Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive261

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631279690 by Javier2005 (talk) You are asking us to identify the people who made the statements that The Verge is quoting when that is not what Wikipedia can or should do."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 631276514 by Javier2005 (talk) READ THE REFERENCE AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE FFS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 631275483 by Torga (talk) "Boogie" and Yiannopoulos' stories have not been addressed by any of the reliable sources stated so there is no reason to include them"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 631274145 by Muscat Hoe This revert is addressed on the talk page at Talk:Gamergate controversy in more detail than the edit summary allows"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 631270366 by Torga (talk) this isn't biased, it is accurate based on the preponderance of reliable sources that define it as such; look at the talk page; also a typo"
 * 6)  "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Unexplained blanket revert to an old version. (TW)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 631199378 by Belorn (talk) This section is indeed covered in http://www.vox.com/2014/9/6/6111065/gamergate-explained-everybody-fighting & http://time.com/3274247/video-game-culture-war/"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 631198871 by Belorn (talk) In Vox and Time at the end of the entire paragraph"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 631189092 by Halfhat (talk) this isn't bloat, part of it shows other evidence of misogyny in the community"
 * 10)  "Reverted 1 edit by Pengo (talk): Stop going "it's actually about ethics in journalism". (TW)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 631144633 by Pengo (talk) it's not an edit conflict, stop changing it to downplay the misogyny aspect"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 631144004 by Masem (talk) Masem, this is accurate to the present weight of the sources out there"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 631142985 by Pengo (talk) stop throwing the reliably sourced and almost universal description of this as a misogynist movement deep in the last sentence of the lede"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 631126833 by Tutelary (talk) Yes I am because they're reliably sourced"
 * 15)  "Reverted 1 edit by Belorn (talk): Are you reading the sources in question? (TW)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631126833 by Tutelary (talk) Yes I am because they're reliably sourced"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Belorn (talk): Are you reading the sources in question? (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Ryulong is at 15RR in this single article, and with no signs of stopping or slowing down. They have not asserted any 3RR exemption and as a result, are grossly edit warring and way over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Users in question are almost exclusively pushing a POV on the article despite reliable sources supporting the content that had been consistently removed and issues variously addressed on the talk page despite actions consistently taken by the other editors arguably in this larger dispute. This is an attempt to silence me on this issue when I have been working diligently to edit the article in a way that fits in with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that most of the editors I reverted do not care about. I should not be punished for making sure that the article is not disrupted by POV pushers simply because I'm the only one editing the page. All edits have been extensively discussed on the talk page, and as usual, I am being chastised when other editors do not adhere to the community's policies and guidelines on article content. I am simply the big bad wolf in all of this. This is just another attempt to silence me in the GamerGate debate because of my alleged position.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 04:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I will not comment on this report based on content issues. This is about editor conduct. I don't believe asserting 15 reverts on an article after being given warning for edit warring should be rubber stamped as fine because Ryulong decided he wants to be the sole caretaker of the article and to stop apparent POV pushing. 4RR or even 5RR could be justified and forgiven because of the fast paced notion of the page and loss of counting. 15RR is deliberate. Tutelary (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * has also been involved in reverting the actions of editors, as has, , , , among others. In addition, 's concerns were addressed in a self revert (I think it was a self revert because there was an edit conflict at some point). Nearly everything here is under discussion on the talk page, and I pressured the other users to discuss it on the talk page. The fact that WP:BRD is never adhered to should not be my fault.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So is 4 hours considered suitably stale considering nearly every issue that the reverts concerned have been under talk page discussion since long before Tutelary began this thread and were either resolved or in the process of resolving before the posting was made? Not to forget that due to the general sanctions, some of these might be considered acts that violate BLP as several edits called for identifying non-public figures, or denying statements made in reliable sources that effectively violate BLP.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Ryulong needs strict ongoing sanctions related to edit summaries, reverting, addressing talk page notifications, and person to person civility. These things are part of the load, of the type of editing User:Ryulong engages, but there is little to say User:Ryulong has more than a passing familiarity with the sanctioned guides for these things though they are not apparently lacking the literacy to understand.  User:Ryulong has 200k edits to the en.wiki, so it is obvious, nothing is going to lead Ryulong to appreciate the wiki community ethic, and only strict sanctions can provide a basis for them to conform, after which they may or may not develop an understanding.  These are just some entries from Ryulongs talk page archives, but it is important to note that User:Ryulong routinely deletes talk page notifications as soon as they are delivered, without addressing them, even in edit summary:           Ryulong needs to recognise, acknowledge and adequately respond in situations of resentment, and that is too tall an order for Wikipedia to insist on, but it is the basis for the initial complaints of my statement and those are not tall enough for Wikipedia to insist.  ~ R.T.G 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * RTG is just making a pisspoor attempt at a pile on. He should know that WP:OWNTALK says, and I quote (with my own emphasis) "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users." You are aso conveniently pulling threads from months ago as if that is representative of my behavior now. Most of the complaints are that I use the revert tools (vandalism revert, etc.) to remove content that is not vandalism and that is not what at all happened here. People complaining to me about reverts that I've then explained thoroughly in the threads he links to as well. I have left extensive edit summaries throughout the whole Gamergate article, been heavily involved in the talk page, and on user talk pages. RTG is simply using this opportunity to be completely ignorant of Wikipedia policy as he was in every other time he and I crossed paths, such as his complete ignorance of SPI and his trolling nature to me and whatever this behavior is called. It has now been 12 hours since Tutelary posted her first complaint. This is stale other than RTG's attempt to be a pain in my ass.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 16:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The short tempers on that page are largely the fault of an overly permissive approach to editors who are very obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Ryulong has been outright harrassed off wiki for the heinous crime of respecting WP policy. There is an ongoing pattern of disruption on that page and frustration is completely understandable.  Being 'nice' is nice, but being 'nice' while completely disrespecting the project and its rules is much more destructive than being brusque and adhering to policy.
 * But regardless, this is WP:3RRN, not the Wikiquette noticeboard. It's not the place to pursue old grudges. - TaraInDC (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the last 17 days User:Ryulong has reverted 14 talk page messages related to complaints of their editing. Most of these reverts have occured within one minute of the notification.  You've got to understand Ryulong, being a pain in "your ass" is not a personal goal I have wether I am or not.  Telling you that you battle and show flagrant disregard, well that may be a pain in "your ass".  Do you even realise, that the response to my edit you cited above, was to revert it with the edit summary "Trolling", with a capital "T" Ryulong and yet, can you remember the rest of the discussion?  You effed me out of it a bit at least when you realised I was not going to agree with you, was not going to shy away and was not going to have a tirade of abuse with you either.  The threads I have "pulled" are merely the ones you haven't deleted from your talk page archives, or, the ones you haven't gotten away with deleting because, you do routinely delete them all instantly without response, meaning that to get any sort of a background on you I have to fully examine your contributions, and I'll challenge you without quoting any policies, that talk page notifications about conduct are not to be wholesale removed without address, because that appears the same way as someone who deletes them to hide them, doesn't it?  And what is the difference after it is different because you say so?
 * Note: "...every other time he and I crossed paths..."  doesn't User:Ryulong mean that one time, we crossed paths and he followed me to a few talk pages to see if he could get a fight?  Until he couldn't settle for agreeing to disagree, and resorted to expletives and following me to other talk pages?  Does someone want me to get into diffs because I think that reverting and disputing is what this thread is about isn't it?  Look User:Ryulong, you are notorious in your interactions.  Understanding how to correct that, is not so much different from learning how to correct content.  ~ R.T.G 17:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You still bring up the issues that I've told you that WP:OWNTALK covers. I went to one discussion page where you were also highly disruptive (as evident by the fact that your thread is shut down completely before the RFC ever closed) when you were basically saying "SPI is a sham". This does not have anything to do with the edits Tutelary raised here. If you have issues with my behavior, there are other venues, but I will turn it into a WP:BOOMERANG to point out your ignorance of policies that allow me to do what you're accusng me of doing here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You really have no idea that WP:OWNTALK allows me to do whatever the hell I want with messages sent to me on my user talk page, do you, RTG?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you cannot, so you didn't read it, or, you didn't care for it, and yet you post it to me where I am supposed to develop a respect for it. And just for relevance, I reinstated the notice that this thread was open on Ryulongs talk page, and this is their third removal of it.  ~ R.T.G 17:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you saying? WP:OWNTALK allows me to do whatever the hell I want with messages sent to me on my user talk page. Per WP:3RRNO, a user's own user space (which includes their user talk page) is one of the small handful of exceptions to 3RR. You are explicitly and failing at trying to game me into violating 3RR on my user talk which I've already pointed out does not count. You are making up rules that you think will get me in trouble without actually knowing jack squat about any of the real rules and regulations on this website. You did this at the SPI and its talk page. You did this in the Archive.is RFC. You obviously must have done this in multiple other locations that I've not bothered to go to either if this is how you insist on how things are done here.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is a violation of WP:POINT (if not a massive violation of DBAD) if I ever saw one.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * See pal, you are "gaming" into it alright, but not because I am doing it to you. I did something at an RFC that I am doing here, but it's to complicated for a paragraph such as the above one to explain?  Well then according to you I didn't, but you reckon you might make it appear that I did, and you reckon doing that will be similar to posting up twenty diffs querying policy violations.
 * WP:OWNTALK, "There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details." Each guide has a spirit.  The spirit of this guide is not "whatever I want",
 * Look Ryu, you do need to address your attitude. The idea that you just haven't had the right indication yet is waning.  Don't be a dick is what you post to people who revert without edit summaries, Ryu...  ~ R.T.G 18:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at User pages? It doesn't say "no one is allowed to remove anything". It says that the removal of warnings is not forbidden. And it also says "restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule". So therefore if you decide to keep restoring the warning, you are the one violating WP:3RR and I am not. There have been multiple users who have reported me here after I reverted their messages to me on my user talk and they were the ones who ended up being blocked. You clearly don't know how the policies and guidelines work or are implimented so do not try to get me in trouble based on something you clearly do not understand.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is overrun by SPAs and POV pushers who are trying to take advantage of their numbers to shout down constructive work on the talk page and 'win' at reverting the article, making large numbers of transparently unconstructive changes like tagging cited material with citation needed tags and removing wording that was added based on an established consensus because it's 'biased.' Tutelary has consistently been very supportive of these accounts as they share an anti-feminist POV, so it's unsurprising that it's an editor who's been trying to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia policy for months who's been reported here when there are several pro-gamergate POV warriors who are clearly engaging in disruptive editing patterns. (Cue Tutelary accusing me of being an SPA because I was inactive for two months over the summer.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Eliminating Ryulong appears to be an arbitrary goal for them outside of any policy reasons. Artw (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As a new editor in Wikipedia, a so called SPA, I have to say the amount of ad hominem thrown at supposed SPAs has made me less willing to further participate in Wikipedia. Calling someone a SPA has been used many times as an ad hominem, as a way of disregarding a person's arguments because of what he is. Giving less importance to new editor is expected, but I would like to have my arguments argued against (or even ignored) instead of getting the SPA label thrown around. Awaker81 ) 14:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, maybe a few of these can be stretched to meet the limited exceptions for reverting at WP:3RR, but not all of these, and just because most of these are new accounts is not reason to claim that reverting them are allowed 3RR exceptions, particularly when the language in the edit summary is that strong. Granted some of those who were reverted are also at high RR since the sanctions have been placed, so this isn't solely on Ryulong, but this is still inappropriate behavior for the page under the sanctions. --M ASEM (t) 18:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some may qualify under WP:MEAT.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 18:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with being so permissive of SPAs on this type of article, though: it encourages groups that want to 'control the narrative' on Wikipedia to simply overwhelm the page with unproductive edits from a large number of accounts and then act like the wounded party when a far smaller number of editors try to clean up after them. -- TaraInDC (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am a long-term editor, and I find Ryulong to be hugely POV pushing and generally someone who does not edit cooperatively with established editors. The accusation that everybody who has an issue with the slant that Ryulong has injected into this article over the last several days or so is a "single purpose account" is an empty and uncalled-for accusation. For what it's worth, I think Ryulong should be sanctioned for edit warring or at least given a warning to quit acting like he owns the article, and to work with other editors. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misrepresenting what Ryulong said. You've argued since yesterday that it's "POV pushing" to summarize what the majority of the RS say about GamerGate (because it ain't nice), but Ryulong didn't call you an SPA, so please stop pretending like he accuses everyone who doesn't understand WP:NPOV. Your topic area of interest is only somewhat related ((anti-)feminism, pornography, sexuality). There's no denying that many SPAs with no understanding of WP policy or no intention of following it have disrupted the GameGate article and talk page, or that there have been coordinated attempts to get rid of Ryulong. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar ☥   19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's stale 15 hours later. The only way Ryulong would have been considered to have been edit warring is that he made a big kettle full of black coffee and stayed awake for more than 24 hours. --Pudeo' 16:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

