Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive259

User:Jazzsoul60 reported by User:Coffeepusher (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a new user, so I attempted to reach them on their own talk page. Thus far they have not responded to any of the attempts to discuss or warning templates left on their page. Attempts to discuss edit: Additional warning templates:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

Unfortuantely I believe that blocking them to get them into a discussion is the only way to make them learn how to be a productive editor.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Their "source" is likely this blog article: http://mediadiversified.org/2014/05/24/the-n-word-through-the-ages-the-madness-of-hp-lovecraft/ -- WizWheatly (ftaghn) 21:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Plus, we all know blogs are not acceptable sources the panda ₯’  21:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:306:bd61:e0f0:bcb5:24df:a4f4:d034 reported by User:CFredkin (Result: Blocked 24hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * It takes more than one to tango. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Bingo! Or in this case - it takes 3. Thank you, Cwobeel  for seeing this for exactly what it is: simply retaliation because I filed a pending ANI against CFredkin and another editor for tagteaming, among other disruptive vios. But FYI, I also tried to resolve it. Several times.  2602:306:BD61:E0F0:BCB5:24DF:A4F4:D034 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . The suggestion that this was "retaliation" shows that the editor cares not that they were, indeed, edit-warring flat out.  This might have ended differently otherwise   the panda ₯’  21:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Wgw2024 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

This user has reverted the section Criticism and Apologetics on the article Buddhism three times in the past 24 hours, in spite of efforts made to address his criticisms. 15:13, 7 October 2014‎ User:Wgw2024


 * Comment Like 35 hours before, I made a huge edit(2900 bytes) on this article. I notified on talk page too. Talk:Buddhism. Other user reverted my edit, and soon he made almost same change to this article after recognizing why I had made that change. Other two users collaborated, they also agreed with the current version., We moved ahead!
 * Today I am observing that this user would try to recover the same content, that had been removed after consensus. He did it once again. So far, as per above guidelines, you have to make 3 reverts or change pointed content for 3 times during the edit conflict with other user under 24 hours. I have made 2 reverts in last 34 hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Two reverts indeed.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wgw2004 has stated in an edit summary: "I am suspending my charge of edit-warring against BladesMulti; since that time he has participated in constructive dialogue and I believe he may have miscalculated the number of reversions he actually made, and that it was an honest mistake on his part." EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since User:Wgw2024 wants to withdraw the report. Use the talk page to get consensus about the Criticism section. It does not look good that both parties reverted the Criticism section *twice* on 7 October. The first revert would be understandable. The second revert, not so much. If you can't reach agreement, see WP:DR for some options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jp5472 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tried to get him to Talk:God Only Knows to no success.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:GraniteSand reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action )
Page:

User being reported:User:GraniteSand

Previous version reverted to: [n/a - intent to edit war??]

Diffs of the user's reverts: All within a few hours
 * 1)  blanking talk page warning about Syrian Civil War User:PBS warning not to keep trying to change the article title to Islamic State
 * 2)  Within hours of blanking the warning he promises to do exactly what PBS warned him not to do-start another disruptive RfC. And he was fully aware of the consensus to use ISIL reached on page noted in the thread and various other closed discussions but then
 * 3)  reverts a cleanup edit of mine 16 minutes after his statements disagreeing with the other editors directly below my comment citing consensus. Maybe targeting my edit to make his point?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:GraniteSand&diff=prev&oldid=628712643] was warned under Syria Civil War sanctions by User:PBS

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see links above to talk page

Comments:

With some heavy editing to cleanup various ISIL articles I maybe over one revert myself (not vs anyone specifically) technically, depending on how you define a revert. I've not edit warred with the user. I have not tried to revert his revert, but would welcome anyone else to do that. I'm not requesting any specific action - leave that to reviewing Admin. Just not interested in continued debate or disruption.Thanks Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, this is probably the most spurious and malformed ANI compliant I've seen in years. If any adjudicating editors have any questions of me feel free to ask here or on my talk page. GraniteSand (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have closed this as "No action". user:GraniteSand is now topic banned for thee months from editing in this area (see General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Henery Copt reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Stop removing the sources or you will face an Account Blocking Sanction from the page administrator. Re Read the page's administration warning and sanctions." revert of this
 * 2)  "Removal of too much sources and data, reread the page's warnings and sanctions" revert of this


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


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


 * Comments:

The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA. I have asked the user to self revert. Shrike (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also please look --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * – Indef as a sock, per the result of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dexterous B. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "MotherJones (2013) article mistakes likely based on incorrect reading of Tampa Bay Times article (2011).  Removed because of errors."
 * 2)  "Teacher's website is more direct source than HuffPo article."
 * 3)  "Fixed formatting on source"
 * 4)  "Sorry, as someone who took the class, that is simply not true.  Update with syllabus shortly."
 * 5)  "Corrected section on Koch activities at FSU."
 * 1)  "Corrected section on Koch activities at FSU."
 * 1)  "Corrected section on Koch activities at FSU."


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


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

Reversions also reverted other unchallenged corrections (the number of new faculty positions) that would have clarified the article in question. 2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Alifazal reported by User:172.56.7.175 (Result:Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

This user has edit warred repeatedly about several different aspects of this article since 24 September 2014. I will deal with each in turn.

(1) Location of the "profile" reference in the History section of the article:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (from oldest to newest):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

(2) Whether serial commas should be used:

The first introduction of serial commas that Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for the purpose of eliminating serial commas (from oldest to newest):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

(3) Description of the ownership of this company:

The edit providing the description that Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for keeping his version of the description (from oldest to newest):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

(4) Whether the company has liaison offices or merely branch offices headed by liaison officers:

The edit clarifying that these are branch offices headed by liaison officers, which Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for keeping his concept of "liaison offices":
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

(5) Whether "per cent" or "percent" should be used:

The edit introducing "percent", which User:Alifazal:Alifazal did not like: 

Diffs of the user's reverts to keep the usage of "per cent":
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

(6) The number of people killed in the capsizing of the ferry "Bukoba" in 1996:

The edit supporting a 2012 source claiming that as many as 1,000 people died, which User:Alifazal:Alifazal did not like: 

Diffs of the user's reverts to keep his version of the death toll:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1) The warnings he has not deleted: (2) The latest warning that he deleted:

Comments:

Alifazal has a disturbing and disruptive history of trying to own articles he edits and using incivility and intimidation to dissuade others from editing in ways he disagrees with. For example, refer to this:

Thank you. 172.56.7.175 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to put this for your consideration: Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. This IP user has been wikihounding me. I have since suspected that it is none other than User:AfricaTanz; who was blocked last year. The user itself has been editing from a multiple range of IPs. It literally kept on following my edits until i initiated an SPI that it then started editing the Godfrey Mwakikagile article. The SPI was closed yesterday and some of the pages have since been under semi-protection; which is what i suspect this user is not happy with. You still haven't answered my question as to whether you are indeed affiliated with the blocked User:AfricaTanz? Ali Fazal (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It now appears that an IP has questioned User:Berean Hunter's decision on the article's semi-protection. A user from a multiple IP range has been edit warring on my talkpage: 1, 2, 3, and 4. A related IP had also been warned by User:Malik Shabazz. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: The article Marine Services Company Limited has been semiprotected for a month by User:Berean Hunter due to socking by User:AfricaTanz. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has. But the edit warring by Alifazal has continued, even after the semiprotection. The diffs are provided above. 172.56.6.67 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Alifazal wasn't the problem. Block-evading socks was.  That's been stopped.  the panda ₯’  21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no proof of socking other than Alifazal's constant harping and entirely unsubstantiated allegations about it. Even the SPI showed nothing. Alifazal has a habit of accusing every person who disagrees with him of socking or having Conflicts of Interest. What do you say on your user page? Something about STFU about socking. 172.56.38.148 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUCK the panda ɛˢˡ”  12:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: No action, self-revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (POV tag removed 2014-10-08 02:48:06 by Legacypac)
 * 2)  (POV tag removed 2014-10-08 03:02:12 again by Legacypac)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Syrian civil war articles are under a 1rr:. Legacypac is fully aware of the rules as he told me himself: despite that it was him that did two quick reverts (not me). I gave him time to self revert: he has not done so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Response: The first edit was not a revert, the second was my 1RR on the article, as I understand the rules. I could not quickly find who added the original POV tag, but if it was User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] shame on him because 6 to 0 other editors User:Greyshark09, User:Catlemur, User:Kudzu1, User:EkoGraf, User:RGloucester and myself on the talk page agreed that the article name is appropriate. A huge box at the top casting doubt over the reliability of the article and its contents does not help the readers on a current event grabbing world wide headlines. He did not discuss adding the tag, any specific proposal for making the article more NPOV as called for in WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVD, make edits to reduce the alleged POV, or discuss removal of the tag to talk as I suggested 6 times:
 * in this edit summary
 * in this edit summary
 * on his talk page here
 * on my talk page twice here
 * on the page talk page Talk:Siege_of_Koban%C3%AA

Only response to discuss was a threat of this report (on my talk page) and this report. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion User:Supreme Deliciousness pretty much started a page move war for no reason and initially refused to even discuss his actions.--Catlemur (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The POV tag was originally added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Koban%C3%AA&diff=628572159&oldid=628571534 here] (at 2014-10-07 01:53:06) by Supreme Deliciousness. His addition of the tag for the first time is not a revert. But both of the diffs listed above are reverts. In my opinion User:Legacypac should undo his removal of the POV tag to avoid a block for 1RR violation. You can still argue that the tag isn't appropriate, but you can't remove it twice in 24 hours by yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I appreciate your insight Admin User:EdJohnston I'll go revert my second deletion of the tag. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd just note that, in addition to this 1RR pointed out by Supreme Deliciousness, Legacypac has a long and colorful history of making aggressive, unilateral edits as detailed in this ANI. I'm glad he's reverting this one, though. I guess everyone deserves a ninth chance. Until the next one (probably tomorrow) ... DocumentError (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I no longer engage in discussions with or about the editor immediately above me. He knows this. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that Legacypac has previously communicated to me that he no longer engages in discussions with or about me. I can also confirm that I have communicated to him that his personal policy does not alleviate his responsibility to seek consensus prior to making major page changes. DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action taken because Legacypac agreed to revert his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Dark Liberty reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "We would rather you Annihilate us than destroy our faith in God with your false admiration and your double-standard Lies. you are not one in favor of freedom and Liberty, and your rhetoric fools no one."
 * 2)  "unsourced speculation, Annulment of weasel content towards that of encyclopedic standards. to other editors and administrators: compare selected revisions, revert if necessary."
 * 3)  "restored to latest revision by OhConfucius. to other editors: take note of the changes in content for reference."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Hong Kong protests. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user has not strictly broken the WP:3RR yet (he's at his third revert), however, his behaviour shows clear battleground tendencies, and his edit summaries are inflammatory. What's more, he only just came out of a block for the exact same behaviour on the exact same article. He also deleted my warning, and continued to remove even more content from the article. I believe that the editor has not learned anything from his prior block, has shown no sign of stopping this behaviour, and hence should be blocked. RGloucester — ☎ 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I issued the last block of User:Dark Liberty. It appears that he is a very dedicated POV-warrior and it's unclear if anything short of an indef block will get him to stop. As you can see from the above edit summaries (especially the first one) WP:BATTLE motivates him. The three listed reverts took out between 2,000 and 5,000 bytes of content each time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * He is still at it. Revert warring and deleted 17,000 bytes of content in one edit today. He's also doing a lot of trolling on the talk page. One post titled "Crimes Against Humanity" accuses me of making "1000+" edits on the 2014 Hong Kong protests and being part of a massive conspiracy and "instructing" other editors. In reality, I have edited the page 10-20 times (mainly minor edits) and have never been in contact with my supposed co-conspirators aside from minor discussion on that particular talk page. He's probably targeted me because I called him out when he blanked one paragraph eight times in ~24 hours. Just being disruptive for the sake of it, making numerous untrue accusations, for example that others are indiscriminately blanking sections of the article (the only one doing that is him) and that triads shouldn't be mentioned in the article because "triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s" Citobun (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Indef for long-term edit warring, POV-pushing and battleground editing. Just now (while this report was open) he removed 17,000 bytes in one edit. It's unlikely that this editor will ever accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:LesVegas (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user warned here but knows not to edit war as he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring already

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I responded to his protestations on the talk page after I tried resolving this conflict by modifying my edits to address his concerns, such as in this edit

Comments:

On 13:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC) User:Kww wrote on the acupuncture talk page "These studies are of the brain's reactions to the body being poked with sharp things. They don't lay the foundation for the effectiveness of acupuncture, just that the brain does, indeed, react to the body being poked with a sharp object. I'm not aware of anyone that denies that." See Talk:Acupuncture. There is disagreement with using these sources that are about brain activity.

