DRN. Unfortunately, the RE has not made a single post on the talk page for the article. Please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Submitter blocked per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:武士道 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Can you please specify which part of the information that I added is not correct?"
 * 2)  "No need for hostile behavior based on false assumptions. Also, "called as Sick man of Europe" is grammatically wrong, "was called the Sick man of Europe" is correct."
 * 3)  "As I said below, these are all well-known historical facts with their linked articles, and not Original Research. Also, the definition "Sick man of Europe" was coined in 1853 by Tsar Nicholas I of Russia."
 * 4)  "These are all well-known historical facts, not original research."


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


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

Relentless edit-warring without discussing on talk. Probable sock of Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Frequent violation of WP:ORIGINAL. elmasmelih 21:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. User has made a series of 27 edits at Turkey since August 26. The content of these edits is usually reverted by others. No effort to use the talk page. If you believe this is Lord of Rivendell please file it at SPI; it certainly seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Ed. I would have filed an SPI because the edit-warring MO is certainly very similar to the one by Lord of Rivendell. But in the last successful SPI there was more evidence, so I am not sure if the present evidence is enough. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Confederate States of America

Comments:

Over the course of a little over a week, Texasreb has repeatedly attempted to add unsourced and improperly sourced material to this article regarding a court case, Texas v. White. Four different editors have reverted Texasreb. There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, but Texasreb, despite the fact that nobody agrees with his changes, continues to add his own version to the article. Several years ago this editor was blocked for 3RR on this article and similar material was part of that block. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long-term war by User:Texasreb to add some language about bond sales to a sentence about a Supreme Court decision, Texas v. White. He has not succeeded in persuading anyone else on the talk page. The editor has been previously blocked for warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"


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




 * Comments:


 * This edit and this one hedge and downplay a journalistic source, while reverting my removal of self-published sources.
 * This edit cites at length one side in this whole controversy: inline, it implies factual reporting while the actual quote is one by a religious leader. No inline attribution, as the user did do with the Hindustan Times.
 * Also, the previously cited edit restores a piece of text that the editor has instated on multiple occasions to various pages, stating that court proceedings "reflect" a certain fact, while (as explains here), it actually reflects only the words of a lawyer for one of both parties.

These edits follow a disruptive pattern of editing to various pages relating to this controversy, showing an indifference to the reliability and neutrality of sources. The edits themselves are relatively minor, but they follow the re-posting to Mufaddal Saifuddin of extensive "evidence" for one of the viewpoints in the Dawoodi Bohra succession crisis, using a clearly partisan source, in fact labeled by Md iet himself as.

The importance of inline attribution of partisan sources has been explained to the user on this talk page; I cited this as a this a resolution initiative, even though it pertains to the more general problem rather this specific incident. Reliable sourcing policy has been explained to the editor multiple times before, including on this occasion by (Ctrl+F "Try again"). An earlier report led to no action. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply:

Dear Admin,

Please have a look at the subject article of 25th Aug [],

‘The rift between the two claimants started to appear even before the death of Burhanuddin, with followers of Qutbuddin forming a separate sect called the Qutbi Bohras’ is a general statement put on Wiki, whereas as source indicate it as a remote statement of a undisclosed person (‘Mohammad Hasan (name changed), .. having..discussions .. over the past six months on joining a .. group ..’) that too reported as rumour(‘Rumours are rife’). How can it be called a neutral statement.

The wiki further state that ‘a ceremony in Mumbai, while the Syedna was still in the state of full stroke’ ,whereas reports referred indicate :  ‘he was unable to utter a word’  and ‘admitted to a hospital after a mild stroke’. Is this emply a state of full stroke at the ceremony? Simply NO.

Wiki writes ‘Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor’ and silent on private issue, wheras referred reference quote ‘the Syedna had performed nass on him in private nearly 49 years ago’. Is this neutral reporting in Wiki?

Wiki reports :‘ A recent medical review report on succession issue of Mufaddal… would have such a profound, yet transient recovery’. Here what wiki meant for ‘recent’, it is very much misleading? The source refer this report in context of medical conditions prevailing on ‘ 4th June’’ after stroke taken place on ‘1st June’ 2013. Is it a fair reporting?

