Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive256

User:Dankonikolic reported by User:WeijiBaikeBianji (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 6 June 2014 His first external link insertion, a link to his personal website.
 * 2) 12 August 2014 spelling correction in the external link by I.P.
 * 3) 9 September 2014 I.P. edit restoring external links after I removed external links upon review of WP:EL criteria
 * 4) 10 September 2014 revert of his link using his user name
 * 5) 11 September 2014 revert of his link using I.P. address (note acknowledgment of previous edit summary)
 * 6) 11 September 2014 re-addition of comment, under his user name

I don't think any involved editor has yet done more than two reverts in twenty-four hours, but the conduct already appears to be WP:COI edit-warring, and discussion on my user talk page has not yet resolved the issue.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I tried to point the other editor to the Wikipedia guidelines that fit this case through edit summaries and also through a section on my talk page. User_talk:WeijiBaikeBianji

Comments:

I read the professional literature on this topic extensively, and the article got on my watchlist after I added some more further reading references to it. The editor who is promoting his own writings on the topic here on Wikipedia is not a major researcher mentioned in any of the better reliable, secondary sources, and I note he has quite a few notices about problematic edits on his user talk page. I'll turn this over to administrators for now. I will continue to watchlist the article, as most of my editing is about related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dankonikolic comments:

I will gladly give up the link if someone would be kind enough to explain it to me where the problem is. Yes, I understand that this link promotes my work. But also isn't that in some way the goal of Wikipedia? It is certainly not a commercial link as the user WeijiBaikeBianji claimed in his initial edit. It is purely a scientific work.

To remove the link that I have made to my own work, I guess the edit should be somehow biased or one sided. I think it is not. If someone thinks otherwise, please explain it to me. In Wikipedia, I see many links to contents in websites of scientists. What is exactly the problem with my website?

WeijiBaikeBianji did not bother to discuss with me or to put some effort in explaining. I only received a number of inconsistent and not-very-friendly messages. They were inconsistent because each cited a new reason for removing the link, in this order: commercial, conflict of interest, promotion, not a good link. Basically, whenever I tried to argue that the cited problem is not really there, he cited a new problem. This is not a professional way to treat a colleague less versed in Wikipedia.

As to expertise: This is not really relevant here I think, but my expertise in the field exceeds clearly by a large margin that of WeijiBaikeBianji (please see the website to which I am trying to make a link).

As to "quite a few notices about problematic edits": WeijiBaikeBianji must be referring to his own notices.

To conclude, if the link is to be removed, I would appreciate a good, convincing explanation. But, for as much as I can succeed in looking at it impartially, I do not see that the link makes any damage. I think it just provides additional relevant information to an interested reader--as it should.


 * 1) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised not to edit areas where you have WP:COI. 2) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised not to promote any entity.  3) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised to follow the policies, including WP:EL and WP:SPAM.  4) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised to follow WP:CONSENSUS and to follow WP:DR when needed (see WP:BRD). Remember: academics HATE trying to edit Wikipedia because its purpose is 180 degrees from academia, and it frustrates them to no end.  the panda ₯’  20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for continuing a pattern of promotional editing. He has been linking to his own work since June and I don't think we should wait longer for him to acknowledge our policy. Explanations have been given but not received. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Blacksun1942 (Result: 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Jytdog is a user with an apparently good track record and rollback privileges. Overtagging/ drive-by tagging removed by me due to the lack of any new sections explaining these tags in talk. Jytdog deleted a large amount of good-faith content in the article via multiple edits without any discussion in talk. I believe that Jytdog's edits represent a violation of WP:3RR, which I interpret to be the consecutive removal or undoing of content added by or actions of other editors, and I believe that it is important to consistently and uniformly enforce this rule.

Blacksun1942 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ACK! This is disappointing! First thing to say is that we are discussing on Talk! More detail with difs anon. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. From WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." In this case, there were no intervening edits by another user. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies! I'd not realized that WP:3RR included this stipulation; I'd thought it merely covered multiple edits like the ones mentioned. I humbly apologize to Jytdog for my gross misinterpretation!! Blacksun1942 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you! Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Bigger picture. This is not an edit war per se, and I am confused by BlackSun's stance. Let it be said that if others think I edit-warred I will self-revert.


 * 23:55, 10 September 2014 dif A new user,  came along and removed the tags on an article full of WP:OR with edit note "Redefined and removed ugly banners (frightens away readers))"
 * 00:50, 11 September 2014 dif more experienced user, reverts removal of tags, with edit note "rv not a valid reason for removal of tags"
 * 01:17, 11 September 2014 dif Truyopx reverts, writes huffy note: "Jim1138 did not consider added (referenced) content, deleted changes bc reasons for removing banners were invalid" and leaves huffy note on his/her user page and on the Talk page - is upset that he/she has to discuss things in Wikipedia (imagine!)
 * 01:21, 11 September 2014 I reverted and restored the tags with edit note "DO NOT EDIT WAR. If you are bold and make a change, and are reverted, discuss! see WP:BRD" and also responded on the Talk page and on Truyopx's Talk page, saying that we work by WP:CONSENSUS here.
 * 02:00, 11 September 2014 which led to Truyopx to self revert! (hooray!) and also remove the huffy note from his user page
 * 13:09, 11 September 2014 I thought we were all good, but then   this dif reverted again! and removed the tags. argh
 * rather than edit war over stupid tags, I went into the article and deleted all the OR crap that the tags were all about. I did it in a series of edits rather than one big slash, because I think big slashing edits are unproductive.  Better to several small ones. These are the difs listed above.

I think i pissed off BlackSun on Talk somewhere in here - have not interacted with him/her so am unclear what the driver is here. Disappointing that BlackSun felt the need to raise a fuss - the discussion is continuing there and we are far from done talking. I think what I did was OK but as I wrote above, will self-revert... but I think the article should not be full of OR and not tagged. OK, ready to listen to third parties. 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think this is done, but I want to add here that immediately after I removed the content, I discussed on Talk in this dif. However in the original post, Blacksun said I did this "without any discussion in talk" which is not true Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in my overzealous effort to adhere to guidelines, I blindly misinterpreted WP:3RR and needlessly dragged you here, Jytdog. While (as below) the page definitely has outstanding issues, I think I acted inappropriately regarding your edits. Please accept my apology and let me know if there's anything I can do (any edits I can make, etc.) Blacksun1942 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * apology accepted! thank you for being gracious. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. With such strong disagreement there is no way forward without discussion. Maybe you can get some help from WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * don't know if that is necessary but of course, we will abide. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:82.132.234.87 reported by User:Fungal vexation (Result: Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walschaerts_valve_gear&diff=625246388&oldid=625246310
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walschaerts_valve_gear&diff=625247145&oldid=625246474


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A82.132.234.87&diff=625246641&oldid=625246025
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.132.234.87&diff=prev&oldid=625246858
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.132.234.87&diff=prev&oldid=625247029 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.234.87 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:

I took this AIV, but I was directed elsewhere. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page:

Clearing up unsourced content and whole sections from Walschaerts valve gear, Fungal vexation took exception to this and restored the content - still unsourced. He also attacked me on my talk page, alleging that users needed to have accounts to make such changes. I would remind him that this is by constitution the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It restricts what can be added: such as unsourced content, but it does not restrict who can make such changes.

He has attacked me on my user talk page. I removed this, as I am permitted to do so, and he added the same message again. And again. That is simple edit-warring - for which I was thinking about filing at ANEW, except that he came here first. Does he mean my repeated clean up of my user page from his attacks? Or does he mean his re-adding of unsourced content to Walschaerts valve gear?

He has also tried reporting me at WP:AIV but was sent away with a flea in his ear. I wonder where on ANI he will post next? 82.132.234.87 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit warring with the IP on his or her own talk page is a violation of WP:BLANKING. Removing of un-sourced content is perfectly fine, however I note that one of the paragraphs is referenced to "E.L. Ahrons, "Locomotive and Train working in the latter part of the 19th Century" (Cambridge, UK: Heffer, 1953), Vol. 4 P 122," and the removal of sourced content should not be done without discussion. Regardless, everyone involved needs to read WP:BRD and put an extra emphasis on the D aspect. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Qazolop123 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Biography */  But the non-Evangelical scholars are not "many" or especially prominent."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Reverts 1: 23:22, August 27, 2014 2: 14:39, September 7, 2014‎ 3: 19:09, September 10, 201

User has been warned, and has not used the talk page. TMD (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While they should certainly start using the talk page... three reverts, separated by two weeks, without doing so, isn't something I see as remotely blockable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ...as noted by Kevin.  Wifione  Message 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kurlibah reported by AcidSnow (Result: Page protected)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Somaliland and Tourism in Somaliland

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Tourism of Somaliland:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:15, 7 September 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 02:03, 7 September 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 22:28, 8 September 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 20:29, 10 September 2014
 * 5) revision as of 23:34, 11 September 2014

Somaliland:
 * 1) Revision as of 17:55, 11 August 2014


 * 1) Revision as of 18:53, 11 August 2014


 * 1) Revision as of 22:24, 8 September 2014


 * 1) Revision as of 20:54, 10 September 2014


 * 1) Revision as of 00:07, 12 September 2014


 * 1) Revision as of 01:56, 12 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

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

Comments:

This user has previously refused to go to the talk page despite being warned numerous of times to stop edit waring. He has, however, "attempted" to work out the dispute on the talk page. Though it did not last long as he has now continued to revert. He is currently reverting once per day so he does not back 3RR. He is also been going against consensus on the Somaliland page as well. To wrap this issue up, this user is most like a sock of User:Reer Woqooyi. If not a metapuppet of his which have been popping up for sometime now. AcidSnow (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First i never did any edits without clearly stated reasons, you are the one who never explained why you refuse. i am the one who invited you here Talk:Tourism in Somaliland and you did not reply to me after my second comment. ironically you have been accusing me since  yesterday over 3 times  it shows that all you interested is to get rid of me to keep doing/defending anti-somaliland biased edits without having any references to back your claims.in fact you are a stubborn persistent editor who have real identifiable meat and sock puppets, which clearly apears all pages you are involved specially all somaliland and ethiopia pages to boost somalia .Kurlibah (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . You could directly go to the DRN if you wish. Leave a note on the talk page of the article when you guys reach a consensus or if other editors weigh in. And yes, stop calling each other socks. Either take the issue to WP:SPI or stop immediately attacking each other. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 16:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dark Liberty reported by TIAYN (Result: 24 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:
 * Scientific Outlook on Development
 * 05:10, 7 September 2014‎. He wrote; "restored to latest version by Dark Liberty. take your Marxist views elsewhere, as far away from non-ideological articles as possible".
 * 05:22, 8 September 2014. He wrote; "Undid revision by TIAYN per WP:COI."
 * 03:08, 9 September 2014‎. This edit was done by him as "104.33.70.80". He wrote; "Compared the previous revisions. I think Dark Liberty's revision is better."
 * 20:56, 9 September 2014‎. He wrote "TIAYN has not provided a valid reason why we should accept his writings which is in direct violation of WP:COI and has accused other editors per WP:don't bite the newcomers. See talk."
 * 21:52, 9 September 2014. He wrote; "Sorry TIAYN, I'm not the one who is pushing a POV. If we used your revision we would have to source all of those statements. Use this version and we can reach a consensus, I'm more than willing to work together."
 * 02:20, 11 September 2014]. Not edit-warring (but trying too readd the controversial new info). He wrote; "removed ambiguous names and pinyin references, clarified content, properly sourced facts without changing the nature of the article."
 * 23:55, 11 September 2014‎. He wrote; "WP:Consensus is not your own opinion."
 * 04:18, 12 September 2014‎. He wrote; "Colipon's opinion is irrelevant [it is relevant]; there is no controversy, you are [he is] pushing a WP:Fringe view."
 * 05:25, 12 September 2014‎. He reverted the edit of 4idaho (he doesn't have a user page, but active since 2012). He wrote "I will only accept Colipon's revert, TIAYN."
 * 06:51, 12 September 2014. He was reverted by Volunteer Marek. He wrote "warning for Vounteer Marek for improper conduct, and meat-puppetry on behalf of TIAYN, deletion of significant information related to POV edits. LOL."