There is specific information about mechanism of action for acupuncture. "Evidence suggests that acupuncture generates a sequence of events that include the release of endogenous opioid-like substances that modulate pain signals within the central nervous system.[194]" See Acupuncture.

See Talk:Acupuncture. The first sentence for Acupuncture says "Acupuncture is generally safe when administered by an experienced, appropriately trained practitioner using clean technique and sterile single use needles.[4][18]" I removed repetitive text. I did not violate 3RR. User:LesVegas is well aware the sanctions and is clearly editing against consensus. Milliongoldcoinpoint also made a fake 3RR report against another editor for the acupuncture article. Milliongoldcoinpoint was a confirmed sock. I think User:LesVegas is another sock account. The behaviour and POV is the same. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, KWW posted on a different section "Acupuncture and the Brain". The sources I was adding in were in a different section "Mechanism of Acupuncture." Even still, A1Candidate supported these sources, and I did as well, so I hardly see how I am editing against any sort of consensus. Additionally, these were reliable sources and you only contended them on the basis of the opioid mechanism being a possible duplication. I addressed your concern in this edit by modifying the statement to say, "In addition to opioid peptides.." and adding additional material which was not duplication. QuackGuru, it's not helpful to throw out accusations that I'm a sock puppet because we disagree about some things and I reported you for 8 friggin reverts! Listen, I wasn't even going to report this, but I counted and your reverts were at 8! 6! That shows a tremendous lack of respect for me and for Wikipedia's community standards. LesVegas (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, that looks like legitimate reversion of persistent attempts to interject unreliably sourced material and delete reliably sourced material to the article by User:LasVegas. QuackGuru was exceedingly polite and generous in explaining each reversion. His patience is admirable. Furthermore, this complaint is retaliatory because QuackGuru had just warned LasVegas about edit-warring here [], and made no further edits to the article, unlike Las Vegas, who continued to edit until I reverted him. Looks like a classic case of boomerang. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't notice this because QuackGuru is in the habit of deleting everything off his talk page, but I sent him a warning before he sent me one. If anything, his behavior is kinda boomerangish. And the reliability of the sourcing was never under contention, and the sourcing was systematic reviews, and I added different material backed up by different reviews which you removed as well. Dominus, you reverted a reliable source as well, I'm curious why? In addition to violating the 3RR, QuackGuru also was removing reliably sourced material. That's very disruptive. I knew he went over the 3RR, but I didn't want to make this into a big ordeal and wasn't going to report it. Why burn a bridge with a fellow editor? Then I counted the reverts, and there were 8 of them! Seriously, that shows tremendous disrespect for myself and for Wikipedia's rules. 8 reverts is literally two 3RR violations. LesVegas (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if a group of consecutive edits contains more than one revert, it can only be counted as one revert. For this reason, LesVegas is counting incorrectly, and the 8 edits s/he listed only amount to three reverts.  Cardamon (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit it gets a bit confusing because these weren't just one single edit reverted 8 times 6 times. They were unique edits. I added content. QuackGuru reverted, saying why in the edit summary. I tweaked that content taking his POV into consideration, he reverted that. And some edits just had a source, some with a tag on the source that QuackGuru added between me adding the source and QuackGuru reverting it, some were reversions of an edit, and then after I tweaked the edit to encompass QuackGuru's feedback in the edit summary, he reverted the new one as well. Yeah, it's complex. But I counted and recounted before I ever even filed this report and there are no less than 8 reverts. Like I said, I wasn't trigger happy and didn't want to even report this, but when I saw how many reverts there were I frankly had no choice. If there is any additional confusion, whatsoever, I am happy to provide any additional diffs or explanations. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go to wp:3rr and find the second sentence in the red box. It will read "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The eight edits you cited come from three series of edits by QG; therefore they count as three reverts. Cardamon (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears we were both right. When I went through the edits to put them side by side with the edits being reverted, there were a couple of combinations. It wasn't 3, but it wasn't 8 either. It was difficult to discern because they aren't clearly labeled as reverts in the edit summary which causes confusion, but hopefully they're all clear now! Peace! LesVegas (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought filing this report would put a stop to QuackGuru's edit warring and disruptive behavior for awhile at least, but unfortunately his behavior persists. During a recent discussion on a Community Ban for QuackGuru, several editors noted he is only on good behavior when he knows he's being watched. They also discussed the disruptiveness of him deleting everything off his talk page. While Wikipedia allows you to do nearly anything with your own talk page, many editors noted QuackGuru's only purpose for archiving everything seems to be an attempt to fly under the radar and not attract attention to constant edit warring and battleground tendencies. Just now, QuackGuru was warned on his talk page for sneakily using his edit summary to make it seem like he was self-correcting his own work, when in fact he clearly reverted another user. This occurred while his 3RR violation is pending, knowing he is being watched. From my time dealing with this editor, I've witnessed this sort of disruptive behavior many times and am concerned he won't ever learn his lesson. LesVegas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted part of my own comment on the talk page and I again removed part of my original comment. If you think I am wrong then why you didn't undo my edit? Don't try to create a distraction here. Let's get back on topic.
 * This edit was duplication. See diff.
 * This edit was strange information about brain activity
 * This edit was strange information about brain activity again. See diff.
 * This edit was misplaced text about the TCM view on yin and yang. It was not the scientific view on the TCM theory. I did compromise, however, and added information about the yin-yang thing to the appropriate section.
 * You claimed it was confusing. No, it isn't. You made a fake 3RR report and you have showed your true intentions. You have not withdrawn your fake 3RR report because you want me banned so you can rewrite the article. I think it is time for the WP:BOOMERANG effect. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Articles always need rewriting, and I would love you to be part of it. But yes, I do seriously question if you can comply with the community's rules. When I began editing on this article, I was nothing but nice from the outset and have always tried to reach a compromise with you, but I'm afraid you almost constantly insist on creating a war zone, disrupting, and breaking the rules. You began talk page stalking me, trying to create a wall of shame, then were persistently disruptive in editing. How am I supposed to feel about you, QuackGuru? Anywhoo, I won't reply any more as this has already taken too much of everyone's time, but if anyone else needs more clear or better diffs to make a decision, I'm willing to provide them. Peace! LesVegas (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You still have not withdrawn your fake 3RR report and now you have accused me of "talk page stalking" without supporting evidence. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:LesVegas is changing his comment after I made a comment. The link provided by LesVegas shows he was using the offensive B word. Please withdraw your fake 3RR report and strike your false claim of "trying to create a wall of shame". QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him that Al-Masdar is a pro-government source biased towards the government and editors agree on this issue and i brought him proof of that,but he insisted on reverting me.Alhanuty (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:SimMoonXP reported by User:NeilN (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 627500745 by NE2 (talk) revert against to NE2!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629012716 by Vanamonde93 (talk) I use GPS for deep research which contains into the Wikipedia.com. Thanks! NO need to delete the entries! :)"
 * 3)  "As is!"
 * 4)  "real info based by GPS!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Thomas Guide. (TW)"
 * 2)  "note"


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


 * Comments:

Might I add that this user has gone around blanking the talk page of most users who have reverted him, which IMO raises this from ignorance of 3RR to thoroughly and deliberately disruptive behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Block made indefinite in view of previous track record and the aggressive blanking of other editors' talk pages. See also . Favonian (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Grammophone reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Locked; warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed advertising / self-serving and boastful content. Restored sourced history.  Previous revision sourcing not up to Wikipedia's standards."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 628893515 by Art&Design3000 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 628897942 by Art&Design3000 (talk)  Material violates WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS (is self-published and self-serving)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 628894936 by Art&Design3000 (talk) Author does not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.  Seeks to repress unfavourable history."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 628894936 by Art&Design3000 (talk) Author does not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources.  Seeks to repress unfavourable history."


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


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


 * Comments:

Part of a war between this user and, one with a very negative, legal-case-oriented take on subject, one with a very promo one. Please see full history - may never quite break 3RR, but edit war nonetheless. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for 10 days. I would have blocked both SPA editors if it weren't for the fact that IPs have also been somewhat involved in the fray. The article is mostly an attack page, even assuming it's well-sourced (I'm not reading the German sources). At a minimum it needs paring way back to keep it from being WP:UNDUE, and that includes the state it's locked in where most of the lead is spent attacking the gallery and is not even covered in the body. Except for Nat, I don't see anyone seriously editing the article who isn't a SPA, and I see no real discussion on the article talk page. Both of the recent edit warriors, and, are formally warned that if I see any more battling in the article after the lock expires, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Art&Design3000 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Locked; warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

I believe that this IP edit, a few minutes before a response to the edit warring warning, is likely also this user, putting it after the warning. Not hitting 3RR, but clear edit warring with over the course of the week, with such reverts as this attributed to user and this and this to IPs. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . See report on other user above for commentary.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Shrike (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I quoted Morris directly." rv of this edit
 * 2)  "Counterpunch is a great source." rv of this edit


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


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


 * Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under WP:1RR I proposed that user will self revert Shrike (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC) The user already received such notice
 * The user hasn't edited since you asked them to self-revert. All I've done in the interim is leave an ARBPIA alert on their talk page. --Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, someone else pointed out the same thing, so I reverted mine and struck my comment above. That said, the first alert was after the last revert, not that the alert is required to block, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:93.222.217.126 reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: Locked; both warned)
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
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: This IP address refuses to accept the procedures and rules of a consensus. He had no problem with referring to me as a "rat." What I find hypocritical is who he whines about no one addressing his proposal. Yet, when I did, he cried foul for objecting to it.
 * (full) for 10 days. This article was locked last month because of similar edit warring by the two users, and ., the locking admin, tried to get a discussion going on the talk page, but, as far as I can tell, no actual consensus was reached. I won't be so nice. If after the lock expires, either editor recommences the battle on the article, that editor may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:151.47.53.186 (who is presumably also User:151.47.22.228) reported by User:U3964057 (Result: Semi)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Friendly notice about edit warring:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here as well.