The para “There are also reports which indicates numbers of succession pronouncements before 2011 succession. [dnaindia-mumbai, bohras-make-anti-syedna-faction-ex-communication-official-stick-by-mufaddal-saifuddin, Welcoming the crowd, Qaidjoher(First son of late Syedna) said: "...People have tried to break our unity but we should stand united for each other." He added, ...Nass was performed on Mufaddal not once but a number of times."] Court proceedings also reflect that Saifuddin's earlier 'pleading' of succession was showing "the source" as "the hospital bed", but after demise of late Syedna, "now the case is different. That pronouncement was made in 1969, 1994 and 2005 and only reconfirmation was done in 2011."[| date=30 April 2014 | title=How is Syedna chosen? HC wants to know | location=Mumbai | website=The Indian Express | author=}}]’” was deleted from this Wiki article . May I ask why? Is there any flaw, anyone can check it.  User:Qwertyus argue that ‘ it actually reflects only the words of a lawyer for one of both parties’.  My above para which was well edited by earlier editors and now removed by   User:Qwertyus also means the same. Lawyers word are court proceedings and this is made pretty clear in above para, hence the above statement is as per source and perfectly acceptable for Wiki.

In my revision # "/* Background */",  I have added some factual information ( report and quote of a Dairy details) published in a primary source. This I have well justified at []. Aithough source [] is a private website but officially representing main Dawoodi Bohra Mufaddal’s  Fatemi dawat, hence a primary source. The content referred is a document, a photocopy of Dairy pages, only written proof of the whole case.As justified by me , inclusion of primary sources facts are permitted by wiki under WP:WPNOTRS, and I have tried to put up the facts to avoid OR. User:Qwertyus had objections for this source so to make the things more neutral I my self designated this source as, to not to misguide viewers. Further I have not included this para futher in my revision # "/* Background */", to clarify further doubts ,I  refered the matter on talk page at [], such that  we can have further consensus.

I am really sorry to make explanation so lengthy and cumbersome, but the issue is very sensitive and being a person having knowledge of the issue, I don’t want that editor like User:Summichum ([]), who was blocked several times for his unbearable activities are supported unknowingly by genuine editor like  User:Qwertyus

It may appear that I have some tilt toward the subject as I am dawoodi Bohra and know the facts in and out, every body have his own POV, but I respect WIKI. Let me assure that I will try to abide and report as neutral as I can and will take serious note of editors like User:Qwertyus to correct any deviations beyond rules. Wiki will be above all. Thanks,--Md iet (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * - Hi all, I'm pinged here and would like to leave a comment, regarding the editor and the editorial behavior in question. I've earlier been engaged editing the articles, related to Dawoodi Bohras and dealing with active editors of the same set of articles, is one of them.


 * The editor "Md iet", I've respect for, for long have been trying to present his self-claimed truth/fact on Wikipedia, because he believes, as he is one of "Dawoodi Bohras", he knows better about them, and as an editor, he should write facts/truths (not what is written in reliable sources).


 * At one time, he admitted that people around his place (unknown) believes, Wikipedia always speak facts and that's another reason that he should write facts. It's the only problem with him. When some editor, earlier me, now find it plainly not what actually Wikipedia is, and tries to edit the article to raise it up to Wikipedia standards, has to face revert by Md iet.


 * I did make numerous efforts to make the editor understand, what really Wikipedia is, and each time the editor appears to be agree with the same, but in real, he doesn't and at times, it seems that he does it knowingly.


 * Based on my personal editing experience with the editor Md_iet, yes, I can say that User Md_iet is a disruptive editor, at least in case of Bohra related articles, because he has a POV towards the community, he belongs to. Many times, despite instructions given, do not bring any change in his editing pattern. The three diff. links given in "Diffs of the user's reverts" sub-section at very first by 'Qwertyus', I guess should be enough to figure out that Md_iet has a POV, and been disruptive while editing related articles. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  22:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term warring in favor of one POV on the succession controversy. User:Md iet has a POV on Dawoodi Bohra matters. He continues to make edits that are questionable under our sourcing rules so long as they favor his particular faction. For more background, take a look at [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive251#User:Md_iet_reported_by_User:Qwertyus_.28Result:_.29 three reverts] noted in July by User:Qwertyus in a previous 3RR complaint. In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=622728661 this diff] it sounds like Md iet is acting as a lawyer for one of the parties. When regular editors need to spend this much time undoing his changes it is evidence of a pattern of disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Marcalsig reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts (most recent first): (There are more but I stopped.)
 * 1)
 * 2)  (restore of material that was removed)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various places, including the article talk page, my talk page, and Drmies's talk page

Comments: This user is a promotional SPA who probably is affiliated with the company despite his protests to the contrary. There have also been IP edits who geolocate to San Francisco, the company's headquarters. The user has been warned more about his promotional edits than his edit warring, but he won't stop.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Lots of revert warring, including removal of maintenance templates. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Protot reported by User:Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

See the diff at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alain_Guionnet&diff=623003265&oldid=623000003

I have warned Protot.