Comments:


 * Notice, three users have reverted his edits; me leading with seven, Volunteer Marek with two and 4idaho with one. As for who Colipon is,he was active in the discussions at the article's talk page (see his talk page, appears to not approve of Dark Liberty's edits, or at least, how Dark Liberty is implementing those edits and the tone he uses while discussing with the rest of us). Dark Liberty personally seems to be against editing which doesn't conform to his own worldview; for instance, he claims that the Ideology of the Communist Party of China is POV (which I might admit it is, but thats since I'm not finished with it yet...), but more controversial, he claims its unreferenced (even if he uses the same sources for his editing... For instance at the Marxism article he removed the link, 06:06, 12 September 2014‎, because it was "Article in link is completely unsourced". A quick view of the footnotes used in the article clearly shows thats its referenced by 113 footnotes, and they are from respected scholars.
 * While, I have no problems accepting some form of punishment myself, I must add that I (and others) reverted Dark Liberty's changes because they; (1) breached consensus, (2) were factual inaccurate, (3) removed all other interpretations of the ideology with the exception of one (that its technocratic), (4) thinks he as the right alone to add or remove information (for instance, he clearly opposes the inclusion of Confucianism even it was the introduction of this concept that the party began talking about Confucian socialism) (4) factual inaccurate and (5) his article is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and on cherry-picking of basic sources (for instance he uses Kerry Brown's article "The Communist Party of China and Ideology", which I used in Ideology of the Communist Party of China, to claim that China and the party are post-ideological when the actual conclusion of the author is that the party has a belief system, has an ideology). At last, I must add (since Dark Liberty accuses me of it); I did not write the present version of the article, and I think its bad but its better then his version, which I like to think says alot. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * . Purely for 3RR combined with tendentious editing.  Wifione  Message 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gumpwert1978 reported by User:ColorOfSuffering (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am trying to resolve an edit conflict, but the user is refusing to engage in discussion and is reverting each edit in the article space. I have reached out across multiple pages, but I have been ignored and am now being accused of "childish vandalism." I simply want to discuss this edit, but all of my attempts at a reasonable discussion have been stymied or ignored. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. But unless you devote a section or some commentary to the search engine versus website issue, your viewpoint also seems slanted. It's almost like describing all biographies on Wikipedia as biographies of homo sapiens. That doesn't take away the fact that I'll block User:Gumpwert1978 if he reverts once more without discussing on the talk page.  Wifione  Message 16:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Very well -- I would gladly add a section about the definition of the website. According to the references I found, his supporters and his lawyer categorized it as a "search engine," while the indictment and the MPAA categorized it as a "linking site." I feel "website" is the proper neutral term, since both parties agree to that broader definition. But I don't imagine this is the proper place to discuss proposed edits; I would just like to have the ability to make edits and discuss changes without them being immediately reverted. I will make another childish effort to bring the party to the discussion table -- thank you for your input. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Srinu523 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Time Table */"
 * 2)  "/* Time Table */"
 * 3)  "/* 57620 (Kacheguda - Rapalle) */"
 * 1)  "/* 57620 (Kacheguda - Rapalle) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Editing tests on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I've reverted as per WP:NTT rule, but the user kept on adding the time tables of train. I have notified him about the rule. Vin09 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Vin09, I've blocked only to prevent disruption given that the user has broken 3RR and still not responded to any of the warning notes left on his talk page, save his discussion directly with you on your talk page. I'll suggest strongly that you should start discussions on the talk page of the article rather than simply leave edit summaries. You too are on the border of 3RR, so be extremely careful of how you handle your next revert.   Wifione  Message 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Before reading the sumamry I've performed a restoration and later read the summary on this notice page and Self-reverted my own edit, which was done by mistake. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Chandra4479 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "rm as pwer WP:Unreferenced"
 * 2)  "History Edited with facts. For more inforamtion, Read "The imperial gazetteer of India"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Final warning: Vandalism on List of mandals and villages in Guntur district. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user gave me the same warning which I gave to him and blanked the page at this page1, page2, page3 because I warned him. Vin09 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Open up talk page discussions. Invite the user to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Come back here only if the user does not join you in talk page discussions but continues reverting.  Wifione  Message 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:9711CA reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Juvenile rape charges */There is plenty of  consensus on this, it's called the mainstream media, which is public knowledge.  Please refrain from reverting, or you will be blocked.  I implore you to contact WP admin to further assist."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 625255413 by NatGertler (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Juvenile rape charges */ These changes are fully supported by multiple sources in the press/media.  Please refrain from further reverts until a WP admin reviews."
 * 4)  "/* Juvenile rape charges */ reverted back to reliable/credible resources. please refrain from editing until a third-party unbiased WP has reviewed. otherwise these revisions will contiue"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continuing edit-warring against multiple editors. Has been blocked before for edit-warring. Showing no signs of understanding the concept of 3RR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * 9711CA has continued to force their version against consensus, even after this report. There have been discussions on the Sons of Guns talk page and on BLPN about this and the consensus was not to use 9711CA's preferred version.  They don't care.  They have not posted once on a talk page, despite being asked.  They do not discuss, just revert. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

WP admin is encouraged to review these ongoing edits. Censoring information is not WP policy. Edits are well documented with reliable/credible sources. Prior "editing block" is completely irrelevant, since it has no similarity and a great length of time has passed since. Subsequent edits have not been blocked, as it is obvious there is an understanding of WP policies. This "war" appears to be the result of those who may have a like for, or are connected to Will Hayden, thus subjective objections are demonstrated by censoring public knowledge in the media. Again, WP admin are welcome to review and make a determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal:
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Keverich2 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 625342136 by Darkness Shines (talk) Stop vandalising the page."
 * 2)  "Undid disruptive edit by Darkness Shines (talk) please do not remove the sourced material"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625340035 by Volunteer Marek (talk)remove the unsourced statement. Please, try to reach consensus on the talk page"
 * 4)  "removing unsourced claim (see talk). NYtimes article doesn't mention any 'paramilitaries'."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * A small group of pro-Ukrainian actists have turned this page into a propaganda piece. Specifically the article used to claim (without proper sources; see talk) that "Chechen paramilitaries" are fighting on the rebel side. I removed this claim, they keep restoring it, even though they can't back it a source.Keverich2 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * for a combination of edit-warring and personal attacks the panda ₯’  11:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Romania (Result: Declined)
Hello, I would like to report User:Nergaal who has reverted an image 3 times on the Romania page. The image depicts the Holocaust which killed something like 5-10% of the country's population. His/her stated reason is that the image shows something that is already mentioned in the article. I have always been under the impression that images should ONLY be used when they visualize something that is already in the article. Anyway, User:Nergaal has far more experience editing than I do and his/her talk page states "ignore all rules" so I really don't know how to address this type of editor or behavior. Please let me know what to do about this. thank you.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * From a quick glance, I don't see any edits all within 24hrs, so until WP:DR is followed, or better filing of the report, I'm not sure what to do the panda ₯’  11:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. The edits were on September 10 at 14:38, September 12 at 11:00 and September 13 at 9:39. I tried to fill out this form but honestly I have no idea how to do this and it is far more complex than what I am used to with wikipedia. Do the 3 reverts all needs to be within 24 hours? I spend most of my time editing and so I'm not very familiar with reporting stuff. Thanks for your help.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * To meet WP:3RR, all 3 reverts need to be within 24 hours. However, edit-warring can take place at almost any time.  For example, if you make an edit (such as inserting an image) and someone reverts it, you are not permitted to re-add it until you have obtained new WP:CONSENSUS for it through discussion on the article talkpage.  If you go ahead and re-insert it anyway, you are guilty of edit-warring.  WP:BRD helps to discuss that in a very simple, friendly manner  the panda ₯’  15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * @Mono: there is no such image in the entire article on Germany. And that article is GA. If every article would contain a para AND an image on this subject, then each similar instance would ALSO get a para and an image then wiki would be unreadable. Nergaal (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:RcLd-91 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Prehistoric homeland */ edited the text as explained in the talke page"
 * 2)  "/* Prehistoric homeland */ i found the section about the origins as it was asked, see i n the talkpage"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625282937 by Dr.K. (talk) explained on the talkpage."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625275026 by Dr.K.source is from "Library of Congress Country Study",has been used as a referenc before here in other articles,took it from another wikipedia page, definetly a reliable source"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edit-warring */ ce"


 * Comments:

Keeps adding copyright violations and close paraphrasing to the article in a nonsense sentence. The copyvio sentence is According to a different theory, the ancient Macedonians probably had some Illyrian roots, but their ruling class adopted Greek cultural characteristics from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+al0014) Seems to have difficulty communicating. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt the use of an unchanged single sentence like that can be considered a copyright violation. it would be difficult to reword such a concise and specific wording without the meaning being lost. Copyright violations are for large areas of copypasted text. This just seems like a content discussion gone wrong thanks to too many red herrings. The source of the sentence seems unusable, being uncredited (the overall work has named editors, not authors), and the sources it uses also seem unsuitable (just general works and encyclopedias). But the claim being made in the contested sentence actually seems reasonable - so there may be legitimate sources that say it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Bzzzttt....incorrect. Close paraphrasing of anything - even a single sentence - is a copyvio  the panda ₯’  16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. The editor added the material five times on 12 September in opposition to others who questioned it. This is an ethnic hot-button article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. The problem is that just before getting blocked s/he started edit-warring on another hot-button article Epirus (ancient state), adding an anachronistic Albanian definition of a word. The article got protected due to edit-warring by sock IPs from Albania and Romania doing the same edit as this account. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Knowledgesmacker reported by User:Iselilja (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 12 Sept: Diff
 * 13 Sept: Diff
 * 13 Sept: Diff
 * 13 Sept: Diff


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


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

Basically vandalism at this point; shows no interest in ordinary constructive editing. Iselilja (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Iselilja is exercising censorship and support of the activities of the Islamic child rape gangs ; shows no interest in pertinent facts reletave to this currently developing situation. Knowledgesmacker (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:reverse polish reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . The user has not reverted after you left a warning note on his talk page. The user has also started discussions on the talk page of the article after the warning. If there is another revert war, come back, otherwise I would not block Reverse polish right now. Jonathan, please also note that you yourself may be blocked for 3RR if you continue reverting without heeding the three revert rule.. So be extremely careful from this point onwards.  Wifione  Message 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oaky. Fair; he did start a discussion. Thanks for the warning; this was dawning on my mind too... I'll take a break now, and do some gardening instead.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:VideoGameHistorian reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (Edit summary also includes inaccurate accusations)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user has also been warned about their editing here (by me), which they subsequently removed here, and most recently here, by another uninvolved editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elite_(video_game)

Comments:

Editors argument is that the term "seminal" is subjective and so inappropriate. Multiple editors have disagreed and reverted, including myself who has also shown sources (discredited in the eyes of VGH as "marketing sources") that describe Elite as seminal. VGH has also used bad faith - and inaccurate - accusations in edit summaries ("reverted vandalism of undoing several changes at once without adding specific reasons, also missing edit summary"). Editing behaviour is to not use "revert" but manual edits, and a boiler-plate edit summary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Also informed HyperspaceCloud of discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 625408903 by Kautilya3 (talk) Irrelevant. See WP:ORDER and WP:CITEVAR."
 * 2)  "Three reasons: 1. Follow WP:CITEVAR, No actual 'discussion' on talk page. 2. Also removed wiki-link. 3. The numbers you added are contradicting other source and are much older."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625538032 by Kautilya3 (talk) Same reason as last time."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625539204 by Kautilya3 (talk) I have. Please discuss before inserting repeatedly."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Vidya Bharati */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* References */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Lede */ new section"


 * Comments:

Subject seems to believe that WP:CITEVAR is a 3RR exception. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * .  Wifione  Message 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I entered a few Bibliography entries into this page last night, hoping to work on the content this morning using sfn-style references. I then noticed that AmritasyaPutra deleted the Bibliography entries claiming that they were "irrelevant" and referred to some policy pages in the edit summary. I opened a discussion on the talk page about why I am using Bibliography, which he did not participate in. I noticed that he was doing edits of his own. When he was finished, I took his text, converted it to the sfn-style references and added an expanded History section to the page. He kept reverting my contribution, which included not only the Bibliography entries but also the section I added. I then counted the reverts and noticed that I had done 3 and he had done 4.