Polite request for editor to engage on the talk page: (in the edit summary)

Comments:

Hi all, there seems to be a couple of IPs attached to the same user. However, if others think that I am being presumptuous then of course let me know. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again. It seems like this user is also using this IP: 151.19.55.136. I am not sure what the block situation should be, but my thought is that some semi-protection at Power (social and political) might be called for. Maybe also at Power politics. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected Power (social and political) and Power politics. An IP-hopper is warring to add a book by Giovanni Bianco to articles. If this continues a range block might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that EdJohnston.Happy editing Andrew (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:75.162.179.246 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid Technopat  Oh, but for some reason, when you keep reverting too, your multiple reversions (also edit-warring, also breaking the 3-revert rule) are "okay"? I get the exp. at talk page, but why does that make *your* excessive reversions (4+) "OK"?"
 * 2)  "Why is it that just because some people think a change is "unnessary" means that it should *never* be done? Where's the supposed "harm" if it's not vandalism? And how do you get notified via your watch list just 1 minute later?"
 * 3)  "Okay, guys. It's an improvement because: 1. acronyms are *really* only abbreviations that can be pronounced as words themselves, like "LASER," but unlike ATM (so this whole article needs a rewrite), and 2. the capital letters clearly show the initials."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 629035916 by Technopat (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 628981652 by Technopat (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 629008889 by 75.162.179.246 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 628981652 by Technopat (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 628981652 by Technopat (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Okay, then why doesn't technopat *also* get the edit-warring warning for being the other user in the war to keep reverting (while others have only reverted once or twice)--even from BEFORE I added those more recent ones that you have up here? 75.162.179.246 (talk)


 * User has now self-reverted - can I now withdraw this report, or close it as a non-admin? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:A4ay reported by User:mrehanms (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrehanms (talk • contribs) 03:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edits only related to one person, appears to be social media manager trying to avoid inclusion of negative news and controversies. Mrehanms (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Objective3000 reported by User:Andyvphil (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page :
 * ., there is no 1RR restriction as a result of WP:NEWBLPBAN, only discretionary sanctions. Moreover, when you attempted to alert the user to those sanctions, you did it incorrectly and pointed to a completely different arbitration decision. You also didn't sign the alert. You also didn't notify the user of this thread (I've done so). All I see is a whole bunch of yelling, mostly by you, on the user's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming my impression that admin bits get awarded on Wikipedia with great disregard for whether the persons receiving them are suitable for the tasks they then take upon themselves. The gratuitous assertion that "All [you] see is a whole bunch of yelling, mostly by [me], on the user's talk page." is simply false. If you saw something from me that was remotely at the "volume" of Objective300's, "Shame on you. This is one of the most disgusting edits I have ever seen.", I'd appreciate your pointing it out. And the word count also goes against the assertion that the the "yelling" was mostly by me, even had it been "yelling", which in my case I deny.
 * I was of course relying on Vinditas' post, both to my page and Objective300's, for the assertion that WP:NEWBLPBAN implied 1RR. For the life of me I can't quite make out what WP:NEWBLPBAN does imply, except greater discretion for the current batch of admins, which, given who you are, how you behave, and the rationality-hostile editing environment you have fostered on Wikipedia, is indubitably a bad thing. WP:NEWBLPBAN does clearly call for "the standard template message – currently { {Ds/alert} } – [to be] placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted", which is what I did, after figuring out the appropriate switch for BLP. Amazingly, you took it upon yourself to remove it. Is there something in WP:NEWBLPBAN which says it is inappropriate for me to expand on Virditas' notification with the appropriate template? If not, I suggest you revert yourself.
 * You also err in stating that I did not notify Objective300 of this thread. I did.. You added your own notice after that. A less careless and arrogant administrator would have noticed. Andyvphil (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the tirade and respond to some of the points you make. First, the removal of the alert was my error; I've restored it. Next time, though, please sign it. Second, the way you "notified" the user of this discussion was not helpful as it was buried; in the future, I suggest you use the template in the instructions at the top of this page. Third, if you knew more about arbitration decisions, many of them call for discretionary sanctions but not for a 1RR restriction, just as this one does. You shouldn't rely on other editors; you should research it yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Andyvphil, nowhere did I say anything about he sanctions implying 1RR. I said it was best to stick to 1RR to avoid sanctions.  Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

various IPs reported by User:211.28.146.128 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: various IPs.

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]
 * . The page has already been reported to WP:RFPP. If an admin there declines it, I suppose the article may have to be fully protected because of the edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This report is of long-term edit warring currently shown by sequential reverts on the Talk page for Artificial Intelligence without explanation.

(Please note that this report is made on the basis on long-term edit warring which recognizes edit warring outside of conventional and sequential 4 reverts following the policy quotation "although edit warring has no such strict rule.)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:NeilN has declined all Talk participation in preference for automatic posting of Standard Notice without elaboration. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Several months ago prior to summer another editor had warned me of User:NeilN as being associated with his edit friend as involved in baiting and edit warring with new editors for the purposes of having them blocked or reprimanded here. At that time, I accepted the advice to drop the matter not knowing that the baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would become long term and persistent. The baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN has been protracted over at least 3 separate Wikipedia pages and for several months. The edit baiting and edit warring has been apparently associated with nothing more than the private gain NeilN appears to get from baiting new editors for the purposes of getting them reprimanded or blocked. The three pages demonstrating this counterproductive and maladjusted edit behavior by User:NeilN occurred on the three (3) articles for Artificial intelligence, Ukraine, and Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, as baiting and edit warring against my edits.

In the case or Artificial intelligence, the Talk page of the article has been troubled with a number of poorly formed RfCs, where one editor appears to wish to place material not adequately covered in the main body of the article into the Lede of the article. NeilN had nothing to do with the discussion of the page but nonetheless began multiple reverts without explaining any of his edits on the Talk page there against Wikipedia policy which asks editors to post their reasons for reverts on Talk. To further inflame the matter, User:NeilN then went straight to posting an automatic edit warring message, again apparently for no other reason than to bait another editor. This is done by NeilN, an otherwise experienced editor, with all the appearance of following Wikipedia rules superficially when examined as an isolated case. My hope is that by collecting the edit baiting and edit warring for several different pages, however, that this appearance of following Wikipedia rules is merely superficial and that the private gain or pleasure which User:NeilN appears to get from baiting and edit warring against new editors is really part of larger pattern of maladapted editing practices which are counter-productive to collaborative editing and unwelcoming to new editors against Wikipedia policy.

The maladapted baiting and edit warring by NeilN was more counter-productive and aggressive at the page for Ukraine where his conduct resulted in a protracted and chilling edit environment for all editors trying to update the current civil war issues taking place there. After my leaving the page temporarily for the summer, I discovered that the hostile and counter-productive atmosphere of intimidation by NeilN had frozen the editing of the page to the point of no updates at all to the section after the New president election of Poroshenko from last Spring (four months ago) for the entire summer. I then posted at least one edit to update this section of the page for Ukraine after its neglect for the entire summer (with Talk page additions and explanation) following the atmosphere of intimidation of that Page which had been fostered and associated with User:NeilN and his history of baiting and edit warring against new editors for his private purposes. User NeilN has also expressed contempt for the opinion of admin User:Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, the author of a famous book on Wikipedia) and the ability of an on-line encyclopedia to keep up with geopolitical events in ways which were previously unavailable in print encyclopedias. I expressed support for Andrew Lih, but was further ridiculed by User:NeilN for my support of Andrew Lih on this diff. User:NeilN appeared to express that the only criteria to satisfy him would be the news of "millions" of dead people in the Ukraine which would satisfy his requirement for adequate notability in his view of Wikipedia on this diff.

This pattern of behavior again repeated itself another time at the Talk page for the "2014 Olympics Ladies Figure Skating" page here, where once again the pattern of baiting and edit warring was repeated by User:NeilN for his personal purposes. The brief history of the discussion was that of distinguishing and separating a paparazzi controversy from an Official controversy which a separate editor does not appear to be able to grasp, and the article page was beginning to resemble a fan site of unofficial opinions quoted from the rich and famous which in the end had nothing to do with the Official judging of Gold medals at the 2014 Olympics. Although unrelated to the discussion, User:NeilN again felt it incumbent upon himself to use the opportunity for baiting and edit warring in the pursuit of his version of counter-productive edit warring.

At this point, my own position was that he would simply tire of his maladapted baiting and edit warring practices, and perhaps with time adjust his unproductive and unwelcoming edit behavior normally seen as destructive to the purposes of collaborative editing at Wikipedia. However, his maladapted behavior appears to be endemic to his long-term conduct, and his history appears to show an unwillingness to adjust his desire to bait and edit war with new editors on a continuing basis. Edit baiting/bullying is usually read as WP:Harrassment at first reading, and when coupled with his long standing and repeated desire for WP:Edit-warring, I am requesting that this matter be reviewed by a more experienced editor to evaluate the matter. User:NeilN has accumulated a number of Wikipedia privileges, and appears to seek further privileges to expand his domain over other new editors. The length of this report I have significantly shortened because relating all of the edit baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would require too much space. Could some instructions or other measures be left for User:NeilN to somehow curtail his long-term proclivity for baiting and edit warring with new editors. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is at least the third malformed report by FelixRosch (diffs supplied upon request). Also, unsurprisingly, no notification. In all cases above my edits were supported by other experienced editors. If an admin would like more detail from me, please ask. --Neil N  talk to me 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

He's finally stopped screwing up the RFC page, but it's really very disruptive to have the central RFC pages showing one editor's bold-face warnings about the RFC question instead of (i.e., not merely in addition to) the RFC question. I am posting this here so that, if Felix continues this pattern of disrupting the central RFC notice pages, we won't have to find all the diffs later. However, as he's not tried to do this for over 24 hours now, I think we are justified in believing this incident to be resolved, with no need for admin intervention of any kind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . The only recent history I see of reverts is on the talk page of Artificial intelligence, and there were only two, as well as two by . I also looked at the article itself and the other two articles and their talk pages, and anything there was incredibly stale. Felix, don't toss around personal accusations on this board. If you want to accuse another editor of a long-term pattern of misconduct, then go to WP:ANI or start an RfC/U. You might, though, consider the possibiility of WP:BOOMERANG, though, before you go any further. You've been editing using this account for about a year and have very few edits during that time, and even fewer to article space. I'm not sure what your problem is except you apparently suspect there's a conspiracy afoot.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am cautiously optimistic that this is stable now, but Felix's diffs don't show you how many times Felix has edit warred to place that particular text in that location. NeilN is not the only editor who has been trying to keep the RFC page working despite Felix's efforts.  Felix has been replacing the RFC question with his own "disclosure" ("Disclosure: The format and bias of this RfC is currently challenged and is currently being discussed. Any participation should be informed by pending changes or deletion of this RfC. FelixRosch (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)") for over a week:   These diffs are in addition to the diffs above.  Felix continued doing this despite repeated explanations from multiple editors that his actions would prevent the actual RFC question (which is, "Should the phrase "human-like" be included in the first paragraph of the lede of this article as describing the purpose of the study of artificial intelligence? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)") from appearing at Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology.
 * FelixRosch really needs to find a WP:mentor - I suggest he looks for help at Adopt-a-user. -- Moxy (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Supreme Deliciousness reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [not applicable, page move revert and other reverts shown are interspersed with other editors work]

Diffs of the user's reverts (note same page, two different names due to two moves):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  and
 * 5) general  disruptive editing on the talk page including being cited by User:Jeppiz as ["https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayn_al-Arab&diff=628790224&oldid=628789243|for having]  "a strong and biased WP:POV that makes it very hard to take your arguments seriously."
 * 6) [] Dismissing Middle_East_Research_and_Information_Project as "not a reliable source" which appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead other editors voting on a name change. Our article says "According to JSTOR, The Middle East Report "is the foremost U.S. magazine of critical analysis on the Middle East", with 25,000 US and global readers and more than 700 educational and institutional subscriptions." and a review of [] shows an editorial board filled with professors at leading universities and an equally impressive list of contributers. The actual article is co-authored by aPhD candidate at Prinction University. He prefers to cite Google maps as a RS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion with many editors Talk:Ayn_al-Arab, and related article Talk:Siege_of_Kobanê about the same POV pushing. Note I have not reverted this editor today, but yesterday he hauled me in for 1RR reverting so he really can't plead he does not know about Syrian Civil War sanctions 1RR.