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

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

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

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

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 10:19, 27 August 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Firstly your report is grossly malformatted. Secondly, it appears that both you and the other editor are edit warring, and that neither of you have made any effort to discuss the matter on the article's talk page at Talk:Alain Guionnet.  If you are the same editor as Special:Contributions/31.33.52.190, you were warned at User talk:31.33.52.190 about edit warring. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the header of the report. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protot (talk) Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau has been condemned in France for defamation against "Association contre la Mutilation des Enfants". He tries to take his revenge in Wikipedia. What is the meaning of: "Valla might also have been sentenced"? Purely defamation. Is he a prosecutor?

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) Fist, notice I publish under my real name. Second, I wrote a message in Protot's talk page asking him to stop the war that HE began, systematically destroying my precious additions to the existing article. Third, Protot lies; he is libelling me and I prove it: I have been discharged by the Tribunal correctionnel (criminal court) de Nanterre and by the Court of appeal of Versailles (http://pdfcast.org/pdf/arr-t-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-versailles-du-2-04-2013) from Xavier Valla's (and not the AME) complaint in defamation; it was totally abusive since, in France, freedom of expression entitles anybody to tell what she or he thinks of someone else's political ideas (belonging to the far-right in the matter). Fourth, I have given a link to the copy (from the Bibliothèque nationale) of Valla's revisionist article in Revision n° 4. At last, after Mr Valla's plaintiff, I published quite a few articles denouncing his and the AME's antiJewism (https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau/The-French-far-right-and-its-masked-antiJewism) but neither he nor the AME ever lodged a complaint in defamation, indeed, they would very obviously loose it from the very start because I would bring all the proofs of my sayings (in Revision, Guionnet boasts about his revisionism and about having been sent to jail several times).
 * Comment: At first sight, the subject of our article, Alain Guionnet, appears to be an antisemite and holocaust-denier. An article about him was deleted from the French Wikipedia in 2007 at fr:Discussion:Alain Guionnet/Suppression. These matters have some legal significance in France. It is unclear if there is enough notability to keep the article here. The guy has some publications and is said to have been jailed a number of times. Somebody would have to look for sources in mainstream French newspapers. For the present dispute full protection might suffice.  EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protot (talk) Is it an article about Alain Guionnet or Xavier Valla? For information, Valla has never been condemned in France. Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau did: defamation.
 * Result: Article protected one month. After looking for Alain Guionnet in google.fr it seems to me that an AfD nomination is in order. There is little doubt that Guionnet is a holocaust denier but his name seldom appears in any publications about that movement in France. It's claimed he is the publisher of the denialist magazine Révision but except for a couple of holdings in Worldcat it's hard to tell if that magazine has been recognized anywhere. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC) It is true that Valla has not been condemned yet but, since his defamation complaint has been rejected (my discharge by both courts), he is guilty of defamatory denounciation, which is repressed by the Code Pénal.

Revisionism in France does not have "some" but great criminal significance; it is the reason why Guionnet has been jailed, which he is so proud about. "Revision" having disappeared, the great interest of the article is denouncing Guionnet's and his friends' Association contre la mutilation des enfants. Guionnet just being a raving madman, no French newspaper ever spoke about him. As for Revision, according to my findings in the Bibliothèque nationale, it lasted four years only from 1999. And Guionnet's own site (http://guionnet.wordpress.com/) is the only place where he goes on taunting his revionism, go fast reading it (mind not being intoxicated) if an afd is in view. The only recognition of Revision was made in the Revue d'ethnopsychiatrie by the psychiatrist Michel Erlich, saying that it is "une bande de néo-nazis délirants" (Erlich M. Circoncision, excision et racisme. Nouvelle revue d'ethnopsychiatrie, 1991 (18), p.130.). Please read at least my article: "The Association contre la mutilation des enfants, a masked anti-Semitism" that you'll find at https://independent.academia.edu/MichelHerv%C3%A9BertauxNavoiseau/The-French-far-right-and-its-masked-antiJewism; it may be a self-publication, it is the main one existing about the AME founded by Guionnet and his "Nouvelle droite" friends and the French version got 70 views without any complaint. Attacked from everywhere, I had a small VCA yesterday and may not live very long from now on; please prevent that nasty fascist liar to kill me more with his continous libelling, and suppress his ID (s?) from posting.