AmritasyaPutra has been doing a lot of reverts on all the pages he has been involved, including ones I have been involved in. I have been repeatedly begging him to engage in discussions on the Talk page and dispense with trigger-happy reverts. It has been falling on deaf ears. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 18:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=prev&oldid=625541627

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User Paolowalter has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him the edit and the source i used,but he insisted on reverting me without discussion and User Hannibal agreed on my edit.Alhanuty (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And also the User has been warned that he have broken the 1RR edit three days ago by an Admin.Alhanuty (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

he also made a second revert reverting User Jafar Saeed.Alhanuty (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaid almasri reported by User:WarKosign (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Case one of 1RR violation: Case two of 1RR violation:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3 1 RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user constantly pushes a change that undergoes an RfC. It is not closed yet but leans toward not including the change. Here several editors tried to convience the user to cease pushing this change. Here the user promised to continue edit warring as long as it takes for them to win. WarKosign (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * .  Wifione  Message 19:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JacksonRiley reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Ownership of articles on Airbus A340. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Multiple users have reverted his edits but he insists on keeping his view in the article. Multiple warnings for edit warring and article ownership have been ignored, discussion on article talk page didn't help either. After discussion did not support his view he stopped discussion and kept restoring his view over and over. Multiple reverts are not listed here but available in the article history, multiple discussion attempts on the article talk page. --Denniss (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those multiple users. Once JR became aware of the 3RR "bright line" he slowed down his reverts, but it is the same material being inserted once or twice a day instead of three times a day. This is kind of frustrating - obviously we don't want to bite the new editor too much, but when several editors keep on deleting the same material citing policy (WP:WEIGHT, mainly) and we keep on seeing the same stuff put back in day after day, there's a lesson that is not being learnt. Airbus A350 XWB has some of the same sort of behaviour. I'm getting the feeling that this editor has a role in one of the American jet engine companies and knows his material, but he's just not working within the community. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I've explained my edits and the sources on the Talk page, but Pete always responds with a vague "Synthesis" or "does not match the sources". Pete does not even want to bother finding sources to support his/her position, instead claiming that the article is fine as it is. A central part in my dispute is that I have one sentence attributing the A340 cancellation to the 777-300ER (due to the several sources), and a separate sentence for the A330 (which only has one vague source). The other editors involving in the edit warring, such as Denniss, have not responded on the Talk page. As for Airbus A350 XWB, User:Wolbo was removing sourced material but it was now settled. Lastly, the charge that I work with an American jet engine company is a cheap shot by Pete, as he has been ignoring the references I found to back my contribution. JacksonRiley (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm foxed at why multiple editors with considerable editing experience are rejecting the Bloomberg reference being provided by JacksonRiley (I must be missing the elephant in the room; please do tell me if it's there), I'm protecting the article until consensus can be worked out on the talk page. Jackson, try dispute resolution; take this to WP:DRN to get more views if you wish; but till you get consensus, your change is not happening, so don't try it or you will be blocked for disruptive editing in the future once the article is unprotected. And please realise that I'm telling this despite believing your Bloomberg reference holds considerable weight. Pete, Skyring, Jackson, et al, come back if you believe consensus has been reached or you need any other additional assistance.  Wifione  Message 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been watching this debate mostly from afar. From that vantage point I think the problem is that many people are uncomfortable with the new additions concentrating on the 777 being the (major?) cause of the A340's cancellation.  While this has some grain of of truth, I also believe that it should not be overstated and that user JacksonRiley is pushing a particular POV that is not really supported by the breadth of analysis available.  Oil prices, gradual ETOPS extensions, a general and ongoing imporvement in the specifications of all 2 engines aircraft and the "two engines good" "four engines bad" situation that has developed are all generic factors affecting the A340 cancellation decision.


 * I would prefer the original more neutral text is retained. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Stickee (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:
 * That section on the Talk page IS NOT about the Cause section of the article

Comments:


 * User was given a softer 3RR warning prior to being reported here. I've now issued a stern warning. I doubt this is going to do much though.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I originally gave a, but didn't want to template the regulars or be too bitey, so I gave a soft 3RR warning. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As soon as those concerned can give a valid reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   02:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MehulWB and User:BengaliHindu reported by User:Amortias (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

BengaliHindu
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)
 * 14)
 * 15)
 * 16)
 * 17)
 * 18)
 * 19)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I am extremely sorry for unknowingly violating the rules. I promise I won't repeat this. I got the message after undoing the edits by Nirmalya1234 whom I believe is the same person who edited it earlier. I undid the edit as the edits are unproven defamatory statements against an elected MP and editor of a newspaper from another news report by Anandabazar Patrika which is being challenged now in court thus I request the other editor to wait till the verdict or further reports come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talk • contribs) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected two days by User:MusikAnimal. There seems to be a BLP issue about terrorism links per [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmed_Hassan_Imran&diff=prev&oldid=625505384 this diff]. There has also been a revdel due to copyright violation, though possibly on different material. If reverts continue after protection expires, one or more blocks are possible. If any editors want to argue the BLP issue, consider posting at WP:BLP/N for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As soon as you can give a reason (instead of merely labeling it) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page."
 * 2)  "As soon as you can give a reason (instead of merely labeling it) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page."
 * 3)  "/* Cause */  Unballanced emphasis on öne party's standpoint through biased editing leveled."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625584191 by Volunteer Marek (talk) There is nothing "obviously contentious" about the edit. Please stop name calling right now."
 * 5)  "Unballanced editing changed."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 625331420 by Stickee There is nothing "undue" about the order.  The information and references in the section as a whole _do not_ follow a temporal order."
 * 7)  "/* Cause */"
 * 8)  "Please refer to Talk page!"
 * 9)  "/* Cause */"
 * 10)  "/* Cause */"
 * 1)  "Please refer to Talk page!"
 * 2)  "/* Cause */"
 * 3)  "/* Cause */"
 * 1)  "/* Cause */"
 * 2)  "/* Cause */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* September 2014 */ note"


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


 * Comments:

This person refuses to go to the talk page and wait for consensus before making said changes to the page.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been to the talk page, but noone debating my edit has addressed me there on this topic. I have opend a Talk section earlier, but on a different topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.HUN (talk • contribs) 01:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

– 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I got there first: 24 hours is fine with me.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Having too many admins at AN3 is hardly ever a problem. Your closure looks OK to me. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No issue with the closure but just a note to make sure people saw what I was trying to do here with a much stronger push and block warning (but the block happened in the middle :) ) in case it comes up. The block was completely reasonable though even if I was being squishier on it. James of UR (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

(yes, first diff is a revert, he just waited a couple of says - since Sept 6 - to resume a previous edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. Also warnings were issued during discussion, by other users, for example here:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. A lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Comments:


 * Result: Stale. But report again if the user resumes warring on the POV tag. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:5.202.119.79 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Criticism of open access publishing */"
 * 2)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 3)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 4)  "/* Criticism of predatory open access publishing */"
 * 5)  "/* Criticism of open access publishing */"
 * 6)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 7)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 8)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 9)  "/* Beall's list and Science sting */"
 * 1)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 2)  "/* Legal threat */"
 * 3)  "/* Beall's list and Science sting */"
 * 1)  "/* Beall's list and Science sting */"


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

Please note additional reverts subsequent to this report:. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Randykitty (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Laval (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I have tried to update the article to reflect the present tense usage since the product is still in use and also to remove a sentence that is using a source inappropriately to suggest that something was once high tech, but no longer isn't, but the above user simply keeps reverting and posting bad faith generic warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in genuine discussion. Laval (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The top three reverts show clearly that I restored the following blanked information:
 * Please note: We have a WP:CIR issue here. First, Revert 4 as listed above is not a revert but my blanking warning on the reporting user's page. Second, all of my reverts reverted vandalism because Laval blanked a cited sentence with a citation which provided a quote to support the sentence. My first edit reverted a clueless placement of a citation in violation of REFPUNCT and blanking of a properly quoted sentence, even though another citation did not have to be moved in the first place because there was another, already existing, citation just at the end of the sentence which fully supported that the Datalink was made in conjunction with Microsoft. In another  edit, Laval again blanked a citation and its quote and the sentence it supported. My other two edits reverted similar blanking incompetence. Please see also the text snipets below in the form of quotation boxes. I suggest this user be cautioned about his reckless editing tactics, fast-paced edit-warring and repeated blanking without discussion and his spiteful report. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional Clarification

As you can see the quote inside the reference fully supports the sentence that the watch was considered high-tech in its time. Laval kept blanking this fully cited fact and its fully quoted citation despite my warnings. I suggest he be blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring except if he is excused due to WP:CIR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment
 * Laval wrote in his report: and also to remove a sentence that is using a source inappropriately to suggest that something was once high tech, but no longer isn't,
 * Aside from the wrong grammar of the sentence above, Laval's claim is patently false. The sentence Laval was removing said:
 * which is absolutely true because the review of the watch in the citation is from 1994 not 2014. I am the original author of the article btw and I know its referencing intimately. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  04:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

For his false accusations of bad faith on my part, his incompetent blanking and other disruption on the Datalink article and this spurious report against me, I think Laval should be blocked for disruptive editing and edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Further analysis of Laval's edits
 * Here Laval moves up another citation immediately after the word "Microsoft", in violation of WP:REFPUNCT while erasing the sentence that "the watch was considered high-tech at its time" in violation of WP:BLANK. Laval's incompetent edit made the wiki code at the affected section have a ghastly placement of a redundant reference immediately after the wikilinked word "Microsoft" and even though there was another reference from the "Timex Corp. History" supporting the Microsoft connection just below the introductory sentence at the end of the same paragraph. Please see the bolded segments in the quotations below:   However moving the additional reference was not necessary because the article already had a reference supporting the Microsoft connection:  As you can see Datalink's Microsoft connection was already supported by " <ref name="Timex Corp. History"> ". Did Laval spot that before he started his blanking/edit-warring? I guess not. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  04:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Laval's claims of bad faith on my part
 * Laval said just above: but the above user simply keeps reverting and posting bad faith generic warnings on my talk page without attempting to engage in genuine discussion.
 * Engage in what discussion? Please check the timeline of Laval's reverts with lightning speed, which prevented any possibility of discussion:
 * 3:03, 15 September 2014‎ Laval (-571)‎ . . (then remove the sentence instead of constantly reverting me) (undo | thank)
 * 3:02, 15 September 2014‎ Dr.K. (talk | contribs)‎ (+73)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Laval: No need to move the citation. It covers the information where it was. Violation of REFPUNCT. Please discuss instead of edit-warring.
 * 2:59, 15 September 2014‎ Laval (-73)‎ . . (that sentence was incorrect and took the source out of context)
 * 2:58, 15 September 2014‎ Dr.K. m (+73)‎ . . (Undid revision 625608492 by Laval One sentence was erased, wrong placement per WP:REFPUNCT)
 * Result: No action. Nobody broke 3RR. Let's hope the dispute is now over. User:Laval, your 3RR report would be more credible if you had used the article talk page before coming here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Greco23 reported by User:Greco22 (Result: Blocked )
Thus user obviously took its name offensively to mine Continues the blanking on Panathinaikos and on various Greek sport articles Possible previous no named accounts: ,
 * Before seeing this report, I blocked Greco23 for the user's apparent attempt to either impersonate or mock Greco22. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Russiansunited reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "news organizations around the globe using the term pro russian separatists, not pro russian groups"
 * 2)  "the sources call them sepatatists"
 * 3)  "cannot edit anymore 3 revert rule / most secondary sources refer to pro Russian separatists, article must reflect the mainstream media, and not a few secondary sources to reflect a point of view calling them a group / this is a movement of millions"
 * 4)  "Mondolk received a merit of the Ukraine award in his talk and therefore the 3 revert rule does apply to groups / the majority of secondary sources say pro Russian separatist and NOT pro Russian group // lets compare our sources in talk to decide"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* September 2014 */ Comment"
 * 2)   "/* September 2014 */ Suggestion"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The POV warning attached to the article should not have been removed */"