Comments:

Requested Move Close: I'd also request that an uninvolved Admin look at the proposed page move and consider closing it immediately (3 days in),on a policy and vote basis and to end the pointless arguing and edit warring. Effectively this move request is an extension of a discussion started 7 days ago here and given this city is in the news worldwide right now, seems reasonable. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hihi. Legacypac brings us 4 diffs. Nr 1 and nr 4 is the exact same edit. Number 2 and nr 3 are two different edits that I made right after each other at a different article. I suggest Legacypac to be topic banned for this frivolous report. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Did the closing admin Bbb23 notice I said "note same page, two different names due to two moves" - which Supreme Deliciousness incorrectly denied here? I mistakenly provided the same ref twice (instead of but scrolling through or looking down the list of changes shows the story better than a list of diffs can. Anyway, no matter. Hopefully this user will be more careful in the future. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . This is a move dispute and it should play out until it is closed, which is normally 7 days after it is begun. I don't see any violation of 3RR by Supreme Deliciousness. As for disruptive editing, I'm not going to get into that here - take it somewhere else - but it appears there are hot-tempered editors on both sides of the dispute. As for the Syrian civil war sanctions, I'm not going to apply it in this case. And the only way I could impose a topic ban unilaterally would be under the sanctions; I'm not going to do that, either. Another administrator is welcome to take a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:46.200.32.235 reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: IP and Prisonermonkeys blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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


 * and at least half a dozen more since then.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Ridiculous edit war over the caption in a photograph, and a wikilink. The IP and User:Prisonermonkeys have reverted at least ten times each. Prisonermonkeys has not covered himself in glory, but the IP has also resorted to name calling. I have not templated Prisonermonkeys, but I have spoken to him on his talk page. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All my edits are correct. Prisonermonkeys try to pipe two links to same (!) article (instead of one, as always). Also he removed one key (!) foreground man from the photo description, leaving two others. Also he removed Category:Current sports events many times, but it's a current. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 13:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a vision for the final version of that article. The edits that keep removing that content are removing some of the scaffolding that will build that final version of the article. So, while there may be two links piped to one article, that other article is going to be expanded with tables to the point where it is justified&mdash;I just haven't had a chance to build that article up yet. As for the "key foreground man", there is no information available as to who he is or what role he played in the process. Ideally, the article would include a picture without him, but none are available. And as he is nowhere near as important as the commercial rights holder to the sport and the president of a sovereign nation, his presence is best explained with a footnote rather than included in a caption giving him equal weight to the others. Now, I have tried to explain this to the user in question, but he has spent the best part of an hour sitting on the article and reverting edits on sight, to the point where he is preventing content from being added. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When the second article will be written then we will give the second link. Very simply: one article = one link, two articles = two links. The thing with the other guy in the foreground of photo is a reasonable question to ask "Who is the other guy?" As we can see on photo, he signed agreements with Bernie, not background president.  46.200.32.235 (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The focus on that entire section is on the relationship between Ecclestone and Putin. There is no information available on who Kapirulin is. All we can see from the photo is that he is looking at the contract; for all we know, he's Putin's proof-reader. A footnote is the most appropriate way to explain his presence, since he is only related to the issue by virtue of appearing in the photo. If people really are interested in who he is, they can look at the footnote; they don't need to know who he is to understand the issue, and as such, he does not need to&mdash;and should not be&mdash;mentioned in the caption.


 * As for the other article, how about you stop sitting on this page and constantly revert edits, and instead be a part of the solution and start helping out with the other page? Because right now, all you are doing is disrupting things. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am open for discuss always. Secondly, it was no any "disrupting things" from me. Only your personal vision against standard rules. Mikhail Kapirulin is the head of the company that is building the F1 race track in Sochi. Not only "Putin's proof-reader". And last, I will resolve what I must to do/edit without your advice. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're telling me that it never occurred to you to add that detail on Kapirulin into the caption? All you ever did was move the footnote to the caption. You never elaborated.
 * Even then, the focus of that section is on the relationship between sport and politics. Kapirulin isn't a part of that, is describing his role is best left to a footnote. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to remove (from description) a person who signing the document on the photo. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, he is not being removed from the description. He is being moved to a more appropriate place. And secondly, there is absolutely a reason to remove him - he has nothing to do with the issue of the role of sport and politics. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the problem to leave him in the main description? Footnotes alongside with reference link is bad choice for newbie readers, for example. And section named "Controversy", but not "the role of sport and politics". 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because he is not related to the controversy of whether the sport should accept money from the Russian government, given Russia's role in eastern Ukraine and alleged role in MH17. The picture was chosen to show that there is a relationship between the sport (Ecclestone) and the government (Putin). Kapirulin was there, but he has nothing to do with the controversy, and so should not be mentioned in the same context. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good argument, but then we have reasonable questions "Who is the other guy?" "Why government office-holder (Putin) is on the background only?" "Who has signed document?" "What is the document?" 46.200.32.235 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Which can be explained in the footnote, because it is not required to understand the controversy. The more information you put into the caption, the further the picture and caption get from their intended purpose, which is not good. That's why a footnote was used - it's a case of "here's a bit more on the picture; you don't need to know it, but it might help with unanswered questions". Prisonermonkeys (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't anyone actually going to look at this? It's been going on all day and it's still continuing. Or maybe I missed the 20RR rule? Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tried to start discussion on the article talk page. So far, there's been little progress - the IP editor in question is simply copy-pasting his arguments in from elsewhere, namely here. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reply at the talk page to all posts with logic arguments. His edits without any logic. He removed Bianchi crash from article lead although it's a key event for this stage. 46.200.32.235 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * 46.200.32.235 and Prisonermonkeys for 31 hours., you tried very hard to get the two users to stop, which does you credit, but both editors misbehaved, both called each other's edits vandalism (not true), and neither showed any insight into their behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with that; the talk page discussion came way too late. Sorry it had to come to this. Thanks for your attention, Bbb23. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rtc reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Tests */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629155083 by TenOfAllTrades (talk) Mentioning shortly at this place is okay. Discussion page was about prominent mentioning in the intro with lots of uncritical claims"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 629160374 by TenOfAllTrades (talk). Removing unreliable source again, please don't add it back. See discussion"
 * 4)  "sigh. See discussion. I completely agree that it's a fraud. But that doesn't mean censorship is allowed. that paragraph is merely mentioning undisputed facts: existence of the report. same as preceding paragraph"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 629206253 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) There is a dispute going on. Use the discussion page if you want to join the debate."


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


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


 * Comments:

See also Talk:Energy Catalyzer. VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very obviously a dishonest attempt to mob me out of the article. Don't fall for it. Take two out of the equation and it's a lot less than it now looks: Look closely at what actually is. It's undoing an edit someone made accidentally. In the same way, look at, which was about the dispute template. I already stopped reverting the actual paragraph as a concession. Now someone tries to prevent even the template notifying readers about the ongoing debate. That's just so obviously an attempt to provoke further reverts to get me blocked and to prevent new users reading the article and seeing the template from joining the debate... Block the others, they are violating WP:DICK. --rtc (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Time to drop the stick, Rtc. You presented your proposal, and it failed to get traction. And I don't see any sign of bad faith on the other three editors that are disagreeing with you, so cut the persecution spiel. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You already missed the opportunity to accept the compromise version with the template warning about the dispute. So we have to fight this through. --rtc (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the disputed edit included a link to a document of unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors. Rtc has chosen to dismiss concerns about this claiming that supposed "tacit consent" (for which no evidence has actually been provided) is sufficient reason to ignore WP:LINKVIO  AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "unknown copyright status (there is no evidence that it has been released to the public domain), not hosted by the authors" does not constitute in any way "know or reasonably suspect" as required by WP:LINKVIO. There is no copyright issue here. You made this up as a fallback because you were losing the argument. --rtc (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Losing the argument by having more people agree with me than with you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, people tend to form communities of faith when reason has turned against their ideas. --rtc (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikicorrected reported by User:Amortias (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629223630. Previous information was not poorly sourced and is initially being removed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629259036 by Crim000 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Crim000 should be reported for removing well-sourced information that conforms to rules of living persons. Undid revision 629258997 by Crim000 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 629327493 by Crim000 (talk)"
 * 5)  "A talk has been started with Crim000 regarding disruptive practices of edit warring and guidelines regarding living persons. Undid revision 629330192 by Crim000 (talk)"
 * 1)  "A talk has been started with Crim000 regarding disruptive practices of edit warring and guidelines regarding living persons. Undid revision 629330192 by Crim000 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Crim000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "fixed poorly reference sections"
 * 2)  "removed poorly referenced materials"
 * 1)  "removed poorly referenced materials"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * ., the only reason I'm not blocking you for violating WP:3RR is because part of what you removed from the article was a violation of WP:BLP, which is an exemption from edit warring. Frankly, I don't think that was your intention as you removed material that should not have been removed, and if you attempt to do so again, you will be blocked without notice. I've cleaned up the article (an unusual step for me) because of the BLP issues, which means that principally I removed the material about whether he was a lecturer, etc. That material was sourced to two places. First, to a blog, which is not acceptable for negative BLP material, and the other to a source that is now a dead link. It's possible to re-add that material but only if it is reliably sourced and also passes muster under our policies.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:technopat reported by User:75.162.179.246 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

22:43, 10 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Undid revision 629111122 by 75.162.179.246 (talk) User now reverting editions of two more users...) 10:23, 10 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Reverted 3 edits by 75.162.179.246 (talk) to last revision by Technopat. (TW)) 22:12, 9 October 2014 (diff | hist) m Acronym (Reverted edits by 2600:100E:B122:5589:0:0:0:103 (talk) to last version by Technopat) 07:34, 9 October 2014 (diff | hist) m Acronym (Reverted edits by 75.162.179.246 (talk) to last version by Three-quarter-ten) 14:36, 4 October 2014 (diff | hist) Acronym (Reverted to revision 628126786 by 23.252.53.30 (talk): Most recent "stable" version. (TW))
 * Reported user did not violate WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Was this not against 3RR because the more than 3 were across longer than a day's worth of time? Why was it not at least considered "edit warring back," then, just because I went first between us two? Why doesn't technopat get warned for edit warring too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.179.246 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You breached 3RR. You're lucky I didn't block you. Technopat did not breach 3RR, although it's true he edit-warred. If you're talking about the warning on your talk page, it was left by an administrator who also responded to a message you left on his talk page. You may have constructive contributions to make to this project, but if you can't stop yourself from violating policy and then having the chutzpah to complain about it, I suggest you stop editing. You've already been told that, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh, "chutzpah"? Good grief. And who said that asking about the differences between something was supposedly a "complaint"? How did technopat's reversions "not count as" breaking 3RR but mine somehow "did"? Also, if he was edit-warring too (even somehow without breaking 3RR, if so), then why didn't he get the same kind of warning, about at least the edit-warring part, like I did?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Goblinshark17 reported by User:Juno (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User has been warned a few times, has been warned specifically about this page and has warned others against edit warring on this article. User was given a chance to self-revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR Community Sanctions per WP:ARBAB. User has been warned about this on this page specifically and has warned other people against edit warring on this page. User chose to make 2 reverts in 20 minutes and chose to not self-revert. Juno (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit-warring against them; they're edit warring aginst me! I inserted the word "occasionally"; it was taken out several times by user Juno.  I inserted the related word "occasional"; this was taken out as well.  There is no question that the word is appropriate in the article.  Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Juno reported by User:GoblinShark17 (Result: )

User:Juno has edit warred against me, removing my edit several times despite my repeated warnings that doing so would be EDIT WARRING.