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Baelor Cripples, Bastards and Broken Things Fire and Blood A Golden Crown The Wolf and the Lion

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Baelor, first revert
 * 2) Baelor, 2nd revert
 * 3) CB&BT, first revert
 * 4) CB&BT, second revert
 * 5) Fire and Blood, first revert
 * 6) Fire and Blood, second revert
 * 7) Golden Crown, first revert
 * 8) Golden Crown, second revert
 * 9) Wolf and the Lion, first revert
 * 10) Wolf and the Lion, second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * All of the aforementioned articles are episodes of the tv series, Game of Thrones. Much of this arises out of an editing disagreement in the Oathkeeper article (yet another episode) which has seen Darkfrog24 blocked twice in less than 4 months. The second, week-long block was lifted early upon the condition that the user was:


 * "...subject to WP:1RR per week on Oathkeeper and you must propose any changes which are not covered by these exceptions on the talk page and wait at least 48 hours before implementing them (notwithstanding the 1RR restriction)." a


 * The user has initiated numerous DRNs, RfCs, various RSN and WP:V discussion sections in a four-month long attempt to sidestep a fairly consistent consensus against an edit she would prefer to have in the article. The behavior she displayed in "Oathkeeper" would appear to be spreading to other articles now.

She seems to think that the removal of a fansite from articles will prevent RSN from forming an opinion (presumably, one in favor of her). Additionally, I think she has reverted my edits solely because they are edits by me to remove fansite and sources that don't say what the referred references state; Darkfrog24 and I are not bosom buddies, to be sure.


 * As I said, this sort of tendentious editing by Darkfrog24 has gone on for over four months, and I am not the only editor who has grown sick and tired of editing with her failure to accept a consensus view (yes, consensus can change, but not right after it has been determined). She insists one hasn't formed, which is news to the 6+ editors who disagree with her. She has created a toxic collaboration environment. I don't like who I am when I edit in article I like when she is there. Please help. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jack has reverted his deletions. If anyone still wants to talk about these other issues, let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Jack is reporting me here because I reported him on AN/I last night for his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and his attempts to bias conflict resolution, which include his inappropriate deletions. This is childish.

No I am not currently under any editing restrictions. No I have not ever been under editing restrictions for the articles to which Jack is currently referring.

This is what the articles looked like before Jack and I got involved. They were approved for GA status with this content included, and they have been stable for years:


 * Baelor
 * The Kingsroad
 * Winter Is Coming
 * A Golden Crown
 * Fire and Blood
 * The Wolf and the Lion
 * You Win or You Die

It may be relevant that I'm not the only one reverting Jack's edits:

The source in question, Westeros.org, is currently filed at the reliable sources noticeboard. The fact that all GA-rated Game of Thrones articles include their episodes' versions of the disputed text, usually citing Westeros.org as a source, has been brought up there. Precedent isn't the be-all-end-all of content dispute resolution, but it is in our toolbox. Jack should stop trying to hide this precedent from new participants.

Claims that I file too many RfCs: I filed one. There have been two RfCs at talk:Oathkeeper. Jack filed the other. As for RSNs, I posted two, far fewer than Jack has. (I don't see bringing up sources for review at RSN to be inherently objectionable so long as the filing is written in a neutral manner.)

Claims of "failure to accept consensus": The consensus was "more sources are needed." See RfC closer FormerIP's clarification (second paragraph) So I've been bringing in more sources. And just to be sure, I also repeatedly asked other longterm participants, "Do you have any reasons other than sourcing for opposing this material?" I keep getting "No, just sourcing," and "I also just don't like it but mostly sourcing." Jack's most recent answer is right here: "the reason I have a larger problem with the inclusion of this information is referencing to a reliable secondary source. That's it." It is not against consensus to find sources for material that others believe to be improperly sourced.

Claims of tendentious editing: Jack has repeatedly demanded, and very rudely, that I find secondary sources. I did. A lot of them. That's not tendentious editing. That's source-finding.