 * Comments:

In addition to edit warring, the user has violated WP:NPA. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The user has great enthusiasm for his position but as of this moment has not violated 3RR. (The first listed edit is not a revert). If the editor continues to revert any of the same items, you can make a new report and link to this one. They have already been notified under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:212.181.160.22 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 625686369 by Sayerslle (talk) Not relevant. RT IS a reliable Source, only a simian would think otherwise."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 625588105 by Sayerslle (talk) Only a very biased person with a clear agenda would claim that RT is not a RS while Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Fox, CNN, BBC, MSNBC, Brown Noses "is"."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625540888 by VQuakr (talk) RT is definitely a Reliable Source."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625532318 by Sayerslle (talk) Stop sabotageing!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 625521406 by Sayerslle (talk) Sällström have never said it's in their formula. You cannot provide source for that quote because it's made up, by Kaszeta."


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

Discussed at User_talk:VQuakr
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Discussion seems to have been taking place via edit summaries during the revert war; move it to the talk page, please. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, User:VQuakr and user:Sayerslle are working as a team of bullying and claim that "RT is not a Reliable Source", shows their bias when they allow "sources" from the Saudi Dictatorship Propaganda organ Al Arabiya and the Qatari Dictatorship propaganda Organ Al Jazeera, not to mention all the references to Sofa "researchers" like Elliot Higgins/Brown Moses and his minion Dan Kaszeta, none of which have no credentials whatsoever. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * RT is not regarded as a Reliable source for anything but the barest statements of what the Russian regime is saying as far as I know, it is widely regarded as  a propagandist and controlled outlet - certainly on the Syrian civil war it is not a reliable source where the Putin regime is, with Iran and Hezbollah, most clearly aligned with the House of assad that has ruled Syria for more than 40 years - its links go way back to the soviet era  - ' I believe in any case this ip  should be blocked for far from being bullied is in afct the most awful bully, and given to the  vile abuse of others, - calling Wikipedia ZionPedia and expressing himself thus - 'I have done that mr. peanut, I have made my case very clear, it's not my fault that some sorry soule with feces for brains Pushes for his/her Personal Russophobic agenda and pretends that RT is not a RS.' - I do not work 'as a team' with anyone -- you obviously have a very clear agenda , you, this ip address,  sought to redirect a page on the journalist Christiane Amanpour to the page for 'prostitution' Christiane Amanpour ‎ (←Redirected page to Prostitution) - I believe you should be banned from wp as  you are a poisonous presence. that's how I see it, anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Scalhotrod reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: User warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (immediately removed by Scalhotrod with dismissive edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Scalhotrod repeatedly edit wars over sourcing issues in pornography-related articles, not because of any good faith disputes over content but in order to discourage other editors from enforcing basic BLP and RS requirements. This is the third example of such disputes with me in the last ten days or so. The two immediately prior examples were Tera Patrick (obviously false claim added with no sourcing, then without reliable sourcing) and Rebecca Bardoux (extensive promotional content without reliable sourcing, extensive copyvio text). In this case the disputed text claims a particular porn video has "high production values", even though the cited source says nothing related to production values. In each dispute, Scalhotrod does not defend his edits substantively, but employs uncivil (at best) edit summaries,sometimes including personalized insults or personal attacks;


 * "Useless, lazy Editor refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn" (Tera Patrick dispute, 31 Aug)
 * "No substantiation given for claims made, this amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, article cleaned up" (Rebecca Bardoux dispute, 5 Sept)
 * "Clearly you don't understand the term (current dispute, today)

He also has developed the inappropriate habit of marking later reverts in such disputes as minor, perhaps to disguise their import or to keep them from appearing on some watchlists.

I don't believe this is good faith editing. Scalhotrod and another editor were topic-banned at AE after an acrimonious dispute, and I believe he's trying to provoke me into precipitating a similar mutual topic ban here. The long-running porn sourcing/notability disputes admittedly tries the community's patience, but the level of nastiness and rancor has ratcheted up a notch or five after the "overwhelming" consensus achieved late last year to significantly tighten up porn biographies. I suspect Scalhotrod would count it a victory for his "side" in that morass if both of us were topic-banned, and trying to goad another into such a situation is intolerable and illegitimate, even if he skates along the 3RR line without ever quite breaking it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Scalhotrod
This dispute seems to stem from a recent issue that was discussed at ANI (here) where the accuser made edits to a BLP article that the article's subject (in this case the Rebecca Bardoux herself) not only objected to, but then publicly commented about on her radio show (at the 27:40 mark) and on her Facebook page. She and others (I assumed her fans and supporters) maligned Wikipedia as a result over August 27th and 28th. It's my opinion based on recent events and our collective past that this dispute is an attempt at retribution by HW for the ANI posting. On their Talk page, this User has accused me of making racist accusations and being a paid editor (along with a perceived attempt at revealing my personal information) and when asked to substantiate the claim, would not do so

Furthermore, the accuser admitted that this is not the first time that he has made edits to an article knowing about objections from article's subject

And speaking of edit warring, the Rebecca Bardoux article involved a series of reversions by the accuser: The accuser used a variety of claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional" in this article too.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

To the point of the issue at hand. That said, I may have a bias or just benefit from actual experience or perspective as I have worked in the Entertainment industry as well as have friends and relatives that are Producers, Directors, Writers, and Performers. So when I read a source that talks about an emerging technology (the use of 3D) in a production which has not traditionally used such a technology (adult films) and then goes on to make a statement about the costs of such a production technique ("Created by Hustler's studio arm... ...is apparently the most expensive movie the studio has ever produced." ), IMO summarizing these statements with the phrase "production values" is not a stretch its just accurate use of vocabulary. I do not think it requires formal education in film-making to understand that the cited article, even though it does not explicitly use the phrase "production values", is entirely about just that.

Without difs, I can't address the claim about "minor edits". I use the marker when it seems appropriate.

In the accuser's defense, he does make edits to a large number of BLP article and many of those edits are what I consider good edits that either remove truly questionable content (common sense versus the accuser's personal opinion) or improve the overall quality of the article, but the vast majority are the former as this Editor does not seem to contribute much content to Wikipedia. Although the accuser changed their pattern recently with regard to the a fore mentioned Tera Patrick article.

But, this Editor in their zeal (or what I referred to as "fanaticism" at ANI) to strictly uphold BLP policy seems to forget the 5th pillar, understand that there are no absolutes, and that policies and guidelines may apply differently from field to field and industry to industry based on available sources. As one observed about the Rebecca Bardoux article, "It's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer without talking about their careers and what they do..." In this regard, why would someone object to a statement (and then revert it) when the problem seems to be that they do not understand the vocabulary of the subject?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to production costs? Because production values seems to make little sense, and seems original research. And further, keeping the article being reported in context, why haven't you gone to the talk page to enter into discussions about this issue? Please enter into discussions with Hullaballoo on the talk page of the article in a congenial manner instead of reverting. You have to do that to avoid getting blocked. Can you manage to do that from this point onwards?  Wifione  Message 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Production values refer to the quality of a production, does this include expense, of course. It also includes how its made (technology used, costuming, casting, etc.). Wiktionary has this definition: "(film, performing arts) plural form of production value; the combined technical qualities of the methods, materials, or stagecraft skills used in the production of a motion picture or artistic performance." How the interpretation of the reference I cited would be considered WP:OR, I'm not quite sure. IMO it simply involves an understanding of the term, maybe this makes it a good candidate for its own article.
 * As for discussion, sure, happy to, this has been my method in the past. HW and I interact on quite a few articles, but the "parody" one was an exception, not the norm and probably why HW saw the opportunity to bring it here. But in any given circumstance when HW is BOLD with a deletion and then someone REVERTs, he usually claims that the onus is on the reverting party to start a DISCUSSion on the Talk page, WP:BRD. And when there is discussion, congenial is not how I would describe HW's comments.
 * Do you have any opinion or comment on what happened in the Rebecca Bardoux article given the difs above and the ANI discussion? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your clarification of the term production values is sensible enough. Your mistake has been to repeatedly revert without participating in the talk page discussion that Hullaballoo started. Blocks are exceptional events for an editor; therefore, your reasoning that your non-participation on the talk page was an exception, is accepted only as an exception, given the fact that you've started discussing on the talk page of the article. Be careful the next time you enter a revert sequence without opening up discussions on the talk page or participating in discussions started by other editors. I have no opinions about the article you mention as the issue in hand in this thread is your reverting behaviour in one particular article. Take care and be careful in future.  Wifione  Message 19:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it may sound sensible, but it doesn't rest on any reasonable factual basis. Just plugging the same analysis into other contexts -- the most expensive late-career Ed Wood film, say, or the most expensive Tom Baker episode of Doctor Who -- would come with a pretty silly conclusion. And I don't think there are any reasonable folks out there who associate Hustler with good production values to begin with, so even if we accept that spending more on a video increases its production values, "better" production values than the Hustler norm hardly translates into even "good" production values by general standards, let alone "high production values". In general, it is better to use sources who have actually seen the video to assess its production values -- and in this case, the better sources are quite caustic about the video's low quality. Our porn-related sourcing is already bad enough, and lowering the bar further to allow commentary like this on a video based on sources who haven't seen it should be plainly unacceptable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. For the sake of clarification in the future, in a similar instance when content is deleted and then the deletion reverted, whose responsibility is it to start the Talk page discussion? If the User who originally deleted the content, reverts (deletes it again) I would reasonably assume the responsibility to be theirs, am I correct? Or is it the responsibility of the User who restored the deleted content (1st revert) to start the discussion (assuming its not vandalism)? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just reread the WP:BRD page and spotted this, "Note: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD." Forget my question, I'll use this as my guide in the future... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * If reverts even once again without discussing the issue on the talk page, he will be blocked. If he does so after discussing on the talk page and providing relevant logic, we'll go the dispute resolution way after the page is protected.   Wifione  Message 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The edit war here appears to be very much mutual . Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ...with a critical exception. We respect talk page discussions, and editors who revert unilaterally without talk page discussions are almost always the first ones to get blocked. If you have any diffs to add to this thread to support your contention, you're welcome. Otherwise, it just makes the thread longer. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted a link to the history, which clearly shows the mutual sterile revert war. And I see exactly two comments to the related talk page, one by each of the revert-warring parties. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Post warning, Scalhotrod has started discussing on the said article's page.  Wifione  Message 19:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yakupyilmaz reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed Turkey from the list. Because all the references given about Turkey and its President are biased Abbatai (talk)"
 * 2)  "Bu başlık altına o zaman bizim liderlermizden önce girmesi gereken batı liderleri onları koymayı deneseniz ;) KazekageTR (talk)"
 * 3)  "Haklısın işlerini yapsınlar bencede bende senin kadar eleştirel bir insanım ama bu kadar acımasız olma Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 4)  "Kime neye göre arkadaşım böyle boş işlerle uğraşmayın memlekete yararlı işler yapın Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 5)  "Yalan Yanlış şeyleri niye yazıyorsunuz Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 625702585 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 625700136 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 625699195 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 625693231 by Elmasmelih (talk)"
 * 10)  "/* Examples of authoritarian states */"
 * 1)  "/* Examples of authoritarian states */"