 * . Clear reverts, similar to same violation on 10/11. Editor was warned explicitly and given a chance to revert. Kuru   (talk)  02:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Juno reported by User:Goblinshark17 (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: See the TALK page, the header: "RTLs are subject to violence and criminal intimidation, but only occasionally"

Comments:

User Juno is editwarring aginst me, taking out my edits repeatedly. Goblinshark17 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have not violated 1RR, in spirit or in letter. I was not warned of edit warring, nor was I notified of this report. Juno (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Amended: filer of this complaint said that they were having a hard time figuring out how to use the templates and I believe them. A note has now been left on my talk page notifying me of this report. Juno (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User Juno was warned on the TALK page that I would report edit warring if she/he removed the word "occasionally" from the article, which has been removed several times. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1. To be fair, other users may be involved with the repeated reversions of my edits. In particular, USER:Cloonmore may be involved. Can two users engage in coordinated "edit-warring"???
 * 1. Not really, no. Juno (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

2. What does "Diff" mean??? Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Its the "difference" between revisions. You can seem more at WP:Diff. Juno (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . I don't see the necessary two reverts, and no other information has been provided. No, multiple users reverting you does not count as a "group revert". This appears to also be a retalitatory report that is likely to lead to a topic ban if you continue to edit this way on articles with discretionary sanctions activated. Kuru   (talk)  02:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob984 reported by User:GhostlyLegend (Result: Voluntary restriction)
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:

It's pretty clear that Rob984 has no interest in engaging with a discussion over sourcing, and now appears to be randomly deleting content in response to being challenged of this. GhostlyLegend (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC) No, that's not me. Given that the other user had already warned Rob984, who then removed the warning, then I figured it wasn't required to do it again. He already knew. GhostlyLegend (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ., have you edited the article without logging in to your account?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * failed to notify, done here by myself. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You didn't notify me that you reported me. The IP placed a edit warring template on my talk. They did not notify me of that you reported me. I'm curious how you are aware that the IP templated me considering I removed it one minute later? Rob984 (talk)18:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit history. Given the abrasive nature of your edit summaries I was checking to see if you had form.
 * GhostlyLegend (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy is clear. You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. I attempted to remove the disputed content pending a discussion. I was fully engaged in discussing the content and the sources provided. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should also note, the discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing. Rob984 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , you're wrong about policy. There is no exemption to WP:3RR for WP:NOR (as you stated in one of your edit summaries). See WP:3RRNO. You've clearly breached 3RR, and the only reason I haven't blocked you is because your views seem to be misguided but possibly held in good faith. That said, you can avoid a block if you promise not to edit the article for seven days. You would still be able to edit the talk page., if you're going strictly by the book, you first give a warning of edit-warring. Then, if the editor persists, you file a report here and use the notice template at the top of this page to inform them of this discussion. I didn't bother doing it for you because I saw that Murry1975 had effectively done so, although without the template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All noted, the first time I've had to do this and the process is a bit laborious.
 * GhostlyLegend (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I realised it isn't an exception, I was just giving an explanation for surpassing 3 reverts. I reverted because as far as I am aware, the material on that article is unsourced and included on the basis of editors conclusions drawn from the sources provided. You don't seem to fully understand the situation. Nonetheless, I won't argue. Rob984 (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , you must respond to the 7-day condition. BTW, this is a quote from your edit summary: "Removing original research per WP:NOR. WP:NOR is an exception to the WP:3RR."--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I was wrong, but I realised that before I commented here. It's also irrelevant to the fact that WP:NOR is a policy that should be enforced. I don't have a choice, so yes, I will abide by the 7-day condition. Rob984 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really not unreasonable to want unsourced material removed, pending a discussion. I'm not sure how I'm 'misguided' and only 'possibly' acting in good faith. I've contributed all of the sources to the article section in question. Clearly I'm edit warring to be disruptive... Rob984 (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me and the intersection of policies. In this instance, the edit warring policy trumps the content policies. You have no idea how many times users edit-war and say it's justified because they were "right" and the other party was "wrong". I'm not commenting on the content or the relative positions of the different editors here, just on the conduct policy itself. When I said you were "misguided", it had nothing to do with your content dispute, but with your understanding of policy. Anyway, with your acceptance of the condition, I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: I'm marking this as closed per agreement to a voluntary restriction. User:Rob984 will not edit the article again for seven days. The restriction expires on 19 October at 18:23 UTC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AsceticRose and User:Fauzan reported by User:Calcula2 (Result: All editors warned)

 * Page:
 * Users being reported:

These guys are acting in bad faith and are accusing people of sock puppetry even though they have been proven innocent.

There is an extensive talk at Talk:Battle of Badr about some dispute with data. THere was a general agreement that some data has been added back. The main concern of these 2 users is the following data: According to the Muslim scholar Safiur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri the purpose and reason for this battle was to raid a Quraysh caravan carrying 50,000 gold Dinars guarded by 40 men, and to further the Muslim political, economic and military position.[13]

According to the Muslim scholar Dr. Mosab Hawarey the goal was to take the Quraysh caravan and its camels, he wrote the target was "initially Quraysh camels, then fight erupted"[6]

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir also said the purpose of this Battle was to capture Quraysh war booty/spoils by raiding the Quraysh Caravan, he claimed Muhammad encouraged the Muslims by saying: “This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you”, and like Mubarakpuri he also stated that the purpose was to make Islam dominant, he also claimed Muhammad said “so that He makes you prevail above them and gain victory over them, making His religion apparent and Islam victorious and dominant above all religions”.[14]. They want to suppress this data and even one of then has claimed this is a Fringe view or a minor viewpoint here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_evidence.2C_deleting_data_though_5_people_disagree_with_him._REMOVE_HIS_ROLLBACK_rights

Some of their comments of the edits are also in my opinion very unhelpful: 



(The concerns raised have not been solved. Also, it has not been explained how this version is better than the previous. So, I'm resorting to the previous)

It has been explained in talk page why the version which was added is better. Mainly because its well references and has data the first article was missing.

(Reverted to revision 625903026 by A. Parrot (talk): Please discuss on the talk page why this should be included.)

This is a useless comment meant to annoy people in my opinion as it has been discussed extensively in talk page why this data should be added, even Fauzan participated in that discussion.

To summarize i think these people are apologists who are trying to present this article from the viewpoint that is was defensive military expeditions even though Muslim sources like this clearly say otherwise: See #9--Calcula2 (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Calcula2, where is the edit-warring or violation of WP:3RR - nothing above seems related to the purpose of this noticeboard the panda ₯’  11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You should keep a watch on this as it looks like its going to turn into an edit war. These users keep removing vital data about the reasons for this military campaigns. 5 people on talk page disagree with them--Calcula2 (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this board is to deal with violations that are occurring. Otherwise, all editors need to follow WP:DR  the panda ₯’  11:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put a new header on this report that's in the usual format for AN3. A review of the edit history shows a lot of impassioned reverting since 6 October. The submitter, User:Calcula2, is one of the people who [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Badr&diff=629163371&oldid=629153593 reverted today (11 October)]. I'm leaving a ping for User:Nick who has tried giving advice to the combatants on the talk page. I'd vote for (at least) a period of full protection for the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've absolutely no objection to full protection. Nick (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: All editors are warned. Anyone who makes a further revert at Battle of Badr that is not backed up by a talk page consensus may be blocked without notice. If you find that you can't reach agreement on the article Talk, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Another report of the same dispute has been made at ANI (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:107.204.173.9 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. (TW)"


 * Comments:

is the same person. Warring with no less than 3 others (not including myself; I haven't participated). Stickee (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi'd by HJ Mitchell. Stickee (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Janagewen reported by User:Janagewen (Result: Blocked)
Page:, ,

User being reported:

This user changed the date format of Template:.NET Framework version history, said lots of improper or dirty words on other users' talk page.

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

Comments:

For Jeh's "Huh? What?" in

For FleetCommand's "Reverted 2 edits by Janagewen: WP:DATESNO says don't touch this. Let me remind you: You once got blocked here. Continuing to refuse to get the point on your part is not to anyone's benefit" in

I report this user, Janagewen, I, myself. Because I feel myself a shit after knowing them on earth.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Herzen reported by User:Stickee (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (and the ~140 comments in the talk in the last 24hrs)

4 reverts in 7 hours. Stickee (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

I am confused. is claimed to be a revert. But placing a POV tag on the article was a new edit I made in response to the discussion in Talk. Just because someone had placed a POV tag on this article before, does that mean that anytime someone places a POV tag on the article again, that counts as a revert? If so, that is a very strange policy. And one can see that I had no idea that such a policy exists from this comment, in which I say that "I only made two reverts", in response to the accusation that I had made three. – Herzen (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we can assume good faith and believe that Herzen did not know that this would be counted as a revert. Still, this seems like a bit of gaming, and revert counting, trying to tip-toe right up to the bright line. The sensible suggestion here is for Herzen to self revert.  Volunteer Marek   04:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Still, I would like clarification from administrators on whether putting a POV tag on an article counts as a revert just because someone had placed a POV tag on the article earlier, no matter how long before. If it does, I think that policy should be changed. Someone can put a POV tag on an article when the article is completely different from the previous time a POV tag was placed on it, so it makes little sense to count the new placement of a POV tag as a revert, since the context would be completely different. – Herzen (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd guess that some of this would depend on how recent the previous edit war was, whether the POV tag is placed for the same or different reason (nb, you didn't actually justify the tag on talk as required) and whether or not the person can be reasonably believed to be aware of previous issues.  Volunteer Marek   05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . Closed with no action., I think most admins would look at the context of the tag addition and whether it's a continuation of something or brand new. They would also look at your explanation. I'm taking into account the fact that you self-reverted, but you should be aware that even if one doesn't count the first edit as a revert, you reverted three times, meaning you edit-warred over the tag. You can be blocked for edit warring even without a breach of 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked; warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 01:34, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,917 bytes) (-846)‎ . . (There is no discussion that says SG, or "The Hindu" is not reliable. Making consensus on the article talk page BeforE such significant edits will be highly appreciated. New section already made.) ]
 * 2) diff 05:36, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,463 bytes) (-2,266)‎ . . ("also known as 'Shri Guruji remains as per talk page consensus. Jaff is indeed informative, thanks Kautilya! "Forgotten" was an opinion piece which was shown as inaccurate subsequently in the same newspaper.) ]
 * 3) diff 05:55, 10 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (12,513 bytes) (+1,049)‎ . . (There are two reference here. It provides a view differeing from Jaff. It was there in the article from long and there is no express reason to purge these two reference without discussion. SG is neither follower of Glowalkar nor RSS member.)]
 * 4) diff 13:16, 12 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,964 bytes) (-410)‎ . . (Remove opinion piece. Put back TOI -- it is WP:RS.) (undo | thank)]
 * 5) diff 10:27, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,000 bytes) (-374)‎ . . (Undid revision 629420475 WP:BRD and WP:3RR says when contentious addition is reverted reverted, a consensus on article talk page has to be obtained "before" reinserting it. Not the other way round.)]
 * 6) diff 10:38, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,000 bytes) (-374)‎ . . (Undid revision 629421165 by Kautilya3 (talk) Kindly restrain from edit war, there is discussion on talk page. I was improving the reference by adding date while you nuked it yet again. Please.)]
 * 7) diff 11:14, 13 October 2014‎ AmritasyaPutra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,186 bytes) (+812)‎ . . (→‎Leadership of RSS: S. Gurumurthy is reliable. This reference was in the article at least since June 2014 and is discussed in the talk page also. There are four other independent publsiher mentioned on talk page.)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Kautilya's talk page
 * 2) Article talk page section
 * 3) AmritasyaPutra's talk page section

Comments:

The subject seems to believe that the version before the edit [1] was "stable" and any changes to it must be somehow approved by him!