User:RocketShoes83 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631394582 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Updated article with Controversy section; added subtext to promotional picture"
 * 3)  "Added controversy surrounding the quality of the amiibo figures"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Re: Amiibo */"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of defamatory content on Amiibo. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Only edits have been to constantly re-introduce references to reports that the supposed final versions of the figures do not resemble how they were originally presented when unveiled. It is undue to reference this, an NPOV violation to consider it "controversy", and a normal part of a product development process that is not relevant for the article.

Previous versions also included an OR-violating "Amiibo Rankings" that ranked, in the editors' opinion, Amiibo toys as being worse than Happy Meal toys. Persists despite multiple warnings. As such, this is merely a campaign to push their own POV. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You have only shown us three reverts when you need 4. Here's two more (here and here), ViperSnake151. This now brings it to five reverts. Though, there is still no talk page discussion. But as you already stated the user was fully aware that he could be blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ignore that last bit, he still at 3 reverts. AcidSnow (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:RocketShoes83 is warned that they may be blocked if they restore their material again without getting a consensus for it on the talk page. Another editor may be pushing the 3RR limit also and ought to be careful. The phrase "which could potentially dupe customers", though it is offered in quotes, appears to lack a source. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor seems to have cooled down; actually gave me a "Thanks" notification on my last revert, and the editor has not done so again. ViperSnake151   Talk  22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Vetrisimino0 reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 17:29, 28 October 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 17:42, 28 October 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 19:15, 28 October 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 20:48, 28 October 2014

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

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

Comments:

Not only has this user broken 3RR by reverting 4 times (three with main account and once with an IP) and failing to receive consensus, he has also flat out denied removing sourced content. AcidSnow (talk)
 * . The user did not revert again after being warned. Normally, given that this is a new account, I would be less inclined to block. However, in June of this year, the user was warned about edit warring on the same article. In addition, the discussion on the talk page of the article is needlessly tendentious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * He did not revert again because nobody revered him again...... I am still on one revert too, Bbb23. So it's not surprising that he didn't. AcidSnow (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. It would have been better for you to warn him after your revert but before his last revert. Nothing obliges you to do this, but it helps if you bring a report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. Usually when their reverting I would warn them before their final revert. But I forgot that he used an ip to revert the first time. So it was a bit to late to tell him to stop when he slid in his 4th revert. AcidSnow (talk)

User:188.230.168.195 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "In infobox there are supposed to be notable Volga Tatars. Halfies are not the best representatives of Volga Tatar phenotype. Plus Shaimiev and Mukhametshin  are much more notable than Mustafina and Shayk."
 * 2)  "For the forth time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox in article about Russian people."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 631384735 by KazekageTR (talk)For the third time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox on article about Russian people"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 631375592 by KazekageTR (talk) For the second time, if you think they are so famous put them in infobox on article about Russian people"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * (semi) for one month. The IP is the same person (multiple IPs) that caused me to protect the article for a week on October 15.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Rm w a vu reported by User:TriiipleThreat (Result:Blocked 36 hours )
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: Despite multiple attempts from different editors to bring awareness of WP:BRD,  has continually reverted the page to his preferred version. Rm w a vu made the initial bold change to article which was subsequently reverted. At this time, he did begin a discussion on the articles talk page but re-reverted the revert before anyone had a chance to respond. Rm w a vu went on to make 3 more re-reverts while discussion was taking place.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * - see more comments in filing above  the panda  ₯’ 10:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adamstom.97 & User:TriiipleThreat reported by User:Rm w a vu (Result:Filer blocked 36 hours )
Page:

User being reported: &

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631556662&oldid=631556459

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631556662&oldid=631556459

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films&diff=631572015&oldid=631551745

Comments: Despite my attempts to initiate and engage in a sensible discussion determining my grounds for the inclusion of a table in the article, two users removed the table without regard and with pithy dismissal for my reasoning, and clearly no intention to seek consensus. -- rm 'w a vu  05:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I reverted twice, once when I came upon what appeared to be vandalism, and again to inform the above user that a discussion should take place prior to the addition of such material. They continued to re-add the information, without attempting to discuss the issue first, taking their personal opinion as superior to the consensus of two other editors, as can be seen at the articles talk page, Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. I have no interest in edit wars or long debates, and am open to leaving the contentious material on the page if the user is willing to discuss its inclusion with myself and the other regular MCU editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I only reverted twice as well, whereas has reverted a total of four times (see below). Though he did initiate discussion, he re-reverted before anyone had a chance to respond and has since continually reverted to his preferred version of the page. After my initial revert of his bold change, he should have began discussion and made no further reverts until consensus could be reached. Sadly, this was not the case. It should be noted that I have no further edits to article after my second revert, nor will I until the dispute is settled.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Filer (see also report below).  What's clear here is that Rm w a vu performed a bold edit.  It was not accepted by the community - for whatever reason, and thus WP:CONSENSUS was against the edit at the time.  If you make an edit and it's reverted, you have ZERO authority to re-implement the edit no matter what until you have discussed the edit, and achieved new consensus.  In many cases, you will NOT gain consensus, which means your edit may not be made.  Simply starting the consensus discussion does not permit you to re-add, ever.  Although WP:BRD is an essay, it's the simplest method of understanding the responsibilities of the person who wishes to make a bold edit.  The fact that not only did Rm w a vu make the edit, re-make the edit, then continued to revert back to their preferred version while a consensus discussion took place (the exact opposite of the process), they took it upon themselves to file this AN/3RR report against the editors who clearly understood the WP:BRD process has led to a 36 hour block.  the panda  ₯’  10:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:108.250.160.174 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* County autopsy */"
 * 2)  "/* County autopsy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Independent Autopsy */ other scenarios"
 * 2)   "/* Independent Autopsy */ how is this synth?"
 * 3)   "/* Criticism of Brown Family Autopsy by Baden and Parcell */R"
 * 4)   "/* Criticism of Brown Family Autopsy by Baden and Parcell */ add ping and link"


 * Comments:

New IP repeatedly adding info cited to personal blog in violation of WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPSBLP. Content in question has been under discussion for a day+ now, but IP has not participated (or indeed ever edited before today)