As for the deletion at "You Win or You Die," which Jack claims is because the source "doesn't support" the content, I don't think it's appropriate because of the precedent issue, but I haven't touched it. We can deal with the source, Suvudu, later, but it'll probably be faster to re-insert it with Westeros.org as a source. If I want Jack to wait for the RSN discussion to be complete before deleting, then it's certainly fair to wait before adding. It really should be reverted until the discussion of Westeros.org's suitability as a source is complete, but I'll defer to admin's take on that.

Yes, this content dispute has been going on for a long time. Jack, one other involved editor and I all agreed to seek outside input at the RS noticeboard. If Jack is as tired of conflict as he claims, then he should refrain from sabotaging that discussion with his attempts to discourage participation and his attempts to hide and delete longstanding precedent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE (also above): Jack has reverted his deletions. If anyone still wants to talk about these other issues let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ahh yes, the infamous Wall of Text. Clarity notes:
 * I am not sure why Darkfrog24 feels her editing restrictions have expired; I see no expiration date in the conversation with the blocking admin. And even if it had, I am even more unsure why she feels its okay to restart the same sort of contentious behavior that has seen her blocked twice before.
 * My complaint is solely about the edit-warring. I could add a wall of text about Darkfrog24's tendentious behavior, which has served to frustrate not just me but several others, some of whom have left the article in disgust. However, I am going to avoid her brand of drama and stick to the apparent facts: she is under an editing restriction for behavior that she continues to display, and would appear - from her response of blaming everyone but herself for her actions - that no rehabilitation has taken place. Barring outright lies, I am going to not post anything else. I am so very tired of dealing with this user. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * If your complaint were solely about what you see as edit warring, then you wouldn't have accused me of so many other things. Don't say, "This person did that!" unless you're prepared for a response.
 * The restrictions expired one week after the block
 * While we're at it, if anyone but us cares about this, while the statement "Darkfrog24 was blocked" is true, the statement "Darkfrog24 and Jack Sebastian were blocked" is more accurate.
 * Attempting to prevent you from biasing conflict resolution is not contentious behavior. Biasing conflict resolution is. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dang it, I was hoping to not have to correct information again. The unblock discussion took place here, and there is no comment about the editing restrictions expiring after one week. Additionally, I was indeed blocked once before for engaging in an edit war with DF24. The difference is, after my block, I stopped edit-warring. She didn't. She actually just carried the same behavior that got her blocked again less than a month later to other articles.
 * Again, I am sorry; I had no intention of posting further, but needed to make sure that Darkfrog cannot blame anyone else for her own behavior. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Jack has a history of not reading things closely enough to take in information that he doesn't want to be there. When the information is his business, I tell him exactly where to find it.  This time, Jack, you have to do your own work.  I don't have to prove to you that I kept to the terms of an agreement that I made with someone else.  The restrictions expired after one week.
 * There was another edit war, and I was the only one who got blocked for it, but I wasn't the only one who participated in it. Jack did too. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just, wow. That is just plain false. You reverted everyone, Darkfrog. That's why you were blocked the second time. If I or anyone else had been edit-warring, we would have been blocked, too. If youa re going to lie, please make the lie at least logical, madam.
 * And you are still edit-warring (11, 12). After asking me to self-revert in several articles (like here and here), you go and do precisely what you ask me not to, and continue edit-warring about it. My reserve of AGF for you is officially depleted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare call me a liar, Jack, not after the whoppers you tell. You, Doniago and I were in an edit war and I was the only one who got blocked for it.  Do you think I got blocked for reverting my own edits?  Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Jack is not reverting his misleading edit on The Kingsroad. Please do so, Jack. The RSN discussion could end a four-month content dispute. Whether this is deliberate or not, you are sabotaging that.
 * Wait a second, I think we might have an actual misunderstanding here. I did not revert your removal of the chapter information (though that is also inappropriate and you should self-revert); I reverted your removal of the Westeros.org tag.  I didn't add a new Westeros.org tag; I just put back the one you took out.  Is it in the wrong place or something? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: My opinion is that User:Darkfrog24 should be reblocked for a campaign of edit warring which is still going on. She is still subject to the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=618057252 conditions] under which she was last unblocked, though they impose a 1RR/week only to her edits of the Oathkeeper article. The intent of those restrictions was to force her to get consensus for her use of westeros.org in articles related to Game of Thrones. While I see no violation of the 1RR at Oathkeeper itself, she has continued her campaign on other articles about the same topic, as shown at the head of this report. The last block was for one week and was lifted early per agreement to conditions. At this time I think a longer block is appropriate. If you read over the discussion at User talk:Darkfrog24 and Talk:Oathkeeper you will probably become discouraged about her approach to Wikipedia editing. This is a person on a mission and she is strongly resistant to advice. User:Nyttend, User:Callanecc and User:NuclearWarfare are three admins who have previously looked into this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . No I am not still subject to conditions:
 * "Darkfrog24: Thanks. It is my understanding that these restrictions are in force until one week from the time of blocking, Saturday. If you mean one week from the time of unblocking, just let me know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)"
 * "Callanecc From the original expiry date is all I can enforce, though I'd suggest that a voluntary/unofficial 1RR/week or proposing potentially controversial things on the talk page first would be good practice for you given others were calling for a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)"
 * Please also note that the restriction applies solely to the article Oathkeeper, which is not what Jack is talking about here. As it happens, I have been voluntarily limiting edits to Oathkeeper and making proposals on the talk page, but, as Callanecc points out, that's an extra. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2014 (UTChttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Darkfrog24)
 * EDIT: I just realized that this is probably the most relevant point: In all cases, after Jack's second un-revert, I switched to talk page discussions of the disputed material. They're here and here.  Considering that Jack self-reverted after the first one, I thought they were working. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Ed Johnston, you are also mistaken on one point: The previous block had nothing to do with the use of Westeros.org as a source. I did not find out about Westeros.org until much later, after looking at sources used in GA-rated articles. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As for the allegation that I've been campaigning, several editors involved in this dispute, including Jack, suggested that the way GA articles handle this material should be considered. It was brought up at RSN.  I feel that Jack's removal of these precedents from the GA articles at this time could mislead the participants there.  He self-reverted most of these edits and conceded to wait for a resolution.
 * As for the allegation that I am "strongly resistant to advice," please note the following. In addition to Calanecc's suggestion: 1) TAnthony suggests that we consult GA articles for precedent. I do the legwork and report back.  2) Doniago suggests that we go to an RSN.  I support the proposal and suggest that we all agree on a filing text ahead of time and then stay hands off. 3) While Doniago and I are working one out, Jack jumps the line and posts a filing that he knows is biased  to the point where I initially thought he was kidding.
 * I am trying very hard to get this resolved in a way that everyone involved can accept as valid. I was specifically asked to bring in more sources, so I did.  I also repeatedly asked if anyone had any non-source-related objections.  I kept getting "No, just sourcing" for an answer (including from Jack).  Now that I've found a source that meets WP:SPS's expert source requirements with almost textbook precision, Jack is, deliberately or otherwise, undermining efforts made toward conflict resolution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess this must be all our fault then, Darkfrog24. When I and others asked you to provide more sources to back up what you wanted to include, we should have stipulated that the sources be reliable, explicit and allowable secondary sources. I feel this apology is needed because you clearly were under the impression that sources from fansites, blogs and falsified sources were entirely acceptable. You felt so strongly about it that you spent months arguing that a music student from Brazil who posted a blog review was a reliable source.
 * No one is undermining you, Darkfrog, because you have not 'mined' anything of substance by way of reliable, usable secondary sources. The very, very few you have introduced have been used int he article. That should clearly indicate that we are willing to work with you, but this constant badgering the consensus with unusable sources is unacceptable. when you cannot build a new consensus almost immediately after the majority spoke, you went forum-shopping everywhere - anywhere - else. We are tired of dealing with this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources that I have been providing are reliable and explicit. You and I interpret policy differently. That does not mean that I'm messing with you or fighting consensus.  As you pointed out in your last paragraph, some of the sources I found did meet with your criteria.  So why would it be inappropriate for me to continue looking for more?  From my perspective, there's no telling what you will or won't like before someone shows it to you.
 * Actually, Ana Carol has studied music and design and has produced content professionally. You don't feel that makes her an expert per WP:SPS, but it's not as if asking the question is inappropriate.  I'll fully admit that Westeros.org is a much clearer case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you might have misunderstood me, Jack, so I'll be clearer: I feel that you undermined the dispute resolution process in this way. The plan I'd proposed was that we 1) work out a consensus text; 2) post that on the RSN; 3) sit back and wait for other people to do the rest of the work. I feel that plan could have ended this conflict and that you undermined it by posting content that you know I thought was biased. I feel that you should have changed the header when I asked you to even if you didn't think it was biased, remembering that I did almost the exact same thing for you once 1#RS_noticeboard. I didn't agree with your concerns, but I acted on them anyway because if the resolution is going to work, everyone has to think it is fair. When you cover up precedents, insist on using biased headers and post rants in the thread to scare off new participants, then you're pushing things in your favor. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