There was also a related discussion on my talk page, which was opened by the subject after he did his first revert. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend full protection for 2 weeks. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not 'reverted' Kautilya3's content after his warning and have not breached WP:3RR, I stepped back. Kautilya3 has reverted me thrice just now after explicitly stating he will be reverting me every time on the article talk page and on my talk page. He reverted thrice just now without leaving any response on article talk page discussion or edit summary. (1, 2, 3). Thank you. --[[User:AmritasyaPutra|AmritasyaPutra ]]T 12:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit 7 above is a breach of 3RR because it is reverting the replacement originally done in my edit. Given the pattern of your edits, it seems quite likely that you would wait for 24 hours and come back to do more reverts, thereby gaming the rules. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit 1, was first edit where I undid the contentious deletion of long standing referenced content with exactly opposite meaning content from a dubious reference and posted on editor talk page and article talk page about my concerns in a neutral manner immediately.
 * Edit 2, it can be clearly checked that I was editing as per talk page consensus and it was repeated after me by another admin too, this is noted in the edit summary too. I even thanked kautilya3 for it in the edit summary as well his talk page.
 * Edit 7, is after a gap of 4 days and explicitly discussed on talk page and three other references also provided. It is by a reputed journalist S. Gurumurthy in a reliable source (The Hindu) which was in the article from several months. If that counts as a revert I am okay to self-revert it. --AmritasyaPutra T 12:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing changed in the career of S. Gurumurthy between 10 October and 13 October to make him suddenly reliable. The same reasons given for his unreliability on the 10th October still stand.  Your 7th edit reinserts his material, completely ignoring all the points that have been given to you on the talk page. You knew that it was problematic revert and you did it anyway. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: stop arguing now, and leave it to an admin. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ., I suggest you have a heart-to-heart with your mentee. The basis for the duration of the block is a fairly recent block for edit warring. The block itself is based on a breach of 3RR (yes, the fourth edit restoring material counts), for previous battling behavior on the article, and for a lack of insight into their conduct. Not that it matters, but what admin is the user referring to?
 * ., you are not blameless in this battle. Although you did not breach 3RR, you reverted three times, and I came within a hair's breadth of blocking you for it. Also, my block of AmritasyaPutra does not give you license to revert their latest edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your decision. I know that I have pushed the user to the 3RR point (and breaching it was his own choice), but I felt that, as long as his version was sitting on the article talk page, AmritasyaPutra was not going to engage in a meaningful discussion on the talk page. He was merely rehashing the same arguments heard for the last 3 days. If you can tell me what I can do differently, I will be glad to adopt it. (As you know this particular user has this behaviour.  He has been here twice already, and the first time he actually got saved because I helped him.) Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Stoney1976 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

The three articles without the tag. Simple.

Diffs of the user's reverts: User has gone on a massive campaign tagging fracking articles, after I made a bunch of edits yesterday to deal with tagged issues in the articles and bring them into alignment.
 * Hydraulic fracking
 * added tag with no discussion on talk
 * reverted to add tag back
 * reverted to add tag back


 * Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing
 * tag
 * revert reversion
 * again


 * Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States
 * tag
 * revert reversion
 * again

This is all without any discussion of the issues on Talk. After repeated warnings user introduced nonspecific and WP:NPA discussion under header "Concerns about massive POV edits" that said "Believe fresh eyes could do this article some good, hence POV tag."
 * here
 * here
 * and here

User is new but this behavior is bad. This is not an authentic effort to discuss concrete concerns.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * here on user talk page
 * again on user talk page (3RR template)
 * again on user Talk page

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


 * just blew up this morning. hard to engage when user will not articulate clear issues. asked user to in edit notes!
 * asked what issue is on article Talk

This kind of campaigning is just ugly behavior. User has not articulated any clear complaint. Clearly doesn't trust me! But that is dealing with contributor, not content. Suggest a block to teach Stoney that we talk about concrete concerns with content based on what WP:PAG actually say (and their spirit of course)

This discussion reported to user here

Comments:

Just wanted to note that despite repeated requests from myself and 3 other editors, Stoney is just writing personally-attacking and nonspecific things like this: "Large amounts of well-sourced information has been removed or deleted from a POV angle by the same group of editors, especially from the economic and environmental sections. No observable attempted to be neutral" Stoney needs to learn how to engage with other editors constructively and civilly. Hence the block request for the swath of edit warring above (which has finally subsisted, for now) Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629392236 by 50.12.118.188 (talk) removing vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629423889 by 212.243.10.250 (talk) vandalism removed"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 629431894 by 212.243.10.250 (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 629444556 by NeilN (talk) this is undoubtful reference"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 629444995 by NeilN (talk) this is mainstream news reference"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Aécio Neves. (TW)"
 * 3)  "/* Read WP:BLP */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring to introduce highly controversial BLP info with poor sourcing. Note I will be reverting per BLP. Neil N  talk to me 15:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:99.227.245.147 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user talk page);  (another editor on the article talk page)

Comments: There are WP:BLP issues involved, and as far as I can tell, putting this problem aside, the user has not constructively edited in other areas of the project and been warned about it. Although the article could be semi-protected, the user should be sanctioned because of the problematic edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . Diannaa (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ywreuv reported by User:LionMans Account (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Appears to be a vandalism-only account, judging by recent history.


 * . Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I will monitor contribs when the block expires. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:181.140.233.215 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Semi)
Pages: and

User being reported:

This user keeps reverting both the Dan Vs. page and the List of Dan Vs. episodes page by adding some nonsense about a 4th season coming to the Cartoon Network when there isn't a reliable source about it found anywhere on the Internet. Please help us have a discussion about it so we can reach some kind of consensus. I already added that on the talk pages of both Dan Vs. and List of Dan Vs. episodes. AdamDeanHall (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected both articles for a week. Unsourced changes and edit warring by IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:bridies reported by User:Hahnchen (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: my original revert of the disputed content

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629522450&oldid=629458812
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629522764&oldid=629522657
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629523783&oldid=629523126
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Dead_Redemption&diff=629528839&oldid=629524165

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABridies&diff=629524276&oldid=629314607

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: started after the user made 4 reverts

Comments: Related discussion at CFD, feel free to join in. - hahnch e n 03:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Amt000 reported by User:Origamite (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: View the page history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Oh for fork's sake. After 2 investigations, he returns immediately after the end of a week long block. Origamiteⓣⓒ 14:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's hard to tell why he keeps on doing this, from his poor grammar and spelling, but he appears to think that, per the latest round, that having the entry there will somehow lead others to think that Pitbull and Shakira were directly responsible. He's added WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE to his previous reason of WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. While this might be valid for an unsourced article, this is a section and a sourced one at that. -- Auric    talk  15:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely as this is his fourth edit warring block since July 2014 and he either can't or won't communicate about his issues. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

User:75.162.179.246 reported by User:fierman (Result: No violation)
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: [diff]

Comments:

User has been warned for similar actions on other articles only a few days ago too. User does seem to take _any_ edit personally, making editing of the article quite hard for other users. Disruptive. (not only on this specific lemma, but on some others too)

Fierman (talk) 07:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . There are only three reverts in a 24-hour window (one of the listed reverts is from October 12). Also, some leeway is given for the edit warring by the reporter while not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:fierman reported by User:75.162.179.246 (Result: Blocked)
The others are:

Special:Contributions/2001:982:EDC:1:CC06:8585:5674:E4D4

Special:Contributions/2001:982:EDC:1:A18A:5D03:2098:CEB7

Special:Contributions/2001:982:EDC:1:B055:C3A7:87B0:D119

Special:Contributions/2001:982:EDC:1:5070:1432:A5DC:DD4C

Page:

User being reported:, a.k.a. sock

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User has resorted to the use of sock-puppetry in an attempt to avoid the appearance of edit-warring, but I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that this IP address is one and the same with the person behind "fierman" (as seen on my talk page's) history.

First, shortly after I made an adjustment on Commodore 64, this fierman character came by and undid it, but then changed cloaks and walked over to my talk page to post this false accusation of my supposedly being a "sock-puppet," though, in fact, he has/is the puppet!

1. And then, after I ask him what the hell was up with that, he responds with a personal attack ("aggro," etc.) instead of just a simple explanation: 2.

Up until this point, they might've still looked like 2 people, but the bridge is when, after I made some edits at Commodore 64, he comes back and puts a false "edit-warring 'warning'" on my page using his cell-phone IP address, only to then be thinking "Oops, crap! I meant to log in as "fierman" but screwed up and used my sock puppet instead!" We can see the "OOPSIE!" changes made from 3-4 here:

3. 4. ("OOPS!") 5. (And then I remembered to look at their contribution pages until now. Here's the most telling one:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:982:EDC:1:CC06:8585:5674:E4D4 BINGO!

Uhuh! So user:2001:982:EDC:1:CC06:8585:5674:E4D4 is clearly (and the 4 other IPs I mentioned are likely) the puppet(s) of user:fierman! Not only that, but fierman/2001:... is accusing me of being and doing everything that *he*'s actually the one doing, which is projection (trying to deflect negative attention away from oneself by attributing the problems he/she has to another person).

Fierman/2001:... must be a very angry person. He falsely accuses me of taking every edit personally, when in fact I don't, but it's really clear that he gets--well, I would say "butt-hurt," but then that might be considered a personal attack back, so I won't say that--quite vengeful when it comes to someone who's adjusting editions that he seems to feel are very near and dear to his heart, such as things that he does not want done in Commodore 64 now just because I made a few tweaks, even though the things he's erasing had been there for months even before I came to tweak them! (Well, he does have a firey personality, and I'm guessing that's how he came up with his user name, as supposedly it was meant to look like "fireman" but is incorrectly spelled for that.)

Notice that from User talk:Materialscientist, fierman/2001:... also personally attacked me using the term "culprit," as if I were some kind of "criminal." HA!

So in summary, please understand that this is a report of: 1. edit-warring, 2. sock-puppetry, and 3. personal attacks. But I will file 2 and 3 as themselves in other areas here at the ANI.

Thanks for any help you have to offer! 75.162.179.246 (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . I agree with @75 about Fierman's reverts while not logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:188.230.161.116 reported by User:KazekageTR (Result: Semi-protected)
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:

he is also using User:188.230.159.96, User:109.127.230.131 and User:109.127.224.193. kazekagetr 14:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for one week. Next time, please notify the reported user as you're required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexyflemming reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629683251 by Dr.K. The consensus is just opposite: The drastic Wiki users (Alexikoua, MelbourneStar) insist protecting whereas only unknown IPs (31.153.94.183, 85.179.156.55)  wants removal."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629651029 by Dr.K. (talk) The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanction. See Talk page. Dr.K. was rejecte"
 * 3)  "Article is of NC. USA Federal Court Decision is just in the context of Northern Cyprus. USA FC: "1. Greek Cypriots cannot claim NC's government gave their homes to TCs 2. NC is a democratic republic with a president,prime minister,legislature,judiciary""
 * 4)  "United States Federal Court:"Greek Cypriots cannot claim that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots... TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judicia"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Northern Cyprus-note. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Northern Cyprus. (TW★TW)"
 * 3)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Modern history of Cyprus. (TW★TW)"
 * 4)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Northern Cyprus. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring across multiple Northern Cyprus topics. Harrassment and false allegations on Talk:Northern Cyprus and my talkpage. WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. He has been blocked before for edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

15.10.2014:07.43: I added Arbitration Committee's decision "The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanction" to Talk page of Northern Cyprus (to let Wiki users edit via keeping this in mind) 15.10.2014:07.48: Dr.K. immediately removed resulting decision of Arbitration Committee from Talk page of Northern Cyprus. ........ 15.10.2014:07.47: Dr.Κ. also reverted my edit on Northern Cyprus in the pretext that "edit-war against consensus . (The reality is just the opposite. See below:)".