They are technically only at 2RR now, but as this is BLP violating, and I would go to 3RR by reverting them again, I am reporting. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Reverting by IPs who do not wait to get consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem was one IP, as stated. Other IPs have recently made uncontroversial edits or at least given up after being reverted once. Even the problem IP gave up 26 hours before the protection was applied. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Adjutor101 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631633777 by DMacks (talk) Dear DMacks I have responded to the reservations on the talk page. Wikipedia is place were all arguments/view-points are to be represented."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 631605986 by Bladesmulti (talk) Bladesmulti these are citiations from books by  you can go check their isbns out or their publishing houses. The books are by Islamic scholars"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 631421841 by Bladesmulti (talk) aliislam.org is the Ahmadi official website, remove references 2, 7, 24, 30, 35, 37, 40, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,69, 74, 80  are all from this websit"
 * 
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Editor was blocked for 72 hours for edit-warring which was extended to a week for block evasion. The block expired 01:04, 28 October 2014 and he has returned to editwar. He's been reverted by 5 editors including me. Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * And despite the notification of this discussion, he's again reverted.19:43, 29 October 2014‎ Adjutor101 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (60,860 bytes) (+2,936)‎ . .  (Undid revision 631651680 by Dougweller (talk) If information is properly sourced: [sourced with books and accurate then why is this information being hidden?)] Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631543256 by Local hero (talk) There's no reason to remove the useful infobox showing a map of the republic. Also, the Albanian insurgency of 2001 is relevant."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 629706712 by Local hero (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was placed on strict WP:1RR per this discussion. This is a clear violation of that restriction. He has already been blocked for breaking said restriction once before. RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Alzira Peirce article; editwarring and 3RR violations by User:Margerypark
Apparent newbie, single purpose editor has engaged in edit warring and violating 3RR. I welcomed her (?), offered to work collegially if she would only specify what I got wrong in the article. I specifically warned her that she would be violating 3RR which would likely incur a block if she reverted my edits again. She has made no response, nor even acknowledged reading anything in the welcome or which I personally wrote on her talk page. I don't even know if she has read anything on her talk page. Please delete her last revert, impose block for violating 3RR despite specific warning and if possible protect the page for 48 hours. Edit warring ANI notice left. Please see and. Thanks, Quis separabit? 19:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I mean you just skip over to a newer issue?? This is ridiculous and not the first time it's happened. Quis separabit? 21:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its not a case of being ignored more of a case of an administrative shortage. Its only been here 2 hours and you can request page protection seperatley at WP:RFPP. The turn around there is normally better than the response here for that sort of request. Amortias (T)(C) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I mistakenly thought newer entries had been handled out of sequence. Quis separabit?  21:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * . The reported editor has not breached 3RR (she's made three reverts), and she made her last revert only a few minutes after your warning, so it's possible she did not see it. And you,, really need to follow the instructions on this page when filing a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the instructions and I don't see what I did wrong. Your punt on this issue ensures that Margerypark's outrageous conduct -- i.e. erasing text with barely an explanation, refusal to respond to messages on her talk page, refuse to engage civilly or collegially, etc. -- will continue. Quis separabit?  00:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm frankly astounded. Why don't you answer a modified Passover question: why is your report different from all other reports? I should have just closed it as --Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will check it out. I hardly ever report people for 3RR so I guess I didn't know. Does this mean I should make the same report that I just made over again? But it's not really 3RR, it's 4RR, so I don't have a case. I am going to have to wait for her to violate 3RR (really 4RR) again to file a new report, I guess, if she does. Anyway you declined not because of technical reasons (malformation) but substantive ones. So thanks anyway, Yours, Quis separabit?  02:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Szaboci and User:Yatzhek reported by User:106.185.47.4 (Result: )
Page:

Users being reported: and

Yatzhek's addition to the article isn't necessary in my opinion, but technically the one who broke 3RR rule is User:Szaboci (4 reverts in less than 24h - the 1st one at 18:36, 27 October 2014‎ and the 4th one at 17:09, 28 October 2014‎). At the moment of this report User:Yatzhek has a total of 3 reverts (I've also counted 2 reverts made by the IPs 195.69.81.75 and 78.9.132.188 which most probably also belong to him) 106.185.47.4 (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . At this juncture I've alerted both reported users to WP:ARBEE. Yatzhek should, of course, not be blocked for edit warring. Although the filer is correct that breached 3RR, they weren't warned of the potential breach. That said, I think it would be constructive for Szaboci to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, this won't happen again. Szaboci (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Omio Asad reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: 48 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continuously tries to add an infobox to the featured article, albeit without full success - in spite of the article containing a note advising not to add the same. Moreover, the article passed its FAC without an infobox. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked the account for 48 hours for multiple issues including edit-warring and BLP concerns.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots  17:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:46.218.48.167 reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Semi)
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: Hchc2009 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Margerypark reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Locked)
Page: User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user simply reverts my edits, without stating what is wrong, replacing my version with a resume-style, non MOS-conforming, highly inferior version (of her own). I reported this yesterday, however for both technical and subtantive reasons my report was rejected.

Now, however, she has violated WP:3RR by making FIVE reverts within the last 24 hours, despite my clear warning on her talk page to her, which I have no idea if she has even read. The warning was good will on my part as I presumed she is a newbie editor and I didn't want to bite her. She may not be a newbie, who knows? I have gone out of my way to be civil and collegial to Margerypark on her talkpage, asking, imploring her to work with me. She has never responded there or anywhere else, and I have no reason to think she even reads what is on her talk page. This apparent newbie editor believes she owns the article and possibly has some COI connection.
 * NOTE: page may need protection. I know that's another ANI dept but since I am here already. Yours, Quis separabit?  19:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I did not know another editor would be making an editwarring/3RR complaint about Margerypark, a few minutes after my own. I am leaving my own version, complementary to his, as it contains certain info which is not present in his, understandably as I am the one who initiated contact with Margerypark. The only reason my signature stamp reveals a later time, indicating that I filed this report after he did is because I worked piecemeal since I am on a library database/catalog computer (Wikipedia is accessible as part of the database) and there is no notepad accessory or even Microsoft Word access, so I made more than one trip here now, and re-signed, thus producing an apparently later time stamp, which, if true, would mean I had broken the sequence, which I would not do. Quis separabit?  20:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Margerypark reported by User:Amortias (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Corrected numerous inaccurate amendments made to article."
 * 2)  "Undid revision by Rms125a@hotmail.com which deleted accurate sourced info with inaccuracies, notably identifying Alzira's grandfather as her father."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 631642695 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
 * 4)  "As apparent from previous controversies Rms125a@hotmal.com appears to be a compulsive Wikipedia vandal."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631642695 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
 * 2)  "As apparent from previous controversies Rms125a@hotmal.com appears to be a compulsive Wikipedia vandal."
 * 1)  "As apparent from previous controversies Rms125a@hotmal.com appears to be a compulsive Wikipedia vandal."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned by another user (diff to follow) though not 3RR definetly edit warring and is so close to the revert rule is quite possibly gaming the system. Amortias (T)(C) 19:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also warned about her disruptive edits and her personal attack against .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Urammar reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1) 05:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to version 631571887 re talk page."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 631873388 by McGeddon (talk) Policy revision: DRNC, along side failure to adhere to talk page."
 * 3)  "Removing edit war based vandalism under edit war exempt wiki policy: "Do not revert for 'no consensus' ". User reported. Reminded to apply for dispute resolution per policy."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 631877063 by Sturmgewehr88 (talk) Vandalism. User referred to talk page, informed of dispute resolution request filed by McGeddon, per breakdown of talk pg/be bold policy."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Reverting other editors */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 10:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Alien (creature in Alien franchise) "RfC: "Alien" or "Xenomorph"?"
 * Comments:
 * I have also attempted to report this user for the same offence on my talk page. I'm sorry im fairly new and I didn't realise there was a page for it, I just requested an administrator. Oops, sorry.
 * My initial revision was based on the be bold policy. Further revisions to counter McGeddon's out of policy 'edit war' reversions were done under the WP:DRNC, which is necessary, and exempt from edit war counts, along with multiple warnings in our discussion regarding the issue found on my talk page, in order to facilitate resolution of the dispute according to policy.


 * User User:McGeddon was clearly instructed and warned, many times, on both the talk page and our discussions that dispute resolution was necessary for progression of the issue, and ignored them on each count, contributing unnecessarily to an 'edit war'.


 * Thank you for your time
 * Urammar (talk) 12:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:DRNC is about how it's a bad idea to revert an out-of-the-blue edit with a gruff and unexplained "no consensus", it does not mean "if an edit summary uses the magic words 'no consensus', it's always vandalism". Even the most grumpily inappropriate revert of "no consensus" to restore an article's status quo would not meet the "obvious vandalism" exemption of WP:NOT3RR. --McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd add that DNRC is also not a policy, but a community essay, and is most certainly not a case for exemption from 3RR. Yunshui 雲 水 13:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Hopefully Urammar now has a better understanding of what constitutes edit-warring. Please thrash out the RFC now on the talkpage and establish consensus for future changes. Yunshui 雲 水 14:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Nukefirestadium reported by User:Yngvadottir (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

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


 * 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 removing AfD template. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:112.208.77.48 reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: Semi)
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: TriiipleThreat (talk) first posted on this IP's Talk page and the article's Talk page. I followed up as necessary later today with the 3RR warning when the IP continued reverting without discussion. He then put in his version a fourth time. The page might be considered for auto-protection as well. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one year. See protection log for the past problems. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Abhi (Result: Locked)
Article: User being reported:

Please see revision history of the article.

I had given 3RR warning to reported user. Abhi (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

TRPoD looks to be in the right here. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we do not give undue weight to criminal allegations against living people, and unless a conviction is secured the information should be, at best, restricted to a passing mention. He's not "throwing policies randomly", he's providing you with links that explain why the content is unacceptable. If he is reverting the BLP violation which you keep re-adding, then his edits are exempted from the three-revert limit. Yunshui 雲 水 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some users use WP:BLPCRIME to censor articles. As per WP:WELLKNOWN we simply document whatever is covered by reliable sources. For example, see Narendra Modi who was never convicted in court of law, but riot allegations are covered in the article. There is no BLP violation regarding Sana Khan. Pls do not misinterpret BLPCRIME and encourage censorship on wikipedia. Abhi (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week., you're fortunate that I didn't block you for breaching 3RR and for BLP violations. And don't give me this nonsense about censorship. If you want to discuss the intersection of BLPCRIME and this article, go to WP:BLPN, but a "consensus" of two is hardly a consensus for this kind of material. Also, next time, file a report here properly.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't show me mercy if I am wrong. Those 4 sentences were added by user:Anupmehra as per WP:WELLKNOWN and they are well sourced and neutrally phrased. Don't use that magic word 'BLP violation'. 2 users are not consensus, but 1 user is 'consensus' to remove well-sourced contents, keep this weird logic with you. But it is useless to argue with some brainless admins. Abhi (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:NazariyKaminski reported by User:MastCell (Result: Indeffed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:28, 30 October 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:27, 30 October 2014
 * 2) 17:31, 31 October 2014
 * 3) 19:01, 31 October 2014 (undoes this preceding edit)
 * 4) 19:19, 31 October 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NazariyKaminski is well aware of the 3RR/edit-warring policies, having been blocked three times for edit-warring in the past few months.