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


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

User also reported in Administrator intervention against vandalism. kazekagetr 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Blocked indef by Ronhjones as a vandalism-only account. Stickee (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JHunterJ reported by User:Augurar (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

(This has been a back-and-forth dispute, so I have included all related diffs, including my own.) Diffs of relevant reverts:
 * 1)  (JHunterJ) "Synonyms:  clarify, after misunderstanding at Talk:Dick"
 * 2)  (Augurar) "Undid revision 606904625 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverting attempt to unilaterally set Wikipedia policy"
 * 3)  (Bkonrad) "Undid revision 625450140 by Augurar (talk) this was not unilateral"
 * 4)  (Augurar) "Undid revision 625454562 by Bkonrad (talk) Reverted until consensus can be established (see talk page)"
 * 5)  (JHunterJ) "Reverted edits by Augurar (talk) to last version by Bkonrad"
 * 6)  (Augurar) "Undid revision 625544556 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted disruptive edit (see previous)"
 * 7)  (JHunterJ) "Undid revision 625618339 by Augurar (talk) Augurar's interpretation is not the consensus; work with other editors, please"
 * 8)  (Augurar) "Undid revision 625641866 by JHunterJ (talk) Reverted to original version once again pending outcome of RfC"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages

Comments:

This user has been repeatedly attempting to edit the MoS guideline without establishing consensus first. I have created a RfC on his or her behalf (see above); however, this editor appears unwilling to engage in discussion, and instead is repeatedly reinstating his edit to the policy.

I would be willing to accept a block as well, but I strongly recommend that the page be restored to its original state until this dispute can be resolved. This will require another editor to once again revert JHunterJ until the proposed change is discussed and consensus is reached. Augurar (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Further history. This dispute originally arose from a discussion on Talk:Dick regarding the linking of slang synonyms.  After a compromise was reached on that page, JHunterJ modified the MoS page according to his interpretation of the guideline.  When I noticed this, I reverted his change and attempted to initiate discussion on the talk page, but to no avail.  I have repeatedly attempted to involve the larger Wikipedia community in this dispute, but have thus far been unsuccessful. Augurar (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * hasn't violated 3RR. Users have to exceed 3 reverts for that block to happen.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am reporting this editor for edit warring behavior, not for specifically violating the 3RR. Despite my numerous efforts to engage in discussion and consensus-building, this editor has refused to seek consensus and instead repeatedly adds his proposed changes to the guideline.  In my opinion, this constitutes tendentious editing and merits disciplinary action. Augurar (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be somewhat of an issue. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. An admin isn't going to come along and punish JHunterJ. If his edits are harmful to the project or are disruptive he may be blocked to protect the project, but I think you have the wrong interpretation of what a block is and what it's meant to do.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a block may be justified, in that this editor's disruptive behavior is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping as far as I know. (For that matter, JHunterJ might consider my editing disruptive. His position seems to be that he was "clarifying" an existing policy, and I am interfering with this by attempting to discuss the changes.)  Should I just keep reverting until the 3RR is breached?  That doesn't seem efficient. Augurar (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And that post there is the most indicative of where a block may be justified. You appear to be intent on gaming the system to make sure you get your way. You are the single editor warring against at least two others. Your edit history starts back in May (and this MoS is hardly inactive; the project members saw it and understood), then jumps to your unilateral revert. Bkonrad explained that my edit was not unilateral, but that doesn't fit with your desired outcome, so is ignored (just like the explanation on the Talk page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages has been protected five days. The RfC, 'Proposed addendum to MOS:DABSYN', got off to a rocky start but it is now focusing properly on the matter at issue and has attracted new participants. I urge all editors to wait for the outcome of the RfC before trying to revert again. Reverts in the middle of an RfC look bad for the reverter and can lead to blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AChildOfTwoCultures reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An SPA has repeatedly added content that violates WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, and has repeatedly failed to address the extensive concerns laid out on the talk page. The edits have so far been reverted by three other editors, either in part or in full by myself, by  and. Bali88 has requested further input at WP:DISCRIMINATION, but the SPA continues to edit-war and act aggressively against all those who oppose them i.e. they keep posting passive aggressive comments at my talk page and implied Bali88 is a neo-Nazi. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term warring. The user has made seven reverts of similar material in the last five days. The account was created on 12 September and it is logical to assume it was created just to engage in this particular edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dvannamers reported by User:Boorsours (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mitnick&oldid=625128228

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Mitnick&diff=625831812&oldid=625831480

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User has also been reported for suspected WP:COI

Boorsours (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Boorsours
 * I ran into this while patrolling recent changes. I don't mean to be harsh, but I had every reason to believe both users were not going to stop. This war was going at a very high edit-rate, with only two parties involved I opted for blocks rather than page protection. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 16:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:209.6.53.174 reported by User:WhereAmI (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 625756462 by WhereAmI (talk) The game qualifies as "Sony," and "Console," while "No" is actually the most accurate given the overlap between poorly defined categories."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 625680901 by WhereAmI (talk) if that were the case, there would be no reason for the "Sony" designation, which covers PS3 and Vita."
 * 3)  "/* PS4 games */ Changed MotoGP 14 to "No" - it's available on Sony platforms, XBox 360, and PC"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of PlayStation 4 games. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* September 2014 */ Not following our guidelines"


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


 * Comments:

The user is not following the community established guidelines at the top of the page as I discussed in the edit 625860568 where I listed them out. They also have not discussed on their talk page and kept it to edit descriptions. WhereAmI (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof et al. reported by User:MicBenSte (Result: No violation)
Article:

Users being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625817543

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832214&oldid=625832137 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625832036&oldid=625831941 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GamerGate&diff=625831669&oldid=625831477 (And a lot more - will compile the full list later - and sadly there are more with enough hour passing by)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (will get back at this later, it's a mess and I need to cool down atm)

Comments:

I admit, I reverted myself things a few times without talk page - but a lot of editing has been going on where the 'misogynism' and 'harassment'-angle is being pushed by User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:TaraInDC, User:Tarc and User:TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom with and without talking about it (and if talking about it, without consensus and a lot of times even just flaming/insulting others) while people have tried to represent both POVs in the article, corresponding to newer, other RSes - yet it's still being pushed for one POV. Considering I received ZERO feedback/comments on the Admin/Dispute pages and a few of them are even already archived due to the time period, I'm playing it this way.

MicBenSte (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * User:NorthBySouthBaranof is clearly edit warring, this is an ongoing problem-he was reported for this before, including violations of 3RR. Last time he avoided any reaction because the article was locked.If you look at the article's editing history, he clearly attempts to revert any edit not in line with his POV.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a bit of a shotgun approach to the situation. "MicBenSte" and "MyMoloboaccount" are just two is just a single-purpose account among a throng that has recently arrived on-Wikipedia to do battle against the so-called "social justice warriors" over topics relating to sexism in the video game industry.  Zoe Quinn, Anna Sarkeesian, and GamerGate have all seen numerous attacks over the last few weeks, attempt to insert blatant WP:BLP violations, the more egregious of which have hat to be oversighted.  That so many experienced Wikipedians, most of whom have little to no prior involvement in video game articles, have rejected their edits should be a clear indication of where consensus lies on the matter, and how these SPAs are on the wrong side of it. Tarc (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * My bad; "MyMoloboaccount" has been around for awhile, and is simply echoing the SPA throng. So, "disruptive POV-pusher violating WP:BLP policy" is the appropriate descriptor. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry mister, but calling me an 'Single-purpose account'? *Sigh* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/MicBenSte&offset=&limit=500&target=MicBenSte
 * That's an gross attack on me. IF you really need to accuse me of being an SPA, do your research.
 * Same holds true for MyLoboAccount btw, just check their Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MyMoloboaccount MicBenSte (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of NBSB's reverts have been to remove poorly sourced defamatory content on a BLP subject: those reverts are absolutely exempt from the 3 revert rule. I think it's amusing that I've been reported for edit warring on an article that I have edited (edited, not reverted) three times total.
 * And MicBenSte, an "SPA" is one that has made few if any edits outside a single article or topic. It's often a sign that they're more interested in making Wikipedia reflect their POV than in improving the project. There have been offsite calls for pro-GamerGate people to come help 'improve' Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, so it's not surprising that there are SPAs gathering. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since October 2009 I have made over 7,642 edits, out of which 4,286 where in article space,99% of which were outside Gamergate article. Now, are your going to remove this gross violation of civility against me, or continue to shift attention from the real issue here?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not an SPA (and I never said you were); MicBenSte certainly is, though. -- TaraInDC (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been editing Wikipedia as MyMoloboaccount since October 2009, mostly on articles dealing with history and Second World War. I suggest you remove that baseless personal attack.The rest of your statement follows the same baseless claims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologizes; since you sounded so much like one of the SPAs it was natural to assume. I have adjusted my verbiage accordingly. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. You have not shown anyone breaking 3RR. If this is a non-3RR edit warring complaint, it is not persuasive. Don't expect admins to make the case for you; express yourself clearly. Regarding "will compile the full list later" -- wait till you have gathered your evidence and *then* submit. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Fiva16 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Referred to WP:SPI)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "(Kapodistria was 100 %Greek. He had some Italian, and Albanian origin. He was mostly of Greek origin.)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 625669194 by Alexikoua (talk). You can't use a blocked user as an explanation for your doings."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625620246 by Dr.K. (talk). According to sources."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625584661 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 5)  "It is proven theory."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ioannis Kapodistrias. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Dr.K.. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Probable sock of. Edit-warring adding fringe information to the article. Warned about discretionary sanctions on Balkans by. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If we don't get an appropriate response a block for WP:NOTHERE might be considered. But Dr. K., in the meantime why don't you reopen the SPI for Biar122. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. I agree. About the SPI, I was thinking of exactly the same thing. But I need some time to gather the evidence. I will file it later today if doesn't beat me to it. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  15:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * An spi has been filled here.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Alexi. I'll come around. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Being handled at WP:SPI. If they come back with no conclusion that Fiva16 is a sock, then a decision should be made whether a WP:NOTHERE block is justified based on the partisan content of the edits and the lack of response to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ed, would it be possible to temporarily block the sock given the amount of edit-warring disruption they are causing? Why wait for the two extremes, SPI and NOTHERE if temporary blocks can mitigate this problem somehow? SPI is also backlogged with a record 81 open cases. Also, technically speaking, an open SPI seems to make a sock 3RR-immune. This is not part of the 3RR policy, as far as I can tell. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Their further edits will make it easier for us to decide what to do. At present it seems they are digging the hole deeper. Any admin who is less patient may go ahead with whatever they think is correct. A block here could make it less likely that SPI will take decisive action (they may consider it moot). EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a temporary block, say 24 hours, will not render moot the SPI block which is expected to be indefinite. I also think the hole doesn't have to get any deeper. There is already a lot of evidence about the socking characteristics. The SPI may take days to be administrated. In all that time the sock has essentially a free hand. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * First, I use sources for my edits. I am not sockpuppeting. Maybe, I am a little too patriot but compared to Dr.K I'm nothing. You used a blocked user as an explanation for your doings. I had reliable sources for Kapodistrias. If i am disturbing wikipedia without noticeing it, I'm sorry and I won't do it again.User:Fiva16 • User talk:Fiva16 20:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Fiva16 is a ✅ sock and has been noted as such at the relevant SPI. --<b style="color:Navy;">Jezebel's</b> Ponyo <sup style="color:Navy;">bons mots 21:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Ponyo for your fast action, despite the heavy workload at SPI. I also wish to thank for his advice and professional action throughout this case. All the best to you two. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop undoing!"
 * 2)  "/* Music video: add Nabil Mechi and CromA interviews, add Synopsis and Awards


 * Comments:

User has been warned against edit warring several times in the last few days by, , and , including for edits conducted by at least two IP addresses - and  - that presumably belong to him or her. A discussion is going on regarding his/her reverts on the talk page, and the user has been notified of such via talk page comments/edit summaries, but s/he does not seem interested in participating.