the short short version
As you can tell, Jack and I can both get pretty long-winded, so here's the short, short version. Jack, if you want to add your own entry, I've left you the top space: Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Darkfrog was edit-warring - yes, indeed, two reverts per page, but spread out over at least six articles, equalling a dozen everts. While 3RR is the standard, Darkfrog24 is clearly gaming the system, having been blocked twice in two months for the same article. After the second blocking, Caallanec thought she might be rehabilitated by being placed on 1RR. This clearly did not have the desired effect; Darkfrog24 was exceptionally careful to get a specific date from Callanec when that editing restriction ended.
 * This editing restriction was imposed after noting that Darkfrog had (and has) been continually fighting consensus for almost four months. In the same article. Over the same sentence that she seems terribly desperate to have added to that article. She doesn't accept consensus, which has chased away editors. This complaint highlights that problem.
 * This gaming of the system is unacceptable. Granted, I (and several others) have a history with the user, and it isn't a happy, 'holding-hands-in-the-rain' sort of history. Please take note that Darkfrog24 is happy to blame everyone/anyone for her having violated 3RR - that's a warning sign of a deeper issue than being unable to count reverts.
 * Blocks have been enacted to both protect the articles and to curb tendentious behavior. It has not worked. A topic ban on all GoT articles is in order. If we cannot help her to be a better editor, we can help to allow the articles to grow through collaborative editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) In all cases, I took the matter to the talk page after two reverts. Some of these talk page discussions produced results. 2) No I was not under any editing restrictions whatsoever at the time nor in violation of any previous arrangement, details above. 3) Jack's edits to these articles were inappropriate for reasons detailed above.  He self-reverted some of them but not all of them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Both User:Darkfrog24 and User:Jack Sebastian are warned for edit warring. The next time either party adds or removes material sourced to westeros.org from any of the Game of Thrones articles (or A Song of Ice and Fire articles) they are risking a block, unless a talk page consensus has previously been obtained on that specific article. A logical next step for resolving the dispute is to ask for an uninvolved admin to close one or more of the open RfCs, for example the one at Talk:Oathkeeper. You can use WP:AN/RFC to make such a request. Make sure that the discussion has wound down before asking for closure. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds acceptable to me, though I'd like if if you left Jack explicit permission to revert his deletions. To be fair to both Jack and myself, the de facto results of the RfC about the Ana Carol source have already been accepted by all parties.  Technically people can still contribute if they want, but the conversation has moved on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2a02:214b:8015:c000:47f:e42e:295c:5c9e reported by User:Local hero (Result: Semi)
Pages: ;

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Aridaia
 * 1)  not an improvement, you should have learned by now...
 * 2)  PROMOTION OF FRINGE NATIONALIST POV...
 * 3)  it is pov to include a single church and priest for his self-promotion; not encyclopedic; and I can find 8-9 other churches in the same village with greek priests; why mention just this particular???????
 * 4)  even if it frowned upon, why does this belong in this article? it belongs in an article about minorities or human rights, not to advertise a single person in a biased way, please read wikipedia rules


 * Aetos
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

On Aridaia, the user began removing the name of the town in Macedonian and removed a referenced statement about a church in the town. A total of four reverts were made by the user. Then, I started a talkpage discussion which the user never joined. Next, the user added a claim about the church's priest (the reference for it doesn't seem to work). I found this, if properly referenced, to be more appropriate for the priest's article than the town's article.

On Aetos, the user removed the Bulgarian and Macedonian names for the town, though the user stopped reverting after three.

Typically, these anonymous users go away after one or two edits but this one has stuck around for a while. I think page protection will be necessary. -- Local hero talk 15:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Two articles have been semiprotected. The IPs seem to be warring to remove Slavic names and references from the articles on these towns in northern Greece. Use the talk page to work for consensus about these changes. EdJohnston (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:108.225.190.118 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP is attempting to whitewash the incident where British soldiers gave smallpox-laden blankets to Native Americans, on the grounds that the soldiers saying "let's do this" and the Native Americans experiencing a smallpox epidemic a few months later is no proof that actually went through with the plan. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)