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

Comments:

NazariyKaminski has been blocked 4 times this year, most recently for 1 month for edit-warring. He's doing it again. His contribution history consists of nothing but relentlessly tendentious, combative, hyperpartisan edit-warring and invective, and it is unclear to me why he retains any editing privileges at all on this site. In any case, this is a clear 3RR violation (and clear edit-warring) from an editor with a long, recalcitrant history of the same. MastCell Talk 20:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There are always problems where one editor appears to be trying to make contiguous edits and a tag is placed while the series of edits is ongoing. Probably the best course is to lock the article until the election is over at this point. Collect (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that in the same time period User:Cwobeel made 4 reverts in 28:25 hours and that User:Somedifferentstuff made 4 reverts or partial reverts in 24:08 hours. Both of those users have also been blocked multiple times for the same reasons in the past, Cwobeel being blocked 3 times this year, though most recently only for 4 days. Juno (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you're going to allege violations or near violations of 3RR, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * apologies, Cwobeel at 14:41, 20:35, 16:50, and 19:06, and SDS at 19:03, 18:55, and 18:57 and the respective block logs: 1, 2. Juno (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks. With respect to the 16:50 revert by Cwobeel, I'm not going to count that per the BLP exemption. He identified it as a BLP issue, and I've verified that the sources don't mention the two people he removed. As for SDS, you've only identified three reverts. Also, I might add that SDS's previous blocks are much older (2013 and 2011).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, just wanted everything out there. Juno (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries,, it's always a pleasure to deal with thoughtful, civil editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My first edit today was an attempt to address NK’s concerns, offering a compromise version, after a long discussion in talk at Talk:Greg_Orman. Other edits today included adding dispute tags , and restoring the tags after these were deleted by NK. And this edit  was to remove content that was unsourced per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Reallibertyforall reported by User:Muboshgu (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:

Comments: The user is a single-issue account, pushing the campaign of Robert Sarvis in the aforementioned election. A poll of millenials only is the issue, and every editor but this one has found it to be irrelevant. There is a history of this user trying to push Sarvis on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013.

I am not a single-issue account. I have updated various other pages. I can reference these pages if you wish.

As for the poll, it was conducted by Christopher Newport University's Center for Public Policy (previous polls conducted by this university are listed under the polling header). Thus, the poll isn't unsuitable. Also, the poll is referenced by national, state and local news outlets for its implications. I have added references to these outlets and articles. Therefore, it's not an irrelevant poll and should be noted on the page.

Next, users Tiller54 and Moboshgu have teamed up and blanked other sections that run contrary to their opinions on other pages. One example would be: Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Just look at the page history and talk page.

Antarctica4Liberty 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Truthteller1008 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: prior version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 15:41, 31 October 2014
 * 2) diff 17:08, 31 October 2014
 * 3) diff 19:29, 31 October 2014
 * 4) diff 19:43, 31 October 2014
 * 5) diff 19:52, 31 October 2014
 * 6) diff 20:26, 31 October 2014


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:

Obvious sock of another editor, per this. Behavior is probably vandalism but this seemed moderately more respectful. Please block for a week. User is completely out of control. thanks.Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've endorsed a CU at the SPI, although after looking at the content added by the two accounts, it's probably not needed. Still, assuming a CU is performed, it will confirm the relationship.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jfmisha reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is relevant information showing the firm's recent performance. It is referenced. Undid revision 631803127 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 2)  "The information is supported by the source. Undid revision 631802899 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 631875151 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 4)  "Because it's relevant to the firm's comparative performance. I'm watching this and will undo it if you keep deleting my sourced additUndid revision 631880466 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 5)  "You clearly work for the firm. Stop undoing sources edits or I will report you. Undid revision 631893146 by Theroadislong (talk)"
 * 6)  "The information is referenced. If you keep deleting it I will report you. I have your IP. Undid revision 631994854 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 632003816 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632003816 by Maxitrillian LG (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned by User:Theroadislong 31 October 2014 15:00 UTC NebY (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A series of users, I suspect the same person operating under different user names, keep on deleting my updates to the above pages. These updates are referenced and sourced. They now appear to have reported me for attempting to stop them from deleting my contributions. Regards, Jfmisha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfmisha (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've had problems with Maxtrillian etc deleting referenced material from pages that I've edited. I suspect he works for the firm in question. Best wishes, Wptraineem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wptraineem (talk • contribs) 13:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * for violating 3RR, making personal attacks (socking accusations), and removing this report., this is a formal warning that if you edit-war again, as you did in this article, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Chinmay.bhise reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632033153 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632032755 by 106.198.11.41 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632030829 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632030822 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 632030722 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 632030620 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 632030175 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 632029628 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 632029225 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632030175 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632029628 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632029225 by BeingIndian593 (talk)"
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comments:

Naming dispute, with constant changes back and forth between the city's name in the Marathi language (which is the majority language in the city) and the name in the Kannada language (which is the official language in the state that Belgaum currently belongs to, since it's involved in a territorial dispute between two Indian states...), SEE ALSO REPORT BELOW. Thomas.W talk 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Thomas.W talk 18:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:BeingIndian593 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed typo"
 * 2)  "Fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Fixed typo"
 * 5)  "Fixed typo"
 * 6)  "Fixed typo"
 * 7)  "Fixed typo"
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an ongoing event, so by the time someone looks at this they will have racked up a considerably higher number of reverts... Thomas.W talk 17:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


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


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


 * Comments:

Naming dispute, with constant changes back and forth between the city's name in the Marathi language (which is the majority language in the city) and the name in the Kannada language (which is the official language in the state that Belgaum currently belongs to, since it's involved in a territorial dispute between two Indian states...), SEE ALSO REPORT ABOVE. Thomas.W talk 17:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Thomas.W talk 18:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:SonicJTT reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 2)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 3)  "/* Series overview */Fixed vandalism"
 * 4)  "/* Series overview */It has to say "Seasom premiere" and "Season finale" not " First aired" and "Last aired""
 * 5)  "/* Series overview */It's not supposed to say "First Aired" "Last Aired"" added by


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * . The user violated 3RR. However, their fourth revert came before they were warned. In addition, there's been no attempt to talk to the user about the content dispute. Finally, they are a relatively new account. That said, because of my concern that the user does not understand the policy, I've urged them to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Despite 's request on the editor's talk page, has chosen not to respond here, but instead has reverted yet again. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:08, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Thanks, .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like he has resumed as - per this edit Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bangbang43 reported by User:Wiki-senetor (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Music */"
 * 2)  "/* Music */"
 * 3)  "/* Box office */ poor source"
 * 1)  "/* Box office */ poor source"
 * 1)  "/* Box office */ poor source"
 * 1)  "/* Box office */ poor source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Twenty:20 (film). (TW)"
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Twenty:20 (film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continueing edit war, providing fake informations contradicting the source, removing highly reliable sources, promotionals. unlicensed image uploading. user has previously blocked. Wiki-senator 20:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The same disputants were blocked on 23 October per Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive260. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

by Mfield. --Stickee (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend an extended block for both User:Wiki-senetor and User:Bangbang43. I have repeatedly warned both accounts, and gave them each a very stern warning (see here and here). Neither has made any attempt at communication on this point, either at the article's talk page or on their respective talk pages. Wiki-senetor continues to revert war over not just the image on the article, but the order of the stars in the film which Bangbang43 has changed and with the latest reversion on the article Wiki-senetor has once again reverted . This edit war has gone on long enough. It's ridiculous, petty, and needs to end. Neither editor seems to care about their role in the edit war, and both have been extensively warned and previously blocked for this edit war. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also note that both editors have engaged in relentless edit warring at Mammootty filmography and at RajadhiRaja. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:William0004662 reported by User:Jojalozzo (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The French version of this article for Uninterruptible Power Supply contains a section for Manufacturers, and there is a list up there. Why not doing it with the English version also? I have added some manufacturers that I knew with a link to the website"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 631941394 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Please help me add more manufacturers on this list. Thanks!"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 631941394 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please help me add more manufacturers on this list. Thanks!"


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


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


 * Comments:

New user. AGF but not hearing. Go easy. Joja lozzo  00:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Reported user has apparently abandoned the battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kube8 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Weeks at No. 1 */ WTA has already declared Serena year end #1. Barring unlikely circumstance, this will be the case & can be post-dated for convenience. Players may remain on the rankings after retirement.  Li Na is retired and still ranked."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632039088 by Fyunck(click) (talk)  She has already been declared year end #1 by the WTA.  Barring a bizarre circumstance she IS year end #1.  No crystal ball needed."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632049866 by Wolbo (talk) Under whose authority? She IS year end #1.  That is the certain outcome.  The unlikely outcome she will not be. In this case, what will be is what it is."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632057669 by Fyunck(click) (talk) cite your guideline"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 632095041 by Wolbo (talk)  For general ranking updating, yes that's all it refers to.  WTA already issued a news release on Oct 25th stating year end #1 statistics as fact. refer to source"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Please be careful in ranking updates */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* 3-revert rule broken */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

I asked and waited to give the guy a chance to self-revert and when he came online all he did was revert another article. So he reverted multiple editors, was warned, was asked to self-revert lest he be reported, and continues to revert other articles. Right or wrong he can't keep going against consensus and should bring it to article talk pages to change our minds. I think 5 reverts is going a bit too far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnnie Ray
Please visit Johnnie Ray article. Please read edit summaries from last several edits. Thanking you in advance. When you check Talk page, you find that one of the two editors consistently refuses to say anything there. The dispute is a borderline edit war -- not one yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.50 (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:FourthLineGoon reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 00:01, October 30. Added "heavy metal" – not a revert.
 * 1)  17:45, October 30. Re-added "heavy metal".
 * 2)  04:26, November 1. Re-added "heavy metal" but with three unreliable refs.
 * 3)  17:12, November 1. Removed "hard rock" with ref and re-added "heavy metal" with no refs.
 * 4)  17:25, November 1. Removed "hard rock" with ref and re-added "heavy metal" with no refs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:19, November 1.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 15:20, November 1.