There only appear to be two reverts within the last 24 hours, but the page history shows clear edit warring over the last few days. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I just made another reversion. UxUmbrella has posted to the talk page discussion, but doesn't seem to really acknowledge the other comments. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * – 60 hours. This has been going on for several days and there was a previous block on 2 September. It's reasonable to assume that UxUmbrella is the operator of the two IPs that are making the same revert. UxUmbrella is commenting on talk but seems oblivious to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:173.65.21.238 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user in question has removed the request for ceasing the edit warring, and the notification of this report. I've undone this removal, but it may happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talk • contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In general, users can remove comments from their own talk page. It indicates that they've read and acknowledged the notice. See WP:REMOVED for more details. Stickee (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not aware of this. Thanks for the notification. In this case, the user has acknowledged the notice, and refuses to comply, due to them reverting the same edit done by other users after the notice. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud reported by User:VideoGameHistorian (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

User has been warned about disruptive editing and reverting several changes at once while making incomplete and incorrect edit comments

No response by the actual reported user, but his co-editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elite_%28video_game%29}

Comments:

The word "seminal" has been moved to precisely the place where it is appropriate, as adjective for the used technology, not for the product as a whole which is violating Rule 2 neutrality standpoint. Involved users opinion is non-neutral, biased, non cooperative. Continually reverting resulted in the destruction of several other additions. Additionally the involved users are keen on deleting the intellectual property the product is derived of, giving the product excessive amount of praise which is not neutral nor is it deserved, as the product is a derivative of three other earlier products, therefore not "seminal" as a whole. Reverts are obviously an act of vandalism and historical revision and have not been sufficiently justified on the talk page. I leave the decision whether these edits and fell swoop reverts have been made in "good faith" up to the noticeboard.


 * Also informed HyperspaceCloud and Chaheel Riens of discussion.

VideoGameHistorian (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think my comments can be initially restrained to pointing to this link here where VGH was reported (by yours truly) for exactly the above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional - despite the claim above, VGH has not informed Hyperspace of this issue, so I've done it for him. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dylan Bruner reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "My edits have been changed, and I want to revert them back to normal."
 * 2)  "Made a compromise between edits."
 * 3)  "Made a compromise. (Please don't edit the species number.)"
 * 4)  "Made a compromise. I'll look for the resource."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 625801254 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 625852868 by McGeddon (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring "approximately 6,000 species" to "approximately over 5,000" with weak or absent sources, ignoring talk page thread. McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a silly revert game, where Dylan Bruner is pushing their opinion against the cited source(s), ignoring the opinion of several editors (do they need this number for their school report?), pulling unreliable sources to "support" their number of lizard species.
 * Support punitive action, can't implement it because I am involved. Materialscientist (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Italian straight nationalist reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Blocked )

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


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 625997893 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGTIVISM"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 625986699 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 625970200 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGS"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 625963037 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 625960585 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 625960281 by Mardochee1 (talk)for a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of neutral straight scholars that the description is appropriate"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 625957499 by Mardochee1 (talk) It's not him, it must be a foreign decadent fag like wilde, cocteau or gide, not italian !!!"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 625956576 by Mardochee1 (talk)God hates fags and he loved Settembrini, so he was straight !!!"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 625955826 by Mardochee1 (talk) fagtivism"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 625954971 by Mardochee1 (talk)stop your gay agenda!"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 625836145 by Mardochee1 (talk)improper category"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Wow. for the egregious violations of both 3RR and WP:NOTBATTLE. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * User:Mardochee1: I will say, you probably ought not have reverted as many times yourself, either...you rather badly violated 3RR yourself, but given the nature of the edits I'll let it slide. Consider this a strong warning, though: In the future, stop at three reverts yourself and bring it to the attention of others if it still needs reverted. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand and I'm sorry. I believe this "new" user is the same person who, since 2013, makes disruptive edits on pages labeled "LGBT people from Italy" with at least four ranges of IP's you can see in the history of the page about Luigi Settembrini and others like Benvenuto Cellini : 95.74.242.194, 95.74.55.131, 95.75.11.32... 109.52.188.137, 109.52.144.245 ("Stop your gay agenda"), 109.52.190.79... 151.71.19.217, 151.71.19.184, 151.71.16.147... 217.203.129.187, 217.203.129.165... Mardochee1 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wadaad reported by Acidsnow (Result: Withdrawn (for now) )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:08, 17 September 2014 - My preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 16:41, 17 September 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 20:01, 17 September 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 20:17, 17 September 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 20:29, 17 September 2014
 * 5) Revision as of 20:38, 17 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

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

Comments:

User has chosen to overrun consensus and revert five times despite being told to stop and being fully aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wadaad&oldid=575024915#Benadiri.2C_etc. the previous discussion]. AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have provided an academic source showing the genetic and ethnic affinities of the Rendille to the Somali: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 You have provided me nothing but your opinion. Science shows that the Rendille are related to Somalis. I have got plenty of sources. You have none. Secondly, that previous discussion did not reach 'consensus' at all and it was mainly regarding the listing of the Amhara and Benadiri, not the Rendille. I stick to my scientific based view that the Rendille are highly related to Somalis. You have no right to delete academically sourced material. Wadaad (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "an academic source" which states the same thing as last time. Science also shows that all humans are related. I too, have plenty of sources. As for the consensus, you are to receive it. Seeing how two users disagree, you have yet to obtain it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all humans speak Somaloid languages like the Rendille, nor do all humans show strong genetic affinities to Somalis (high levels of E1b1b and T1). http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 This combination warrants the Rendille to be listed as a related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Rendille speak a Somaloid language, while the Gabra, Sakuye and Gareeh have abandoned their original “Somaloid” language for Borana [104, 105]. There is also an overlap of clan names, rituals and beliefs among these historically “Somaloid” populations and a third set of populations speaking various Somali dialects[104, 105]. The putative center of origin of the eastern Cushitic speakers (including the eastern highland Cushitic speakers that are mostly found in Ethiopia) is in southern Ethiopia [106].

Source: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 Wadaad (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Either this scientist is lying, or you have an extreme bias. I stick to science over your opinion. Again, you have no right to delete this material.Wadaad (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, the scholar is actually mistaken on that . Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speaking a similar language let alone the same one does not mean both groups are related. Are Jamaicans related to the English, they both speak languages that descend from Old English? Once again you keep leaving out mtDNA which is quite important to this discussion. You might want to see the rest of my replies as well as Middays to see why that's quite pointless. Another tip would be not bringing this dispute here. AcidSnow (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:AcidSnow, I agree with your basic point but there's no need for this. Please withdraw the 3RR so that we may discuss the matter politely on the article's talk page. I know Wadaad and he's a good faith editor. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Rendille have similar haplogroups as Somalis. I have already provided you a source. Just compare the E1b1b+T1 & L/M/N similarity. The Somali have similar maternal DNA as the Rendille see this study http://www.springerlink.com/content/x13323337p155h22/fulltext.pdf or this image Somali mtDNA. Your comparison between the English and Jamaicans is a red herring and totally irrelevant to this discussion as the genetic difference between Jamaicans and the English is much larger than that between Somalis and Rendilles. Lastly, This discussion is not a new one, all the way in 2010 administrator Gyrofrog already chimed in and recognized that it is perfectly fine to add the Rendille as related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wadaad, those are just uniparental markers. Their autosomal DNA is not the same, though. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, you're having a debate over content that SHOULD be held on the article talkpage, not here. AN/3RR is to determine if someone violated either WP:3RR or WP:EW - it doesn't matter here whether you have a source or not, if you edit-war it's a block - period. WP:BRD is the best way to handle things in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. All editors AGREED to not edit war, and to work towards consensus. Wadaad, regardless of your "source", you were battling to get your preferred version - that's classic edit-warring, and unacceptable - again, we don't care about your source, you may not repeatedly insert your edit, ever the panda ₯’  22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You have once again ignoring the most important pieces of this discussion, the Rendille do not have the same mtDNA as the Somalis. As for my Jamaican and English comparison, it was in response to your use of linguistics to justify your edit; which did not help you. Anyways, this noticeboard is about your disruptive edits and decision to not get consensus and not the content dispute. I am sure you are well aware of this since I had previously informed you about it. I would also like to inform admins as to your decision to make a baseless personal attack against me. AcidSnow (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I will with draw this for now Middayexpress. However, if things continue to remain the same I will continue to press forth. AcidSnow (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already informed the user about that numerous of times. I enjoyed your intro by the way. AcidSnow (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda the edit war has stopped and we are currently discussing the matter regarding the relationship between the Rendille and Somalis on the respective talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wadaad, I don't give 2 shiney pennies if it's stopped at this moment: you've failed to acknowledge or show ANY type of understanding of your improper behaviour. You're forcing editors to file reports, refusing to recognize the damage you're doing to the article/project, and although (surprise, surprise) you're currently discussing, your insolence makes me think this is merely temporary  the panda ₯’  23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @DangerousPanda, I am not a frequent contributor to wikipedia, look at my history. I was not aware of all the different rules. Now that I am, I will act accordingly. My contribution to the Somali page regarding the Rendille is in no way trollish or in bad faith. We are currently discussing the matter on the talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were warned about this EXACT same issue on, surprise, the same article in 2011. Claiming ignorance of the rule is, indeed, a lie  the panda ₯’  23:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @DangerousPanda I forgot about it. I am human after all. That was almost 4 years ago. Again, what started this all was not in bad faith nor was I at the time fully aware of the rule. Now that I am, I will act accordingly and wish to discuss the matter.Wadaad (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're then expected to self-revert - that is, undo your last WP:EW-violating edit to that article. Now.  You may not re-add that information ever until you gain consensus to do so.  If you fail to gain consensus, then you're out of luck.  I'll await your self-revert  the panda ₯’  23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * the issue already reached consensus back in 2010. An administrator already had his say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people/Archive_3#Related_group Wadaad (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is settled for now, but since my name was mentioned, I want to point out that my 2010 comment has been mischaracterized as (1) an administrative action and (2) reaching consensus. It was neither: I was asked for an opinion, and I gave one. I don't see anything resembling consensus in that discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA reported by User:Shocate (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (14:00, 16 September 2014‎)
 * 2)  (14:04, 16 September 2014)
 * 3)  (14:09, 16 September 2014‎ )
 * 4)  (18:58, 16 September 2014‎)


 * The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Iaşi (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA

Also here:

Page: Template:Fb team CSMS Iași

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (13:53, 15 September 2014‎)
 * 2)  (14:23, 15 September 2014‎)
 * 3)  (14:22, 16 September 2014)
 * 4)  (14:26, 16 September 2014)
 * 5)  (04:23, 17 September 2014‎‎)


 * The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Iaşi (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA
 * Read COMMONNAME. The name is chosen based on this criterion. Shocate (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute that can be resolved through discussion at the appropriate talk page. I have also declined the request for page protection. Philg88 ♦talk 09:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please block for 2 weeks user Shocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Per User:Philg88's comment above, I am marking this report as closed with No action. The article talk page at Talk:2014–15 Liga I is still innocent of any discussion. If you expect admins to keep an eye on this matter you should write your comments in English. I'm leaving a note for an experienced editor who has worked on this article and speaks Romanian to see if he can help. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

95.74.255.42 reported by User:Mardochee1 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

There's still an edit war on the page about Luigi Settembrini initiated that evening by IP 95.74.255.42. I strongly suspect this IP to be User:Italian straight nationalist, who has been blocked recently because of his outrageous homophobic reverts : they use the same words over and over, like "improper category". It is clear that he is not open to discussion : he is at least under four ranges of IP's you can see in the history of the page about Luigi Settembrini and others like Benvenuto Cellini, Torquato Tasso, indefinitely protected last year because of him, or Benedetto Varchi : 1. 95.74.242.194, 95.74.55.131, 95.75.11.32... 2. 109.52.188.137, 109.52.144.245 ("Stop your gay agenda"), 109.52.190.79... 3. 151.71.19.217, 151.71.19.184, 151.71.16.147... 4. 217.203.129.187, 217.203.129.165...