But, Dr.Κ. distorted again: He presented as if there is a consensus on removing the relevant material! 14.10.2014; 20.16: (my first edit) after my first edit 14.10.2014:20.30: an unkown IP31 reverted my edit vandalistically on the pretext that "This is about a case a US court did not, actually hear.".

14.10.2014, 21.08: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Northern_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=629626577 I then presented the USA Federal Court really heared the case and decided the verdict on Talk page. I have supplied USA Federal Court decision from the official website of the Court].

14.10.2014:21.42: Wikipedian Alexikoua reacted the unknown IP31's vandalism. (edit summary of Alexikoua: "rv essential part removal"). Alexikoua is a Hellen, but neutral like me.

15.10.2014:00.37: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=next&oldid=629630417 This time another unknown IP85 appeared and removed the edit without any edit summary. Hence, essentially removed the sourced context] that Alexikoua opposes to be removed besides me.

15.10.2014:00.38: Wikipedian MelbourneStar reacted to the unknown IP85's vandalism and protected the edit.

15.10.2014:00.58: This time, Dr.K. appeared and reverted the edit with edit summary (Reverted 1 edit by MelbourneStar: Sorry Star. IP 31.xx was correct. Reverting undue POV-push by SPA. Please see Arbitration Enforcement report.) without waiting my defense in Arbitration Enforcement and the resulting decision of Arbitration Committee.

15.10.2014:05.23: Arbitration Committee rejected Dr.K.:

''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
 * The Arbitration Committee, in their infinite wisdom, determined that Cyprus does not fall under these discretionary sanctions. So unless I've missed something, this case is not currently actionable. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cyprus is not part of the Balkans and therefore not covered by the WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Closing as not actionable.  Sandstein   05:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

15.10.2014:07.45: I replace the edit whose protection is the consensus of the known Wiki users (Alexikoua,MelbourneStar).

15.10.2014:07.47: Dr.K. reverted with edit summary "edit-war against consensus"

Since when spam-bombardments from unknown IPs (31.153.94.183, 85.179.156.55) became the definition of the consensus?! The drastic Wiki users (Alexikoua,MelbourneStar) strongly opposed the removal of the edit.

Dr.Κ., please behave by taking into account the decision of Arbitration Committee (you were rejected by Arbitration Committee! WP:DROPTHESTICK!).Alexyflemming (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course, this is a misrepresentation of everything that happened. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this misinterpretation? This actually happened in the way I described above (click links). Also, How do we know that you (31.153.94.183, 85.179.156.55, Dr.Κ.) are all different? How do we know that there is really not a personification around of the same person (socks case!)?Alexyflemming (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . (or anyone else who knows) is the earliest edit in the revert list way above a brand new addition or the restoration of material previously removed?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since it's a quote from an article published only a day earlier, I don't see how it could've been a restoration. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a pattern here: Alexy frequently dumps quotes in Northern Cyprus (and other NC-related pages) from various articles and court rulings that he thinks should prove Northern Cyprus is super legit. If you call him out on his bias, he might tell you that Greeks and Armenians gotta come to terms with reality. (Do note, the topic at hand needn't have anything to do with either. ) Isn't casual racism lovely? 31.153.94.183 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Bbb23. The SPA is on a long campaign of dumping anything on Northern Cyprus articles that smacks of approval for the regime. As IP editor 31.153.94.183 mentioned, it is part of the SPA's strategy to dump information on talkpages undeterred by reliable sources and then start the edit-warring. Please see the AE report I filed today under ARBMAC which was rejected on technical grounds due to an earlier decision not to include Cyprus topics to the wider Balkan area. This is a hotbed of sock activity, copyvios and nationalist POV-pushing and this SPA is edit-warring across many articles adding the court decision despite having some of these additions reverted by other editors such as and the IP editor 31.xx., due to UNDUE or other issues. Please see diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, diff5. He then edit-wars on the same articles when reverted by other editors: diff1, diff2, diff3.  Now he is taunting me on many fora that the Arbitration committee has rejected me, personally, which is a lie. He is making misrepresentations that I have been rejected by the Arbitration committee on the talkpage of Northern Cyprus  and edit-warring with attacking edit-summaries about the AE decision. Now he is intimidating IP editor 31.xx with clueless falsehoods about Arbcom on his edit-summary: Wikipedia Arbitration Committee: "In our infinite wisdom, we determine that Cyprus does not fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanction.", which is clueless copying of 's comments at AE. He also accuses me of "disobeying the decisions of Arbcom". Clearly this is WP:BATTLE at its worst in a hotbed area as well as trolling. Conclusion: The SPA is edit-warring this information across multiple articles and will not stop while harassing and taunting the opposing editors. Thank you for your consideration. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:‎24.77.232.213 reported by User:Richard Yin (Result: blocked, 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (note that unrelated changes have been made since without being reverted)

Diffs of the user's reverts (these are unsorted, sorry):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by C.Fred

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire content and page history of Talk:Listen (David Guetta album), plus requests to participate on the user's talk page:.

Comments:

Looking at this page I see at least one report whose outcome was affected by the reporter continuing to edit war while logged out. There are multiple IP editors involved in the edit war I am reporting; this report only covers the one I have tried and failed to communicate with. To be clear, I have not edited while logged out since I registered this account. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . I had seen the IP's conduct independently of this thread. When s/he refused to respond to the requests of myself and other editors to discuss the edits on the talk page or even explain then in an edit summary, I ran out of options and blocked the IP to prevent further disruption of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob898989 reported by User:Dougweller (Result:Blocked as sock (along with 1 new sock) )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629950277 by Dougweller (talk) Actually there's no evidence about this guy's hypothesis. There's tons of evidence they have blonde and blue or green eyes though"
 * 2)  "/* Genetics */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 629911759 by Noq (talk) Bias reference stating some white guy's hypothesis. Facts only. No biased studies allowed"
 * 4)  "/* Genetics */"


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


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


 * Comments:

See also where he added White people under "Delusion may also refer to:" and the same link to the dab page Trash. Probably a sock of User:Cancer322. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Note talk page discussion and another revert. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Everything written on the Albinism page is true. Everything they wrote is complete bullshit. Why do you think you should be able to lie on that page? Because "white people" are scared to admit that they're albino? It's the first search result for albinism, so it should be an accurate description of the disorder. It's not my fault that you have Albinism.

Rob898989 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That is just more evidence this is another sock.Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777/Archive is the relevant page. Some of the edits from various socks with the same position are, , and . Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you're talking about Doug. You're seriously confused though if you think the lack of melanin in white people is different from the lack of melanin in Albinos. That's the only way people end up with lighter colored eyes, hair and skin. If brown melanin production were increased in people with OCA3, their eyes wouldn't turn blue and their hair would probably not be blonde or red(probably from pheomelanin, which is red). You've asked me to site my sources even after I posted two legitimate ones, and you can't even find evidence to prove your hypothesis yet think everyone should hear that over actual facts. I think it's obvious who is posting unproven and misleading content on that page.Rob898989 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Rob898989 --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * as a sock by User:Ponyo, along with 1 new sock. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:174.108.24.81 reported by User:Doniago (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * . Clear reverts; was warned prior to last revert. Kuru   (talk)  22:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:FF-UK reported by User:Turkeyphant (Result: no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&oldid=629795480

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629943265&oldid=629929452

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Europlug#FF-UK_is_edit-warring_again

Comments:

Hasn't violated WP:3RR due to de-escalation by me. However, is clearly edit warring and refusing to discuss outside of edit summaries. User has a history of edit warring on this page.  Tu rk ey ph an t 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . I don't see any prior edits to that article by FF-UK; is there a prior name I supposed to be looking for? There's just two reverts, and you posted to the article's talk page maybe an hour before posting here. Maybe wait and see if he responds? This seems premature.  Kuru   (talk)  22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I swear I saw warring on that article in their edit history but if you didn't find it I must be mistaken. How long should I leave it?  Tu rk ey ph an t 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Javier2005 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I won't give up to the truth"
 * 2)  "relevant source"
 * 3)  "why it is not relevant? it is a relevant source"
 * 4)  "Utah State University statement IS RELEVANT on the section "Terrorist threat at Utah State University""
 * 5)  "Undid revision 629978024 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 629974197 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629974197 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"


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


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


 * Comments:

Warned for edit-warring on a different article, clearly should understand the rule + has flagrantly violated it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango (or three in this case). User:TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof were edit warring the exact same edit to remove the wrong version rather than discussing the validity of the reference as a reliable source at the talk page, as they should have done instead. They have stopped below the 3RR hard limit, but that's not an excuse for continuing an edit war. They should be engaging the new editor instead of WP:BITEing him. I'd say a WP:BOOMERANG is in place for failing to follow proper behavior policies. Diego (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If one is being reverted by multiple users, that's a good clue that they should stop. The user made no effort to discuss the issue on the talk page and blanked all attempts at discussing the issue on his user talk page. The idea that this is a WP:BOOMERANG issue is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's obvious that one editor is new to Wikipedia, that's a good clue to follow Don't bite newcomers and stop edit warring yourself. I've seen you making three reverts to the same edit and adding a threatening message to the warning notice, NeilN making two, and TheRedPenOfDoom making another three and insulted the newcomer by implying that he had an intent to disrupt. Old-timers should know better than that, and a 24h block for edit warring would be a good reminder. Diego (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ...no. That's laughable and you know it. It's not "gaming the system" for three different people to revert an editor who is singularly edit-warring. That is literally not even a thing. The entire point of 3RR is to remind a user that if they're getting reverted multiple times by multiple editors, that they're probably edit-warring. The reported user here was reverted multiple times by multiple editors. I'll be sure to waste your time in return and make unfounded demands that you be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If all these editors had limited themselves to a single revert and had cared to properly explain how Javier's behavior was wrong, I would agree. However, you and I know that's not what happens here. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Old timers" should also know not to pass themselves off as neutral observers when they're clearly not. Diego was cautioned for edit warring on a related article. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what, you mean that civility and consensus-building can be thrown out the window when editors are involved? I've never said I'm a neutral observer (my edit history is clear at that very same article and talk pages), nor should that matter at the admin's noticeboard; what matter are documented breaches of policy. As a zero-tolerance editor against biters, my interest here is avoiding a newcomer being blocked by a tag-team. And I accept I may have been a bit leeway a couple of times recently, but you can see that I've been restraining from it, and you have yet to see mee tag-teaming against a newcomer. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consensus-building means using the talk page when you're bold edit is reverted, especially by multiple editors. Not reverting again and again, saying "I won't give up to the truth". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you know that, why did you revert twice? Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Has not participated in the talk page discussion here. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User is now at 7 reverts and shows no sign of being interested in complying with policy; all attempts at discussion on their user talk page have been blanked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also possibly related: User:187.210.189.223, which is repeatedly and without explanation section-blanking material on a related article that this editor had previously removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that has stopped edit warring after someone actually cared to explain policy instead of tagging him and trying to win. Diego (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that you're playing the victim card for someone who auto-blanked anything on his talk page. You should be blocked for 24 hours as a good reminder not to support edit warriors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No action is necessary here. We give leeway to new editors, since they can't be expected to know about our policies, but experienced people should know better.  Since Javier now understands and has stopped, it would definitely be wrong to block him.  It's tempting to block NorthBySouthBaranof, who clearly knows better and (judging by the comment of 14:10) indeed cares more about winning, but blocks shouldn't be punitive.  Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If Javier2005 has stopped, that's fine. The rest is a poor assessment, all around. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Your "has not participated" statement is out of date; since you said that, he's added three comments at the talk page.  Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If the edit warring has stopped, so much the better. But blocking NorthBySouthBaranof would be ridiculous. The problem at these pages isn't with among the "editors who know better", it's with the high number of new accounts coming in with a agenda.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why editors are expected to make the new editor feel welcome and explain the expected behavior to the newcomer, instead of throwing them full head into a trial, barely thirty minutes after the content dispute started. As an administrator you should know, follow and enforce this, instead of justifying the behavior of those who breach the guideline. Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators need to focus on the editors causing disruption rather than those reporting disruption. Here the disruption is coming from one direction: the SPAs coming here with an outside agenda, and those who enable them.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So that's your official stance as an administrator, that biting newcomers is not a disruption that merits admin attention? No wonder that editor retention is dismal. Diego (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My official stance as an editor is that we spend far to much time navel-gazing and not nearly enough time dealing with blatant disruption so that content contributors can go about the business of building any encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And in any case, using an aggressive warning message as the first comment you make to a new editor is unacceptable. , next time please use Uw-ewsoft instead; you may find that those new editors behave in a much saner way and tend to stop edit warring, instead of them becoming angered. Diego (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Marked stale by User:Nyttend at 14:16 on 17 October (see their comment above). EdJohnston (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AntiTheJakAremania reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 629981499 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629937131 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 629901345 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
 * 4)  Undid revision 629686807 by MbahGondrong
 * 5)  Undid revision 629677690 by MbahGondrong