Comments:

FourthLineGoon has been edit warring the genre "heavy metal" into the article, but without satisfactory referencing. FourthLineGoon has also been removing the respected Allmusic prose review. The four reverts shown here are spread over 48 hours, not 24. FourthLineGoon was invited to discuss the issue but did not, and he was warned of edit warring, but he chose to revert one more time after the warning. Technically 3RR was not violated but edit warring has been demonstrated. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note for those readers who are new to genre warring, which is a very troublesome issue and has been for years. The WikiProject Albums put together a guide for albums, songs and musical artists which says to avoid any genres listed in the sidebar of an otherwise reliable source. The guide says to use the prose review instead. See WikiProject Albums/Sources. Allmusic is listed as a reliable source. Discogs.com is mentioned as unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

defleppard.com citing a VH1 list seems reliable enough. Not sure how that's not reliable.
 * Bulleted list item "Genre Warriors almost never provide sources beyond their own knowledge, blogs, YouTube and MySpace. Reliable sources and consensus are alien concepts to them."

This is very interesting because Binksternet's source specifically refers to On Through The Night which has always been cited as a NWOBHM album and isn't really an issue. That can easily be sourced...because it literally is in the review for On Through The Night. This review specifically refers to the genre as NWOBHM. It also specifically mentions similarities to both Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. http://www.allmusic.com/album/on-through-the-night-mw0000652946

My argument is that Binksternet has a bizarre agenda and Heavy metal and Hard rock should both be used for consistency, with allmusic as a source.--FourthLineGoon (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:96.248.19.203 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverting disruptive editing by Diego. moving Historical Accuracy from its original position under Plot is being discussed in Talk. please don't make any changes until a consensus has been reached"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632121565 by 2.136.177.224 (talk) Please read Talk before attempting to move Historical Accuracy. Consensus has never been reached."
 * 3)  "minor edits, added further information about the movie's premiere, and moved the section back to its original position under Plot"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632242653 by Favre1fan93 (talk) make sure you read Talk before you make major changes like moving a section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Slow moving edit war (so not necessarily 3RR violation, but still against WP:EW). Previously blocked 1 week for warring on the same page. Stickee (talk) 05:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Cwik One reported by User:Avono (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The deleted part is not an actual controversy. I earlier deleted the part that asserted FSP supported Mr. Purdy, impliedly as a convicted pimp and rapist. The content of the letter to the editor did not address his convictions."
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */ I deleted parts of the second sentence for accuracy and then moved what remained to what becomes the fourth sentence.  When FSP publishes letters to the editor in the FS it does not necessarily support the authors or views in them."
 * 3)  "The section went on about Mr. Purdy's convictions. His letter to the editor critiqued society. FSP could've been unaware of them and does not actively support him. FSP's political prisoner support is an unremarkable controversy to highlight by itself."
 * 1)  "The section went on about Mr. Purdy's convictions. His letter to the editor critiqued society. FSP could've been unaware of them and does not actively support him. FSP's political prisoner support is an unremarkable controversy to highlight by itself."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Freedom Socialist Party. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

removes content without reaching a consensus in the article (has been reverted 3 times) Avono♂ (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 16:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632142827 by Jimintheatl (talk) you're being ridiculous. get a life. authors can respond to criticism."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632110350 by Jimintheatl (talk) reverted partisan edit."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632058841 by Jimintheatl (talk) author can respond to criticism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 631949165 by Jimintheatl (talk)reverting vandalism by leftist partisan"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * Clearly edit-warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. I don't see a recent warning. The user has been around since 2006 and had already been blocked in 2009 for edit warring, so he should be aware of the policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimintheatl reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632142141 by Thismightbezach (talk)author's self-promotion is not RS; identify any Wiki policy that supports this edit"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632069774 by Thismightbezach (talk)author's self-promotion not RS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632057457 by Thismightbezach (talk)self-promotion by the author is not a RS"
 * 4)  "Bill O'reilly's self-promotion on his own website not a RS"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I recognized I was heading down the edit-warring path, which is why I stopped and reached out to admin user:Dougweller for assistance.--Jimintheatl
 * Clearly edit-warring. Less aggressive edit summaries than his partner in crime, though (see next section). I don't see a recent warning. The user has been around since 2005, and had already been blocked, the last time in 2010. So he should be aware of the policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 17:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:বব২৬ reported by User:Ogress (Result: both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Initial revert
 * 2)  Second revert
 * 3)  Not having any feedback, I tried a compromise: reverted
 * 4)  Reverted
 * 5)  Reverted.

Diff of edit warring with repeat revert warning: (reverted) Second, 3RR-specific warning: (reverted with comment: "m (reverted unconstructive edits, warning invalid)")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user appears to be acting as page "owner" and not only reverts changes I make, mass-reverts, despite me requesting he not revert the entirety of the editing I've done on the page but focus on the issue. The user also doesn't appear to have investigated the changes, as he claims (for example) that Bengali is a "script" not an "alphabet" and I therefore harmed the page, but the correct wikipage is in fact Bengali language. (Most of my editing is spelling, grammar and wikilink redirect fixing in the first place: wikignome.) He also doesn't actually *talk* on the talk page, as you can see.  Ogress  <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  05:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I warned the user as required but he reverted it:


 * Make the talk complete. Please study the article and do not make unconstructive edits. Thank you. বব২৬ (talk) 05:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with bengal language or culture, What I wanted to point out is don't call other edits as unconstructive if they are doing them in good faith. Always try to solve the dispute without harming others feelings. Everyone makes mistakes even বব২৬ made some mistakes before such as this one-- Chamith  (talk)  08:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I corrected it later. I mentioned The User's edit as "unconstructive" because The User edited without understanding it properly. Thank you ^__^ বব২৬ (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * &mdash; both and  warned for 3RR / edit warring. Take it to the talk page and seek dispute resolution. -- slakr  \ talk / 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Discospinster reported by User:Lost.wolf.10 (Result: reporter blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lost.wolf.10 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am Michael Coleman's nephew. He went into cardiac arrest on Saturday morning during dialysis and could not be revived. There will be no news articles or other reliable sources as he was not a high profile celebrity. This needs to be edited for any who may not have been informed of his passing. My mother posted funeral arrangements on my uncle's Facebook page. Please read them for yourself or call the funeral home so you know that he is in fact deceased.

Lost.wolf.10 (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In other words, you're a single purpose account with a conflict of interest (if we assume you're who you say you are), who has repeatedly added unsourced claims to a biographical article that requires sources for any new information.
 * If you are really his nephew, I'm sorry for your loss, but you have to understand that we can no more verify your claims than you could verify my claims if I said I'm Bill Murray. That is why we need some sort of news source or else we have to assume he's still alive to avoid including any slanderous claims.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, Lost.wolf.10 is the one edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment/clarification In no way endorsing what is going on or providing an opinion once an obituary is posted in a paper would this satisfy the Reliable source requirement?- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Provided it established that it was indeed the blues musician and not just some guy named Michael Coleman, and no sources came up demonstrating that he's still alive, it probably would. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And key would be establishing that it's this musician. I did a cursory search of Facebook and found two or three other Michael Colemans but not this one; I was hoping I could link from the subject's Facebook page to something published by the funeral home. —C.Fred (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that the name is kinda common. Nor does help that (judging from how often I saw this from customers "in a band" and listed performers at local festivals) there seems to be a trend among older musicians to use stage names that are easily confused with someone who's more notable, e.g. "Jamie Brown," "Ray Charlie," and "Steven Wonder." Not that that's the case here.  I hope. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 17:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:110.168.229.30 reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Proposed merge with GQ Thailand: Just because it's GQ. The US edition got nothing to do with other edition. So that why other GQ should have their own page, for example GQ Australia, GQ India and etc. This apply to all other Vogue editions too."
 * 1)   "Proposed merge with GQ Thailand: Just because it's GQ. The US edition got nothing to do with other edition. So that why other GQ should have their own page, for example GQ Australia, GQ India and etc. This apply to all other Vogue editions too."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Talk:GQ. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Talk:GQ. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Talk:GQ. (TW)"

(see below)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Don't know how well Twinkle handles this. A range of IPs, 110.168.229.xx(x), persistent low-level warring at GQ Thailand, now also at GQ and Talk:GQ. Attempts to initiate discussion here by and here by. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected six months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The article history indicates problems with spam and copyvio since September 1. Fifteen versions [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=GQ+Thailand were rev-deleted] due to copyright. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sy9045 reported by User:The Banner (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "once again, some editors are trying to bury information without any justification or attempts to reach a consensus"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632347436 by The Banner (talk) WIKIPEDIA REQUIRES A DISCUSSION BEFORE REMOVING CONTENT"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632348512 by The Banner (talk) The_Banner is violating Wikipedia policies and burying widely sourced information without justifying reasons. Shameful behavior"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632348811 by The Banner (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 632351381 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Wikipedia does not remove content based on your criteria. Please justify your reasons in the talk page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 632352575 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) You two are burying information without a justification. What Wikipedia policy justifies your removal of content?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Attempt for discussion */"
 * 2)   "/* Editors are removing content without a discussion */"
 * 1)   "/* Editors are removing content without a discussion */"


 * Comments:

Restart of an earlier editwar about the same content that caused the article to be protected. A rewrite of a third party was bluntly reverted <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Banner is getting into an edit war by removing content without a discussion. Please see the Talk page on JournoList. He is using ad hominem attacks against me, refuses to answer which multiple reliable sources he has issues with, refuses to answer why he thinks the page is not neutral even when cited by the same sources that employed the JournoList members in question, and constantly reverts changes without citing any Wikipedia policy for his reasons. Sy9045 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did not break the 3-revert rule. All four reverts are entirely your own work because you did not accept a rewrite of your non-neutral version. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 00:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally removing content without a discussion (widely sourced from various multiple reputable sources), other than ad hominem attacks against me. I have repeatedly asked you for your reasons for removal but you have resorted to insulting me instead.Sy9045 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This user is now up to 5 reverts. The multiple policy-related issues with Sy9045's version of the article are being discussed on the talk page, but contrary to the bold, revert, discuss cycle, they insist on edit-warring to their preferred version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators, these two editors are removing content without having a discussion or justifying their reasons based on Wikipedia's content removal policies. They are refusing to answer my questions in the Talk page and continue to remove content without any good faith at a resolution. Please read the JournoList talk page to see what I'm talking about.Sy9045 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, see the talk page where I have specifically explained the multiple policy-related issues with your massive rewrite of the article and requested that you discuss your proposed major changes and gain consensus, because they are not uncontroversial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I responded to you. Did you not see that? Various multiple reputable sources cited what I added to the page. Why are you removing content from these citations? You instead removed the content without any further discussion.Sy9045 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you "responded" to my concerns does not mean that there is consensus for your version. We can continue the discussion, but your bold edits have been reverted and it's time for you to discuss your proposals and gain consensus that they are suitable for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User is now at six reverts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You reverted without any attempt at discussion.Sy9045 (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. As is obvious, no, there's been attempts at discussion, you just refuse to acknowledge their validity. 2. You're bright-line edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT editor with a chip on their shoulder who won't drop the stick.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Reding tremk reported by User:Stesmo (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632348452 by Stesmo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632347949 by Stesmo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632347429 by Stesmo (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632345158 by Eeekster (talk) this image helped every single of my friends, you troll!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome & removed test notice"
 * 2)   "Vandalism2 warning"
 * 3)   "Vandalism3 and WP:3RR notice"


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


 * Comments:

Editor Reding tremk has run afoul of the WP:3RR brightline by reverting the removal of their questionably useful photo in the article Reading Terminal Market. Editor's behavior on the article, other editor's Talk pages and WP:AVN lead me to believe the editor is WP:NOTHERE and will continue edit warring with anyone who removes the photo.

I'm bowing out from editing this article for now to avoid any 3RR violations, though I believe this falls under the 3RR exemption of "Reverting obvious vandalism". Stesmo (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The reported user has reported the OP at WP:AIV, I've raised my concerns with their report there. Stesmo it's probably unnessecary to coment there. Amortias (T)(C) 23:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reding tremk is a sockpuppet of a long-term vandal. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLI reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Note that the editor was recently warned for edit warring on another article. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warring warning for Lee Zeldin:

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) thread with input from User:Champaign Supernova, User:ABarnes94, and User:CFredkin
 * 2) The lead up thread to the above thread with input from User:ABarnes94 and User:Champaign Supernova, and one line from User:BlueboyLI.

Diffs of messages left on user's talk page asking user to join talk page discussion:
 * 1) by User:Champaign Supernova
 * 2) by User:Champaign Supernova
 * 3) by User:Champaign Supernova
 * 4) by User:ABarnes94
 * 5) by User:CFredkin
 * 6) by User:Shatterpoint05

Comments:

Note also a fifth identical revert to Tim Bishop in the same 24 hour time period by IP 104.207.136.83 after BlueboyLI was given the 3RR warning. BlueboyLI has also been edit warring on Lee Zeldin. A similar pattern of repeated edits by BlueboyLI on Lee Zeldin followed by BlueboyLI's edit being repeated by this same IP strongly suggest that this IP is BlueboyLI. Similar patterns of edit warring on these two articles by BlueboyLI followed by a continuation of the edit war by an IP can be seen in the page histories Meters (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Blueboy for four days and the IP for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

There are discussions here and here, He simply doesn't care about anybody's opinion. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I do. And we're trying to reach a consensus at the Olympic project. I see you've reverted the sourced edit five times already. I'm happy to continue the discussion, to reach a compromise. I see you logged this sometime after the discussion was started on the Olympic project, that we are both involved in.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I really tried to solve the problem and I thought you will hear other's opinion. after all, I thought it was very obvious and clear, I still can't believe we are arguing about this, I'm not sure if I did a mistake here or not but you did, that's for sure. I'm done arguing with you about this case, that's why I came here. Mohsen1248 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, we're trying to reach a consensus at the talkpage in question. It would be useful for you to input, rather than bringing it here mid-discussion.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. It looks like a discussion is continuing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics. Let's hope there will be no further changes to the article until agreement is reached there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user clearly believes that discussion is secondary to reverting, since he's right anyway. I've run out of reverts, so I'm forced to come here, unfortunatley. zzz (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC) We have discussed the topic on my Talk page and the user believes his version of the referenced source is more viable than others ability to edit to improve said article. Anyone who reads the source will come to the same conclusion I have in that the section in question misrepresents the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsquid (talk • contribs) 01:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned. It appears that two editors have been steadily reverting each other about the Iranian precedent since November 1. There are six or more edits by each party and most of them are reverts. Whoever makes the next revert in this series is likely to be blocked, unless you first get consensus on Talk. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section he objected to. I didn't much like it either. I've no idea what this warning refers to. But I guess it doesn't matter much in this case. zzz (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (I guess I kind of just answered my own question, actually)zzz (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:JoetheMoe25 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

Comments: These are four reverts made to the Tupac Shakur article which occurred in one hour and 3 minutes. I have given the user the recommended notice and also acknowledge that the user and I have not gotten along, but I feel the dispute needs to be resolved through consensus and that they to be blocked for violating the rule. I have already tried discussion on the Talk:Tupac Shakur as well and I seek a fair mediator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoetheMoe25 (talk • contribs)


 * Comment OP has violated the WP:BLP policy by inserting contentious information not reliabley sourced. TheRedPenOfDoom's removal are covered by the exemptions to WP:3RR. Amortias (T)(C) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You also failed to notify him as per the instructions at the top of the page and when you filed the report. I have now done this. Amortias (T)(C) 22:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RRNO, "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is exempted from 3RR. While Tupac is dead, the material in question is about someone who is still alive.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * JoetheMoe25 for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:76.6.214.108 reported by User:59.188.252.159 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 

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

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

Comments:


 * (semi) for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.12.61 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are a few prior discussions on the article's talk page at Talk:WCCO-TV.

Comments:

IP made 11 Reverts in 24 hours under the impression that their edits do not need consensus, and restoring names that do not belong in the article per WP:LISTPEOPLE. - Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Since filing this I've started a talk page discussion here and the IP has continued to revert from a different IP address. - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP believes that external links don't need consensus and ascribes this novel idea to the WP:EL guideline. What we enforce here is the WP:Edit warring *policy* where there is no mention of an exemption for external links. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Megwood221 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Indeffed)
Page: User being reported: Formerly Stephaniemuue, StephanieLarkin, et al; see the sockpuppet investigation archive here

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

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

NO, this editor is way too far gone to attempt communication.

Comments: This editor has a long history under other usernames (Stephaniemuue, StephanieLarkin and several other aliases) of making insane edit changes, primarily to Ryan O'Neal's article, but also to related articles (Farrah Fawcett; Charles O'Neal, Ryan's father). Quis separabit? 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/Stephaniemuue. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely based on SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 reported by User:AmritasyaPutra (Result: Three editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


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


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


 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:Vishva_Hindu_Parishad (Info Note: One user has edited this section under two different Wikipedia user names)


 * Comments:

Vanamonde93 is expressly purging referenced content initially added by another editor long ago, which I added back and he keeps removing it repeating that he is not satisfied by response on the talk page discussion; without waiting for a consensus or response, he reverts immediately after putting his comment. Technically this is not 3RR violation. But Vanamonde93, two weeks back also, has reverted another user 3 times in 24h, ,. <span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 06:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Having watched this debate from the beginning, I think there is hardly anything to fault in 's conduct. The point raised by them in the diff [5] ("undue weight") has not yet been answered even though  reinserted the contentious material every time it was deleted.  Until AmritasyaPutra understands and addresses/concedes the point, I don't see why their preferred version should be on the article page.  The edit war is entirely due to AmritasyaPutra's failure to join the debate on the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve the dispute" on their part, merely sticking to guns. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: Kautilya3 is an involved party, Consider the above Info Note too. Comment: Please validate what Kautilya3 is alleging. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 09:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. There is now law against being involved in a debate, as far as I know! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not certain what AP is trying to achieve here, as he has as many reverts as I do. I don't believe my behavior is block worthy; I don't think I have hit 3RR, and certainly have not breached it. Yes, you can edit war without hitting 3RR, but if somebody takes a look at the talk page, they will see that successive reverts only followed after discussion, and came because AP has been refusing to discuss the issue of the relevance of the content removed, and insists on talking about the reliability, and the fact that it has been in the article for a while, despite myself and Kautilya repeatedly telling him that we were not disputing those. This tendency seems to have continued in his report as well. Finally, my last revert was eleven hours ago, and I have since posted to the talk; without a 3RR breach, any block would surely be punitive at this point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You agreed reliability and notability are not the issue. Your stand is "it is not relevant to the lead" though you agree it is relevant to the article, is there a guideline for it that you followed to revert six times immediately after your own comment? I have responded categorically. I do not have as many reverts -- you reverted two editors. --<span style="font-family: Tahoma, Geneva, sans-serif;color: #FF9933">AmritasyaPutra T 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:AmritasyaPutra, User:Kautilya3 and User:Vanamonde93 are all warned that they may be blocked if they revert the lead again before getting a clear consensus on the talk page. A 2:1 majority in Talk:Vishva Hindu Parishad is hardly a decisive verdict. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution which can bring in outside views. One option is an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lowlihao reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Sarted reverting here; see page history.
 * 2)
 * 3)  (Started reverting here; see page history
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This individual usually makes incremental changes that will eventually revert to their preferred version. Some of the diffs above merely illustrate the beginning of the reversion. They seem to be new and/or are English-challenged. Anyway, it's disruptive.  Tide  rolls  13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Stale. User has not edited for three days. Refile if this continues. When edits are so infrequent, there is not much to do other than full protection or a long-term block. Either one would require more effort to contact the user. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Tina cain reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Both pages semi-protected and user warned indeffed.)
Page: and

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Harry Reid

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632577480&oldid=632571741

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632580063&oldid=632577794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632581989&oldid=632581529

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632583056&oldid=632582490

Mitch McConnell

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632576855&oldid=632574121

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632579920&oldid=632577825

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632581415&oldid=632580952

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632582224&oldid=632581703

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632584338&oldid=632583789

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632579936&oldid=632579716

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632581904&oldid=632579936

User notified of this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632584461&oldid=632584399

Comments:

Comments by filer: Editor keeps changing the job titles of the US Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader after being advised that they haven't taken their new positions yet Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Up to 7RR on each Senator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely by User:Edgar181 Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:PrithiviRajWiki reported by User:Stesmo (Result: Blocked and page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632443374 by 90.229.226.117 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632435371 by 130.235.2.69 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632432607 by 109.58.147.56 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632409859 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 632405869 by 2.71.224.141 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 632400938 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 632396796 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 632394345 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit war warning... Please hash out your issues in the article Talk page."