I believed this user should be blocked if possible, or the page protected because he is not going to stop his disrupting edits on pages labeled LBGT people from Italy before a lot of years if nobody is going to make something and I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Mardochee1 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS : I precised that another user, User:Guido Lonchile has recently been indefinitely blocked by User:Drmies because of his persistant disruptive edits on another page related to LBGT people from Italy, Lucio Dalla and he seems rather close in his words, mind and methods of User:Italian straight nationalist and all these different IP's, stating : "you should have respect for dead people" or "Dalla was a catholic" Mardochee1 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should stop our gay agenda. That's the best solution: there is no point in verified truth when truthiness is more appropriate to the internet. Anyway, I semi-protected Settembrini. The others are already protected, or not such frequent targets. From the looks of it a range block will be hard to do, though. Incidentally, Torquato Tasso may be the worst important article I've seen on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see what you mean by "our gay agenda", especially when the homosexuality or bisexuality are properly referenced by the own hand of the subject ; there's no reason not to mention that fact. We are not trying to make believe, I don't know, that Kennedy, Jesus, Louis XIV or Rocco Siffredi were gay. In the other hand, I can see the homophobic agenda of these users or IP's. Mardochee1 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was an attempt at humor, Mardochee1. There is no gay agenda; it does not exist. Only homophobes think it exists, because they're ... well, you know. Please see Truthiness. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, excuse me, I didn't undertand it was a joke about homophobic people who, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts, thinks there is a gay agenda and that we are part of it, because we mention the documented fact that people like Settembrini were not strictly heterosexuals. :) Mardochee1 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dave077 reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 5) 5


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 1


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


 * 1) 1


 * Comments:

The user admits to being an employee of the subject of the article, see diff and implying ownership see diff. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition the user is making legal threats if their edits are reverted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention using alternate accounts such as . G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to get intouch with a high manager please as I am not really getting help or a reasonable response. Dave077 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative self-organising community and does not have managers. An administrator (who is not a manager, but another member of the community who has been trusted by the community to perform certain restricted functions) will be along at some point to review this issue. You might find it useful to read through WP:5 which will explain why you are having difficulties in particular that nobody owns articles, that articles must have a neutral point of view and about conflicts of interest. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * for making legal threats diff. If they retract the legal threat I would be willing to commute to 36 hours if they promise not to continue to edit war. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Torrian2014 reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: Strongly warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: |first edit at 21:07, 18 September 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |23:28, 18 September 2014 first revert
 * 2) |01:01, 19 September 2014 second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |I have warned the user

Comments: This user has already been blocked twice for edit warring on the WWE page |in July He rolled through three reverts in less than four hours, and while he appears to be offline now I believe that given their past behaviour and similar edits to other pages it seems that this user is determined to edit in a disruptive manner.

It has been a while since I have done one of these, hopefully I have got everything in the right place. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * with a very strongly worded, very final warning, making sure to explicitly explain that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you never break three reverts in 24 hours. I'm hesitant to block without first explaining that point explicitly, especially since his previous edit warring blocks were for 3RR violations and it's possible he thinks it's ok so long as you don't make more than three reverts in one day. I also explained if he continues to revert war on this article he will be blocked regardless of whether he makes more than three reverts in 24 hours. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 13:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:GiorgosY reported by User:FPSTurkey (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments: The GiorgosY is just messing up the List of wars involving Turkey, List of wars involving Cyprus and Cypriot intercommunal violence by adding unneeded and false edits, also I have told him many times to include non-important conflicts in List of wars involving Turkey but he just ignores me. Thank you --FPSTurkey (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am reporting as well user FPSTurkey for a continues deletion of my edits that have no lies on what so ever, are logical and are well sourced. Is the user FPSTurkey that is doing the war trying constantly to delete my edits and not me. Is him that he is deleting my material and he is trying to report me all the time and not me. I have answered him several times, explained my edits, but yet he thinks, that he has the right to impose other people not to add well sourced and logical material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am removing your edits because they don't deserve to be in the war section, they deserve to be in List of wars involving Turkey and the Cypriot intercommunal violence did not involve Turkish military action and it was not a Greek victory, neither was the Battle of Tylliria. --FPSTurkey (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cypriot intercommunal violence results to Greek Cypriots recognized as de jure possessor of Republic Of Cyprus....The immediate geographical result of the conflict in the Tylliria region was that the Kokkina enclave was effectively reduced to approximately 50-60% of its original size and is part of the Cyprus inter communal violence. The turkish airforce bombed Tylliria.

According to user FPSTurkey the are no Turkish defeats or Greek victories and every Turkish defeat or Greek victory should be removed as a Turkish defeat or Greek victory from Wikipedia and written as something else. First of course any user that is daring to write otherwise, he is getting reported by him after deleting his edits constantly. Is the same user that created a page that called a list of wars involving Northern Cyprus, which does not exists by the way as a recognized state by the United nations but is according to the United nations, the illegally occupied areas of the republic of Cyprus from 1974, after 2 invasions and ethnic cleansing, and added as a result of the turkish invasion that Northern Cyprus gained its independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't matter anymore, you're blocked. Leave it out please, let us just apologise to each other and you stop this stupid edit war (that you started). --FPSTurkey (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:GiorgosY is blocked one week and notified under WP:ARBMAC. This is his second block in six days. User:FPSTurkey is warned. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:C.J. Griffin reported by User:Spumuq (Result: Semiprotection, warning)
Page:

User being reported:

Different edits are reverted each time, C.J. Griffin reverts different things on different articles but now six on Neoliberalism

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  all the reverts are after the first warning, more revert after the second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It gives me an error: «Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.» 5.55.53.225 is edit warring too

Comments:

Okay I admit it, I seem to have violated the 3RR. I had a discussion just weeks ago about avoiding an edit war and now unfortunately I have been dragged into one. I should have known better and will cease and desist as of now. Nevertheless, as you can see from the comments made in the revisions, I was attempting to remove/modify the POV edits and undue weight added by User:5.55.53.225, who also violated the 3RR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not POV and that is not a reason to edit war, nobody else «dragged» you into reverting. Spumuq (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I not admit my error in this matter? And emphasising that Monthly Review is a socialist magazine in an article on Neoliberalism is certainly POV and undue. I attempted to resolve the issue by adding a wikilink to Monthly Review and remove undue content on it being a socialist publication but it was reverted. And I don't believe that adding an inline tag to disputed content qualifies as a revert (#4 on the list above).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Upon further investigation, I suspect that 5.55.53.225, who only started posting as of today and on this subject, also posted under the IP address 5.55.144.51, IP address 5.55.152.48 and IP address 5.55.50.175 . Their edits are almost identical. If this turns out to be the case, perhaps the Neoliberalism article should be semi-protected.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: (edit conflict with Drmies, but with the same idea). Article semiprotected. User:C.J. Griffin is warned not to edit war. If there is any more reverting by people who don't participate on the talk page, blocks are possible. The last talk comment was in June 2014, but there are perhaps 20 reverts in September. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt in my mind that the IPs signaled here, which all point to the same location, were operated by one editor, who has a history of edit warring in this article. It is clear to me also that both editors are edit warring (3R is not my greatest concern here). C.J. Griffin has been blocked for it before, so they should know the score (it was a long time ago and has little bearing on any sanction, but they know what's up). The IP can be warned, may have been warned in the past, but the fact that they're reporting their opponent here means they know the rules. In other words, both are eminently blockable, though only one admits fault and promises improvement. By the way, both are editing in pretty awful ways. The IP's latest reverts do not conform to basic rules of English punctuation, and their edit summary contradicts what they're doing in the article--besides, removing the wikilink to Monthly Review is nonsensical. Griffin's edits to the lead are also partly unhelpful--"an updated version" is unencyclopedic since no chronology is asserted, and one wishes they had removed what are now, in the current version, references 2, 3, and 4. I'll leave a decision on blocks to the next passing admin, but I do agree that if Griffin is to be blocked then the IP should be blocked as well, and that also means the article should be semi-protected since they showed no interest in registering, and cannot be allowed to continue editing (under a different IP) when Griffin is prevented from doing so. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nina Companeez reported by User:Coltsfan (Result:Stale (NAC closure))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: There is still a discussion going on the talk page of the article Iraq War. The discussion is not even over yet, but the editor Nina Companeez continues to revert. The user was already reverted by another user besides me, but he/she doesn't care and continued with the WP:EW. Coltsfan (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on here but the diffs do not add up Coltsfan has reverted as much as i have. (see history) and i do not clearly understand what the rules are for that. Coltsfan could not refute my new argument and source in any way. And there is a 2:1 consensus against him on the talk page. I think i could reasonably assume there was a consenus to change based on the given discussion. So i edited the article in good faith. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus. The discussion was still going on! The WP:Status quo of the page must be maintained until the discussion is over. Coltsfan (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You did not address the argument that i gave you even i ask you so many times. Someone could reasonably assume that the discussion was over. There was also a majority of editors for the change. I edited in good faith.
 * As i feel attacked by Coltsfan and this has caused me emotional stress i would like to mention that he has been blocked for edit warring before i just noticed that. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I did refute your argument. And it's difficult to argue that you are in good faith when you delete warnings posted in your talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Coltsfan, the warning template was posted by you and editor involved in the conflict and reverting. I am free to remove this from my talk page as the template did not suggest to me that you want to talk to me. Nina Companeez (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the warning. Further, if you remove it, it does not mean that you will avoid a block. Removing a warning from your talk page is a sign of acknowledgement and you may still be blocked. Govern yourself accordingly.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've restored the warning."? Coltsfan posted a "notification template" of this discussion . There has never been a warning template. Dusti, to post a warning template now after this discussion here has already been started and i did not edited the Iraq article since the notification from Coltsfan is a bit odd. I suggest you remove it from my talk page. Regards. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be an error on my part - I had only assumed you were previously warned and that was the "warning template" you were speaking of above. And no, I will not remove the warning from your talk page as it is a valid warning, hence the reason that you are here.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How can it be a valid waring when it comes after this discussion here has already started and i did not edit the article in any way? There was no need for you to post an unnecessary inflammatory warning. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Notice the section above ^ that requests a diff for the 3RR warning? It wasn't given, so I've now given it. You're welcome to remove the warning from your talk page - just heed the advice that it gives and note the information that I gave you above. You're still subject to being blocked - that's entirely out of my hands.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that diff is meant to be given before someone starts a discusses here or someone shows continues disruptive behavior. I have not shown any behavior after i learned of "Edit warring" through this discussion. I will now remove the unnecessary warning from my talk page. Nina Companeez (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if I'm out of line here, and if I am please revert me and kindly let me know, but the individual being reported has since gone inactive and any blocks here would be punitive.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nolantron reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"


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


 * Comments:

Besides edit-warring editor has threatened to hack me and vandalized my Talk page. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Rationalobserver (Result: locked; Ring Cinema warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Ring Cinema has made 5 total reverts to my edits there since September 9, and three in the last 24 hours. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to reverting me 5 times this week, they also reverted here. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a discussion on this subject on the Talk page. The policy on Consensus is that in the absence of a new consensus, there is no change to the current content. That's the policy I'm following. The violator here is Rationalobserver, who wants to impose his new content without finding a new consensus. Since we were discussing the matter, it seems he's trying to "win the argument" by some other method than developing a consensus. I would suggest he return to the discussion and continue it, as I have done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The 4th diff above concerns a different issue than the change in content proposed by Rationalobserver and not something there is a dispute about, so that's dishonest of him. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Similarly, my revert of BWDIK is not germane, since he asked me to make a proposal that I would support instead of returning to the last consensus. First, it's not up to him to mandate the form of my editing. Second, by restoring the status quo I was making the proposal I would support. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Rationalobserver's "warning" about the 3RR rule says that I'd reverted two editors and was simply part of the discussion. So that's a deficient warning, and I'm not edit warring anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This is by no means a judgment on the page version, but with respect a one man advantage is not an ideal way of revising a major Wikipedia policy. A RFC is open now, which seem to me to be the best route to a resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thank for her wise words, esp. the bit about "revising a major Wikipedia policy". Now, I see that  has a little over a hundred edits, including this report here. I submit that if any editor is going to go and make policy changes, they should have some weight/experience to their credit, and if they're going to edit-war over it, they should expect a tap on the wrist--or a block for discuption. Fortunately they quit, and I hope they keep quitting., you're edit-warring here too, of course, but I judge your part in it as defensive, which for a major policy page is a good thing. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was edit warring? No, you have that wrong. I just returned the page to the status quo during the discussion. No warring involved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You were edit-warring. If you don't understand that then perhaps you're not competent enough to edit here., perhaps you care to weigh in. It's almost too ridiculous for words. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring to maintain a status quo is still edit-warring, there is no exemption for that. I'm not saying there shouldn't be leeway when it comes to reverting changes to policy pages that lack prior consensus, but it's inaccurate to say that it's not edit-warring, it is per WP:EW. - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't edit warring by any definition. Rationalobserver's accusation is bogus. Unless you take the view that all reverts are edit warring, but that is wrong. It is a lot of bother to actually check the diffs; that's what you have to do to make a judgment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From the lede of WP:EW: Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". By repeatedly undoing the contributions of other editors you were edit-warring, pure and simple. The edit warring on that page was disruptive to the point that the page had to be full protected to prevent further disruption. That you don't understand that, and assume that anyone who thinks otherwise just didn't "check the diffs" suggests an issue. Please review WP:EW before getting into a dispute with an editor to avoid being blocked for edit warring, because whether you see it as edit warring or not is ultimately irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're the one getting schooled here. I wasn't edit warring by any definition. By no definition was I edit warring. No matter which definition you choose, I wasn't edit warring. There was no edit warring done by me, regardless of the definition you choose. Define it how you will, but I wasn't edit warring. In terms of edit warring, I wasn't doing it. The accusation was false, bogus, ersatz, without foundation, wrong, incompetent. Are you getting the picture? I didn't engage in edit warring. If it's too much bother for you to look at the diffs, you shouldn't offer your opinion. I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if you are, I'd like an immediate apology and a promise that in the future you will check the evidence before you make accusations. You'll make fewer errors that way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not an accusation, it's a basic fact; you were edit warring. You have a long history of edit warring and your extensive block log reflects that, so it's quite clear that you have an established pattern of failing to either understand or follow WP:EW. If you continue this pattern of behavior, you will be blocked again. It is as simple as that. You're not going to convince me that WP:EW somehow doesn't apply to you, especially by just saying "I wasn't edit warring" over and over without even trying to explain how that wasn't edit warring. I'm simply providing advice for the future so that you can avoid being blocked but if that's not advice you're interested in taking, that's fine, but that's on you. Don't resort to personal attacks by calling editors 'incompetent" when they point this out, it's not productive and doesn't reflect well upon your position. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're making a very obvious error in logic. I wasn't edit warring in this case and that's just a fact. Past accusations of edit warring are not evidence in current cases. Or should we say that because you made a mistake once that means that you are always mistaken? I'm sure you're clever enough to realize that's flawed logic, but that's the logic you're trying. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not me your arguing with, it's Wikipedia policy. See Bbb23's closing comment below. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to note here that the edit summary of Ring Cinema's first revert states: "these are not scare quotes -- it is not 'emphasis' nor an indication that the apparent meaning is not signified; rather, it's what people say or think". It's interesting because this user now apparently concedes that they were indeed scare quotes that were being used for emphasis. So right from the start this user was reverting me based on their own misunderstanding. Now, they have demonstrated a significant misunderstanding of WP:EW, whereby they reverted me 5 times in a week and 3 times at the same page within 24 hours, yet they do not view this as edit warring. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, your diffs don't show that. I'm a little shocked you'd repeat your bogus accusations. And you were mistaken that BWDIK was concurring with you, as he mentioned in the discussion yesterday. You want to correct that mistake too? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one month by . First, Ring Cinema was edit warring. Second, in this instance he was right to revert the article back to the status quo considering that the page is a policy (see WP:EP). That said, it would have been far better for him to seek help from an administrator rather than edit war, but I'm not going to block him for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't edit warring. Look at your checklist of necessary conditions for edit warring, then look at the evidence. It's not there. So that's two admins who mistakenly apply the criteria or for some other reason get it wrong. Taken as a group, admins do their work poorly and Wikipedia is suffering for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept your apology. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I take that as an apology for your earlier mistake, which I accept. Don't do it again. Now I'd like to hear from the other two who got it wrong. I will also accept silence as a concession they were mistaken and will exercise greater care in the future. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , your comments are beyond the pale. Consider this a warning that if I ever see you edit warring again on that page, you risk being blocked without notice. You did not breach WP:3RR, but you reverted 3x and you had reverted earlier as well. Your contention that you were not edit warring shows that you have no understanding of the policy, which after the number of escalating blocks you've received for edit warring, is disturbing. So, drop the stick. Policies such as consensus do not trump the edit warring policy, which has specific exemptions for what does not constitute edit warring and your rationale is not one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: How many times does Ring Cinema have to be reported to administrator's notice boards for edit warring and personal attacks before something is done that will actually make an impression on him so he will cease such behavior? His block log tells the whole story, as do his comments and attitude here. His edit warring behavior and personal attacks against pretty much any editor that challenges his reverts are nearly Wikipedia legend. Indeed, how long do editors have to continue avoiding articles he edits as well as any interaction with him for fear of being unleashed on? He's disruptive and demonstrates regularly that he has no desire to stop being disruptive and the kind of editor others try to avoid working with. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">Winkelvi ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Lovely response to .  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, . Pity I'm no Argus. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * They seem like a good candidate for a 1RR restriction. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:108.254.160.23 reported by User:Dekk01 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: There is presently an editing war going on with the french version of this article. I've recently noticed the addition of some questionable non sourced content on the english article circumventing the french one. Sorry I'm a really new unfamiliar user of this site and didn't know what else to do. The user is not discussing his additions on the Talk page beforehand.--Dekk01 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . There's clearly no edit-warring going on by this IP. They've made only one series of consecutive edits, and they don't look in the least disruptive to me. I even looked at just a few of their other edits in reverse chronological order, and they looked fine. I'll leave a welcome on Dekk01's talk page, but, putting aside the French wiki, which I'm interested in only when I'm in France (anyone want to fly me there?), I don't even see what the problem is. What "questionable non sourced content"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn it, sorry, my bad. Wrong person!!! I feel so terribad :(   arghhhh

This is the unsourced added para in question.

"A federalist rally of about 10,000 people was held at the Verdun Auditorium on Tuesday, October 24, in which Prime Minister Jean Chrétien promised certain quasi-constitutional reforms to give Quebec more power, and in a more startling announcement, declared that he would support enshrinement of Quebec as a distinct society within the Canadian constitution. The sudden reversal of Chrétien's long-standing position on the issue, along with Chrétien's wan complexion and untypically nervous appearance, sparked considerable comment."

The mode was carried out 00:45, 2 September 2014‎ by the user Knoper (if I'm right).--Dekk01 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:173.65.21.238 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (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)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user in question has removed the request for ceasing the edit warring, and the notification of the previous report. The user has acknowledged the notice, and refuses to comply, due to them reverting the same edit done by other users after the notice.

AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't see much point blocking an ip when semi protection will prevent further edit warring from any ip. Lets try 3 days and see if they lose interest by the time it expires. Spartaz Humbug! 08:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:LuckyScience reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Tracklist */"
 * 2)  "/* Soundtrack */"
 * 1)  "/* Tracklist */"
 * 2)  "/* Soundtrack */"


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


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


 * Comments:

When the film Kaththi's soundtrack has a separate article, he keeps copy-pasting information from that into the film article. Even after receiving a warning, he does not stop. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Tuntable (Result: Both warned)
Three reverts within 24 hours at Office 365.

More importantly, no real attempt to resolve issue in Talk. (Tuntable complied with Codename Lisa'a initial request for references.) Tuntable (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. In my defense there are a couple of points:


 * WP:3RR violation requires more than three revert within 24 hours. "Three" is not a violation. In addition, he did not send me any advance warning or even {{subst:an3-notice}}. (I feel very selfish for saying this first but this is the logical order. Sorry.)
 * The sentence "no real attempt to resolve issue in Talk" is ... I am very sorry to say ... a blatant lie. (He simply didn't wait long enough to see if I would post anything in the talk page.) Please see . He simply followed up his comment for clarification with this ANEW request, showing that he is not interested in seeing my answer. My last comment reads: "Very well. I guess now that you are in a discussion, it doesn't matter whose revision gets to stay."
 * As the editor interaction analyzer that is in admins disposal would tell, I and Tuntable did not have an encounter before. Yet, upon spotting my BRD revert on 19 September, Tuntable opened up our very first communication with "‎Please stop being a miserable delete artist". An edit summary in the article space also calls me a "deletion artist" by name. My response was this. (I was hoping it would be an ice breaker.)


 * Overall, Tuntable is combative, disrespectful of WP:REVERT and WP:BRD and most certainly unwilling to have a talk. I certainly have no wish to revert anymore because I have called for additional community input. Even if Tuntable's contribution gained consensus, I wouldn't be unhappy.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * . Both editors have reverted three times. Both are warned that if they persist, they may be blocked without notice. (1) prepare these reports properly with diffs; (2) notify the user of the report (required); and (3) stop the incivility ("delete artist").--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wazzabee7 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Block, semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neil also mentioned it on the user's talk page

Comments: The last three diffs are of the reported named user. The other ones are of IPs who are fairly obviously the same person (notice the all caps in one of the IP's edit summaries and the all caps on the named accounts's talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am open to whatever investigation Wikipedia deems necessary. Visit my talk page where I describe my edits, and how I have repeatedly asked for reputable resources from this editor. He is trying to expose me as the vandal, when in fact his edits are without foundation. I have asked him repeatedly to show me sources, where the terms Aquiline Nose and Roman Nose are defined as the historically derogatory term "hooked-nose". The term hook-nose can be searched. I have suggested that instead an article be generated specifically around the term "Hook Nose" that explains what it tries to express, and its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzabee7 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what IP you are referring to I usually am logged in when I work with Wikipedia. I am criticizing these edits because it is a racial slur, period. This term has been used this way historically, it is almost unbelievable to me that this is being said by someone who has your privileges as an editor. My point is that the Wikipedia page is on the article "Aquiline Nose"/"Roman Nose" not "Hook-Nose" this is not the same it is not the definition of Aquiline Nose and it should not be placed as an alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazzabee7 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This is obvious edit warring, and it's clear that Wazzabee7 was editing logged out, same edits, same mention of citations/sources (although if the editor had checked the source for one of his deletions he/she would have have found it was there. I was planning to ask for semi-protection against an IP hopper but that's been overtaken. A content discussion isn't relevant here. Dougweller (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

– 24 hours. The reasoning of Bbb23 persuades me that the user has also edited the article using IPs. Having checked the troubled history of the article, I have applied one year of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)