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Persib Bandung. (TW)"
 * 2)  "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "/* RfC: Should it be shorter? */ Reply"


 * Comments:

This is an edit war that goes back two days, 56 hours, and a total of five reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I stepped in as one of the editors involved has been discussing and attempting to seek consensus (asking for my input and that of the football project and finally on the article's talk page) while the reported editor has only been reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . The user did not breach 3RR but stopped at 3 reverts. However, he has been edit warring on the same page since October 15. In addition, the user is a new WP:SPA with troubling and disruptive edits elsewhere on the project in the short time they've been here. The user's limited English and repeated use of Indonesian on talk pages makes it that much more difficult to understand what he is doing. Even though he retracted the personal attack directed at Walter, at the same time he promised to revert as often as was necessary to maintain his version of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Due to similarity of user name and activities such as here, I suspect that the blocked user have made another account AntiTheJakAremania123. MbahGondrong (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The new account has been indeffed, and the original account's block has been increased to one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Titanium Dragon (Result: Butter and Cream blocked per ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diffs of Butter and Cream's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Previous warning: He was warned about this previously by Masem, for the same article no less.

I did notify him of this action against him, but he reverted it; there was no 3RR warning on his user page prior to this action for this particular dispute, the dispute was mainly confined to talk:Gamergate controversy.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The relevant section.

Comments:

From a quick perusal of the history. The number may be higher, but they may not have been listed as such; that was just ones I found with the line "reverted" or "undid" in the edit. There appears to have been an edit war between him and over closing a topic of discussion regarding a factual statement in the article. Ryulong has had something of an issue with regards to this in the past on the article, trying to close discussion over NPOV issues that the article has had. The article has had a DRN about NPOV and undue weight issues and is presently having mediation set up to deal with these issues as the discussion became too complicated for a DRN. Ryulong has steadfastly refused to be involved in either.

Ryulong simultaneously claims that there is consensus for his point of view and that he has to continually close discussions on the subject matter, and yet refuses to participate in mediation or the DRN on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit war ended and has not continued for at least an hour. Anything now is long after the "dispute" so to call it has ended. And I did not do any such closing that he claims to have happened. I refuse to involve myself in those dispute resolution aspects because they are just new forms of forum shopping by people trying to push a POV and encountering opposition from established editors who know how the site is supposed to work. And I still stand by the fact that you, Titanium Dragon, should never have been unbanned from this topic area on that stupid loophole you discovered. And I will fight tooth and nail if I am going to be blocked over some fucking SPA meatpuppet garbage.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And what the fuck is this shit?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In my defense, my part of the "edit war" was simply opening the section Ryulong kept closing. At one point he also kept removing my additional comments to the section. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason to edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pot calling the kettle black. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. I reverted precisely once and stepped away. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At one point it seemed like even you were struggling with Ryu's edits, and seemed like you were editing out his goofs at that point. Which is what I were mostly doing in this "edit war". --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The other editor, User:Butter and Cream, is just as guilty of edit-warring. Note that the editor's complaint on ANI was closed as several editors noted that the issue is long-settled and Butter and Cream needs to drop the stick. The user's third edit was to ANI, which is rather suggestive that they know and understand policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof also edit-warred at one point. The only one who didn't partake was Titanium Dragon. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * False, as above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel someone else was involved in the edit war, provide diffs, as Ryulong and I did above. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He's blocked bro.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And Titanium Dragon, your "note that he reverted the notification" note, you warned me after you started the thread rather than before or even during the dispute. And I'm allowed to remove shit from my page if I feel like it.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. I misunderstood what the purpose of that was. Removing it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jeez, going through your history, you have been involved in a lot of disputes recently. Including one other editing reversion dispute over GamerGate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I happened to open the page just as an edit I disagreed with was made. Do you have a problem with that?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Butter and Cream has been indefinitely blocked as a disruptive single-purpose account. Ryulong should be commended for acting to prevent this account from disrupting the encyclopedia any further and this matter should be closed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is really irrelevant to Ryulong's own disruptive behavior, doubly so given that Ryulong himself was desysopped for abusing the rules in the past to get users banned who disagreed with him, and for blocking users himself. Indeed, in the light of his past behavior, I would say that additional scrutiny on this matter (and on the other user's ban) is very important here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ are you seriously going to just dig up everything bad I may have done in the past 8 years I've been on this website? People in glass houses, man.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 07:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a pattern of behavior. Generally speaking, people are not supposed to be banned for one instance of behavior, something you should know very well, given that you got in trouble for it in the past. You also had issues with baiting people, which honestly your repeated warning of others about WP:STICK and pre-emptive closing of discussions and other behavior strongly smacks of. It does take two users to get in an edit war, but sometimes one user's actions help to create one. Given that the other person got blocked, I think it is appropriate to ask this question, because, well, you do have a history of it. As for glass houses: you clearly haven't paid much attention to what I've done in the past. My snout is quite clean; I haven't been involved in anything really exciting "rules wise" outside of GamerGate. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I never fucking baited anyone. You are picking some random shit out of the "Proposed principles" section of a 5 year old ArbCom case that is not mentioned at all in any of the proposed or final findings of fact or decisions. If you want me banned, do it through the proper channels. Don't make an AN3 thread because I was dealing with someone who was not here for the encyclopedia.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The user in question brought up the question of issues about the claim that the claims were "unfounded" when in fact the source for the claim was the company whose integrity was (and has been) called into question, ultimately relied entirely on the testimony of the journalist in question (because it was a secretive personal relationship), and the source says that they found no evidence for the relationship starting prior to the publication of the article, rather than that the claims were false. That is an entirely legitimate question, and the claim that they're not here for Wikipedia is simply false - that is an entirely reasonable thing to talk about and question. We are supposed to hold to WP:BLP here, and WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL, and his question was entirely polite and well-founded, given that the only source for this is someone who has a vested interest in his company not being seen as incapable of policing its own reporters. How is that being WP:NOTHERE? This sort of thing is very important, and WP:RS even notes that inline citations for stuff like this is important, doubly so when there are potential issues of bias or conflict of interest. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not a venue to continue the content dispute which has been dealt with on a bidaily basis ever since the article left your hands.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 08:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have something against Ryulong that doesn't involve reverting a now-blocked disruptive SPA, I suggest you open an ANI thread about it rather than try and turn this thread into open season. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is for edit warring. One of the users in question was banned. It is relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously claim that the warning two weeks ago for actions on the article itself constitute a warning for archiving that thread made by an intentionally disruptive user now? Titanium Dragon, you are drawing at straws and need to be banned from the topic area again. And this request should be closed as stale.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Butter and Cream has been indefinitely blocked by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise per the ANI discussion. If this needs to be debated further, please use ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Betterday123098 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Club career */Try edit it again."
 * 2)  "/* Club career */Stop or I will report you to Wikipedia policy."
 * 3)  "/* Club career */Why don't you just read the (see this) and stop disturbing me."
 * 4)  "/* Club career */"

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


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

bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . The user did not breach 3RR but did edit-war here and on at least one other page. The edits are driven by an ethnic/nationalistic agenda.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Froboy69 reported by User:Kante4 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am sorry, what part of him scoring the only goal of this match isn't note worthy? We've ALWAYS entered the goals/assists he does for the national team. Also, it was all over social media for the type of goal he scored."
 * 2)  "Look I am sorry but we must say consistent; his history both club and nation has referenced whenever he scores/assists, and we've always done this. There's no reason to treat this goal any different even as a friendly and the goal itself gain attention."
 * 3)  "This one is. The goal itself has attracted enough attention to be note worthy and it was the deciding factor in this match. This pages VALUES every goal that he scores/assists because that's how it's been done for the last few years (3)"
 * 4)  "This one is."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "Been reverted by three different users, please stop."


 * Comments:

User consists of adding a non-notable goal to the article. He has been reverted by three different editors and been warned on his user talk page. He keeps reverting, making it 4 in a couple of hours. Kante4 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To add to this discussion he also added the content (diff ) so he has actually insterted same content five times (so far). <i style="font-family:Verdana"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru   (talk)  22:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Five reverts in 1 hour and 22 minutes, and this user knows of the consequences of breaching 3RR. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, the editor had the opportunity to self-revert explained in his talk page after his fourth revert, which he obviously declined. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts, no mitigating issues I can see. Seems to be intent on continuing. Kuru   (talk)  23:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

User:spshu reported by User:75.162.179.246 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Version before reverts:

Current version:

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:

Besides what I wrote in the talk page, let me just note how many breakages of 3RR spshu has here, vs. just general edit warring (without breaking 3RR):

If I counted right, then spshu has 2 breakages of 3RR: Diffs 3-6 (4 reversion-based editions within the same day's worth of time), and diffs 7-11 (5 reversion-based editions within the same day's worth of time). Then the other diffs constitute one general edit-warring, for a total of 3 violations so far.

Spshu has received a number of other warnings for his or her disruptive editing.

75.162.179.246 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . Certainly there's an edit war, but it appears to be just the two of you going back and forth. I've elected to protect the page and see if y'all can work it out on the article's talk page. It may be best for you to stick to using your account, instead of pretending to be separate editors and claiming consensus. Kuru   (talk)  23:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"The two of [us] going back and forth"? Did you miss spshu's reversion of Summer Fun Man's editions? When was I supposedly "pretending to be a separate editor" from someone else?

Besides that, why is it that when someone reports me for edit-warring and they were warring with me, I get warned or even blocked, but when I report them, all you do is protect the page instead of warning/blocking them?

75.162.179.246 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's fairly trivial to look at the edit history of your IPs and that account to see the significant overlap in topics, articles, and editing style. Do you really want to play this game?  Kuru   (talk)  23:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that I have the same editing style as him and so that means "we're the same people." But moving on: regardless of that, Kuru, you never even attempted to answer my other question: Why is it that when someone reports me for edit-warring and they were warring with me, I get warned or even blocked, but when I report someone from another case, all you admins do is protect the page instead of warning/blocking that person?

75.162.179.246 (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)