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


 * Comments:

Involved in a pointless edit war with another editor(s). Warned on editor's Talk page and started discussion in article Talk. Stesmo (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * and Cell ID Pictogram voting support.svg Fully protected&#32;for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. The two companies fighting for top place are based in Sweden and India. Co-incdientally the two users fighting happen to be from India and Sweden. In fact, one of the users is called User:Unwiredlabs (one of the companies on the list). Stickee (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Just noticed your AN thread. Stickee (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbaDeTamble reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: blocked 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632627762 by Goblin Face (talk) Stop reverting my edits. The previous version was very biased."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632632316 by Vsmith (talk) I make legit edits and you keep reverting. Stop trolling!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632646304 by Goblin Face (talk) You are not listening. It's biased. You have an agenda. Admit it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632650214 by Roxy the dog (talk) I took it to Talk. Why don't you answer there instead of just undoing my work?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Just because you disagree does not mean you can misrepresent */ repeated removal of source content against consensus = EW"

Apparently the so-called skeptics are ganging up on me. A well-coordinated effort to prevent my edits. No actual responses to my arguments in the talk page, just bullying. Nicely done trolls. --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Well, "trolls"? That's harassment on top of edit warring. Blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Villaged reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Polygamy */ Inserted language about the youngest wife."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632588446 by Adjwilley (talk) There was consensus before you started your editing.  This information brings the context of the controversy.  It's cited, it goes in."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632583411 by Adjwilley (talk) This information is what is needed to understand the issue in Emma's head, which is referenced in the paragraph.  Reverting back to supply context."
 * 4)  "/* Polygamy */ Placing the fourteen year old wife back in.  This marriage is a fact.  This clearly and  properly shows the age range of the wives."


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


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

I added information that others immediately reverted. Why am I being the only that is being castigated for this? I've taken the advice and taken the edit to the talk page. Villaged (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:82.136.210.153 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

Here's an odd one. A Dutch IP arguing with itself over the wording of a disambig hatnote. Policy, practice and three separate users today have reverted this to the usual
 * "For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)."

but one of the IP personas wants to have a double link with
 * "For the software distribution platform, see Steam (software). For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)."

presumably because they're a gamer and so they're a special snowflake.

Whatever. It's clear edit warring. Cut it out.
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Article history? You are capable of finding that aren't you? It's the clearest presentation rather than seven opaque links. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow reported by User:Vetrisimino0 (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [See talk page of the page]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is reverting without discussing and does not look to previous discussion.

Vetrisimino0 (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow really? Not only have you failed to accept sources you have now chosen to try to get me out if the picture. However, during my time on Wikipedia I have never broken even once. Ironically, I can't say the same about you along with your refusal to gain consensus. Even now, the first link is from October 29 while the other two are from November 5th. Not only that but you did not even bother to notify me this false report.


 * "User is reverting without discussing and does not look to previous discussion", you honestly must be joking. Where did I not disscuse anything let alone not read the disscussion on the talk page? Anyone can see that I have including user Middayexpress. AcidSnow (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the first link is not even recent but from days ago. The matter was also discussed at length on the talk page, so the no discussion claim is equally spurious. Middayexpress (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: The submitter User:Vetrisimino0 seems to be warring against everyone else though he has not yet passed 3RR. He is warned that if he continues to revert (prior to consensus) he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  10-29 18:55, before talk page discussion began, removing Lily Rabe and other characters the user felt did not belong in the section
 * 2)  10-29 20:29, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
 * 3)  10-29 21:08, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
 * 4)  10-29 23:03, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
 * 5)  10-29 23:15, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
 * 6)  10-30 01:00, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe and David Burtka again
 * 7)  10-30 19:08, after the talk page conversation began, where I reminded the user of 3RR and he stated to me "I am well aware of the regulations of Wikipedia, including WP:3RR." - however this was his 7th revert in slightly over 24 hours
 * 8)  11-03 03:44, has continued removing actors the user felt didn't belong (Matt Bomer this time)
 * 9)  11-03 21:21, again removed Lily Rabe and Matt Bomer

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

LLArrow clearly believes that the few actors (specifically Lily Rabe) do not belong in the section they are listed in. The information has been added into this section over 10 times, by multiple different editors, but LLArrow reverts every time.  G loss  02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected one week. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to why the editor wasn't blocked when he was the only one with a problem, the only one reverting the same issue over and over. He edit warred and nobody else did, but now the article will suffer when a new episode airs tomorrow and instead of adding a summary tomorrow night it will be added a week from now?  G loss  04:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can get agreement on the talk page, file an edit request. An admin can update the article through the protection if they perceive a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to say that I am truly remorseful for any fret I might have caused you, but I do stand by my decisions and actions. I welcome further discussion on the topic on the series' Talk page and only wish to keep Wikipedia articles running smoothly and informatively. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If any other admins could please review this, it would be appreciated. Protecting the article was not the right way to go about this. One editor was the problem, and now the article (which is highly trafficked) will suffer from not being updated after the most recent episode.  G loss  04:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The need for the protection is being discussed at Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob112134 reported by User:WeijiBaikeBianji (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It has been a while since I have seen such persistent edit-warring for unsourced vandalism that removes content with an inline citation to a reliable source. -- 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * indefinitely by Dougweller. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Akhil monarch reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification of good faith revert found using STiki"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Repeated insertion of unsourced content */ new section"


 * Comments:

Not a case of 3RR but this seems to be an SPA repeatedly inserting unsourced content to a BLP, despite multiple warnings diff of Clue Bot notice, see User talk:Akhil monarch for multiple warnings on same issue, same article, see User:Akhil monarch contribs for history. MrBill3 (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sanjiva.weerawarana and User:Orubel reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Orubel blocked; semi-protected)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Ten rounds of back-and-forth removal (Sanjiva.weerawarana) and restoration (Orubel) since the end of October of a 1.1k "Controversy" section that the subject of this article obviously objects to.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

No attempts at discussion, just classic back-and-forth.

Comments:


 * Orubel for one week for WP:BLP violations (in addition to the edit-warring that everyone was doing). Others not blocked because of BLP exemption. Obvious conflicts and probable socking. Semi-protected for one month (none of the warriors is auto-confirmed)., at least this report wasn't malformed, but you must notify any user reported here. I'm not going to bother notifying Orubel, but, as a matter of form, I will notify the other two registered accounts (there's also an IP involved).--Bbb23 (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:109.22.125.90 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (This is the disputed edit, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Talk:Windows Live formed a consensus against it.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (A misfired revert that removed own edits instead of mine.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

109.22.125.90 made some bold edits. I found them problematic. Reverted per WP:BRD. Attempted discussion in talk page. A third party showed up and a consensus was formed. So far so good. Only 109.22.125.90 continued to counter-revert with offensive edit summaries and never showed up in the discussion. Now revision 632139121 is interesting. Hostile edit summary suggests he intended to counter-revert again. But what's get reverted is his own edits. How? Well, I do partial reverts. i.e. I only revert part that are against the consensus. The rest I recover. Seems to me that this person is so angry that doesn't care what he reverts; hitting the revert button and writing something biting is more important to him.

The nature of his contribution is important: Part of his contribution violates a previous WP:ArbCom ruling. Please see Talk:Windows Live for details.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ., first, you breached WP:3RR, whereas the IP did not. Second, the edits do not "violate" any ArbCom decisions. Those decisions are referred to in the guideline as a partial basis for the guideline, but that aspect of the ArbCom decisions is not enforceable and cannot be "violated". What you have (I don't know anything about the issue) is an alleged violation of the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I made three reverts to Windows Live on 2 November. A fourth is required for breach. I won't argue on the ArbCom ruling anymore. But I did discuss in talk page and IP user is adamant to participate.
 * Look, in the past, I've proven that the moment someone starts to discuss the matter, I treat them cordially. (I don't insist on the "correct" revision being in effect during the discussion.) But so far, this person has not even taken a single step; looks like he intends to force his revision at all cost. His talk page indicates he even has a history. I think at least a semi-protection is in order. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You reverted four times: (1) two edits ending at 0:50; (2) two edits ending at 14:09; (3) 14:42; and (4) three edits ending at 15:32. And I disagree with FleetCommand. None of the reverts is exempt under the vandalism exemption.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit at 0:50 is not a revert. It is an original. (Believe me, if I was a revert, it was a revert of my edit; I'd know it.) And ruining a page's grammar is vandalism; it is in WP:VANDTYPES. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You really need to educate yourself about policy. I don't know what "original" means, but text was removed from the article. That constitutes a revert as defined by policy. I see nothing about ruining grammar, as you put it, in VANDTYPES, but it doesn't matter because that's not the kind of vandalism that is exempt. It has to be egregious vandalism, often called "poop" vandalism. Trying to exempt a revert because of vandalism is very rarely accepted because if the user is really vandalizing an article, you'd go to AIV, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A revert is a deliberate act of undoing a certain edit either in part or whole. (That's why it is perceived as very personal.) Additions, removals and modifications that are part of the natural article evolution are not reverts; if your comment was the standard to judge edits, 68% of Wikipedians would have been violating 3RR every day. Furthermore, I don't see WP:3RRNO prose requiring intensity of vandalism; indeed, in practice, the only difference in treating non-serious vand. vs. serious vand. is in the use of uw-vand1 instead of uw-vand3. Finally, you are being exceedingly generous towards one user and exceedingly stringent towards another. May I inquire why?


 * Now, the purpose of this board is to help deal with users who want to force their POV in Wikipedia and refuse to participate in any form of discussion. This certain IP user is that kind. I never have reported a regular because they are more than willing to have a dispute resolution. Sometimes, I don't even revert them the first time. What am I supposed to do with this editor? I'd like to reiterate that as soon as this editor enters discussion, all the he did before shall be forgotten and he shall receive a non-biased discussion.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I have a suggestion for you for the future. Let's assume you make an edit that is, in your view, part of the "natural article evolution". The probability is no one is going to count that as a revert, despite the fact that it technically qualifies as one per the 3RR definition, and, as you say, this happens all the time. But let's say that right after that there is an edit war in which you are involved. Regardless of whether the war is over your first edit, you should now be much more careful and count your reverts, including the first one. Now maybe another admin won't count that first one, but why take the risk? In addition, does it really matter if you make one less revert? If the material you're reverting deserves to be reverted, let someone else do it. Anyway, this is intended to be friendly advice, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are making perfect sense. To look innocent is as important as being innocent. And you are advising me to do what I have always done: Involving others, and in doing so, establishing an audit trail. Except doing that brought down other accusations like team-tagging, sockpuppetry and being part of a "cable". (What's a cable anyway? Typo?) Very well.
 * But regardless of all this, the opposite of edit warring is discussion and it takes two to discuss. I can't make up for the second party's absence with anything, even invoking genuine external opinion. If you asked me, an editor who counter-reverts with an edit summary that reads "Unnecessary reversion for shifty reasons WP:ROWN, WP:BRD and WP:POINT) [sic]" has already made up his mind not to discuss.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm, tell me Bbb23, exactly why are you defending the an IP user that has WP:NOTHERE problems and makes edits that utterly fail WP:COMPETENCY? Four different editors have so far expressed their disagreement with this editor. Isn't it time he stopped? Perhaps you should voice your opinion in Talk:Windows Live? Fleet Command (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, Bbb23 is not defending him. User:DennisBrown once explained for you what he is doing. But, if you'll excuse my being a bit frank, now I do understand the proportion of "my edit" in your message above. But of course, the question here is: What would a hypothetical super-collegial editor in my shoe whould have done? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Reverting this edit is exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO, #4, because it is clear vandalism made out of spite. Registered users can make edits like this by mistake through Twinkle. But IP users can't. It is deliberate. Fleet Command (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope I am not digressing too much but how would they do it through Twinkle? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure, but I assume selecting "last diff" and "revert good faith/revert vandalism" does it. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. "Last diff" is removed from watchlist in 2012. We only have "cur" and "prev" now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Semi-protect. This makes the IP user stop and come to talk page. Full protection stops CL too, but also anyone else. CL says she won't revert if the IP discusses. So, WP:ROPE. Fleet Command (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This user is starting to commit sheer vandalism: Fleet Command (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello again, FC. Let it go. This thread has expended its lifespan. If the opportunity for compromise presented itself, I'm going to grant it. (I was always; only the chance is now growing higher.) You know, I owe a lot of my success and joy in Wikipedia to the fact that I was always willing to talk it over and have a compromise or negotiation. But it must be understood by everyone, including the attending admins in ANEW, that a dispute resolution takes two. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID reported by My very best wishes (Result: Topic ban per WP:ARBEE)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: These are three reverts made during 30 minutes, and separated from another revert by ~ 24 hours. Technically, this not a 3RR violation. I report this only because the user has been previously blocked with a note by admin: "plus stated intent to GAME the 1RR on that page", and this is exactly what he does right now on another page. Moreover, they currently edit war on other pages, for example here — Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs)


 * I count four reverts, all on November 3, starting at 17:44. In my opinion this breaks WP:3RR. I made an offer on his talk page suggesting he can escape sanction if he will agree to get consensus on talk before making any controversial change to Donetsk People's Republic. I suggest that admins wait to close this until User:HCPUNXKID has a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize if I broke 3RR, but lets be clear, reaching consensus in that article is simply mission impossible. I've tried to discuss the issue, but if you look at the Donetsk People's Republic talk page, Im not the only editor denouncing the evident negative bias of the article, but we had been all ignored by the half-dozen editors who seem to own this article and every ukrainian-related article. Due to that dictatorship (I know it sounds hard, but how you would call a total control of the articles by a group of POV-driven editors? That's the situation right now), its impossible to make an edit (even to add a NPOV tag) on ukrainian-related articles unless its biased in favour of Ukrainian nationalist views. That happens in several articles, like Donetsk People's Republic, Svoboda (political party), 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine, 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes and a looong number of other articles. It doesnt matter you have good, neutral, reliable sources used & accepted in other articles, that group of editors will use their majority in numbers in order to remove your content unless its favourable to their personal POV's. On the other hand, they could use unreliable sources (aint an unreliable source one coming from one side of the conflict? That's one of the major rules on the Syrian civil war articles, not use sources from one side of the conflict in order to attack or difamate the other side. I suppose that is applied to any other conflict articles, isnt it?) as they want. So, what should editors like me must do, just shut up and see how Wikipedia passes from an encyclopedia to a one direction political-driven website?. That's not a rhetoric question, so please tell me what should I do when reaching consensus aint possible.--<font color="Purple">HC <font color="Gold">PUNX <font color="Purple">KID 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that User:HCPUNXKID would do well to acquaint himself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your apology is ingenuous given that you've been using the talk pages but is simply not listening to anyone who tries to explain policy and guidelines, then continuing by simply returning to the articles and reverting using ES like this. You've now been intentionally gaming the system on a number of articles by only just staying within the 3RR for weeks. While overenthusiastic editing practices by relative newcomers is hardly exceptional, it's time to understand that tendentious editing is simply not acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The solution to this problem is not a block, but a topic ban under the Eastern European discretionary sanctions, which he has been notified of. He is continuing to make messes across articles, including unilateral PoV page moves. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * After coming back, this user refused to follow the offer by EDJohnston, and started doing exactly the opposite. He continued edit warring on other pages , , , (see also his edit summaries). Based on his comments here and elsewhere, the reason for such behavior is obvious: they refuse to follow WP:Consensus. Therefore, I agree with suggestion by RGloucester about the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:HCPUNXKID is banned for six months from the topic of Ukraine and from any Russian topics that are connected to Ukraine, broadly construed. This is under the authority of Arbcom discretionary sanctions per the WP:ARBEE case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Xkart001 reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */"
 * 2)  "/* Family and career */"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Feroze Gandhi."
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Feroze Gandhi."


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


 * Comments:

POV editor changing name of article subject disruptively at Feroze Gandhi (so much so, as to change name in image file names and thus break links). Also disruptive edits at Indira Gandhi. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Tommy1933 reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632847858 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632847019 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632847019 by MbahGondrong (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 2015 Indonesia Super League */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User keeps on reverting without replying. The link to the other article is already in the article, but the user keep on putting in other part of the article, which I found to be redundant. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reported user deleted this report with edit summary "I had not seen it". Personally I don't think that's a particularly good explanation or response. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – The report only shows three reverts, while it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:130.235.3.107 reported by User:Stesmo (Result: See report below)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632512919 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632409079 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632400046 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632395902 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Edit war warning... Please hash out your issues in the article Talk page."


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


 * Comments:

Involved in a pointless edit war with another editor. Warned on IP Talk page and started discussion in article Talk. May also be editor reverting PrithiviRajWiki's reverts under different IPs on the same page. Stesmo (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:PrithiviRajWiki blocked 24 hours and article semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. See report below. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:GiorgosY reported by User:Why should I have a User Name? (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Obvious nationalist agenda, which I'm (regrettfully) not very patient when dealing with. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . The one month is based on the user's edit warring at multiple articles, not just the reported article, as well as the user's disturbing history., next time file a complete report, including diffs, etc.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DonBarchanga reported by User:Jaam0121 (Result: Malformed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * --Bbb23 (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:বব২৬ reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I have kept on revising the revision, the current preferred reference)

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: Talk:Bengali_calendar

Comments:


 * , I am sure you are aware that edit war involves at least two party and you are equally responsible for the feud. Though I can see more clean reverts done by you than . You both are trying to push some POV, specially some of your views are biased towards hindu origin of the calendar. While, বব২৬ is wrong about lunisolar nature of the calendar and others. You two should continue to talk on the talk page and I suggest you both refrain from editing the article for three days or until dispute resolves. There is no need to continue this ANI. It is entirely possible to to resolve content dispute through talk, especially when you both are talking. –  nafSadh did say 18:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:বব২৬ and User:Redtigerxyz are warned for edit warring. The next person who reverts (prior to consensus on the talk page) may be blocked without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I am adding referenced material in the article and the reference clearly says that calendar is solar and is based on the Surya Siddhanta and the month names are Sanskrit. My POV is based on RS. I have redirected the user to WP:RS ("Please explain on the basis of WP:RS") as well as other policies (see article talk). However, the user is removing the referenced info and adding that the calendar is lunisolar, which is inaccurate. The current edition still has the inaccurate data, but sadly I can't edit. I have tried discussing, all I am getting is WP:OR, which is not backed by RS. What is the meaning of such a discussion? Isn't there a policy stopping removal of referenced material and introduction of inaccurate data? Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * nafSadh, I will refrain from editing the article. However, the article should be NPOV and accurate. Theory of origin by Shashanka and Surya Siddhanta, must be noted as references note them. Also the reference also explicitly say that the names are Sanskrit. Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:Dispute resolution for some steps you can take. If you can get consensus on Talk then the article can be changed. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DonBarchanga reported by User:Jaam0121 (Result: Page protected)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 630177789 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632223779 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632798079  by Jaam0121 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Comments:

User has been warned more than five times and unresponsive. It was blocked few days ago (for a few hours but it expired, and then continued issues reversing Note: Sorry if there are errors in format, English is not my native language but I try to do my best regards..


 * You are both edit warring. Page is now protected. Go and use the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No problem, see Template:Infobox_musical_artist. This section "aims for generality"."
 * 2)  "No, one song is NOT representative of what the whole material performed by one act."
 * 3)  "One song is not enough to qualify an act as a specific genre ! You need sources which explicitly describe the act as "new wave" and not only one of their song."
 * 4)  "No, AllMusic sidebars are UNRELIABLE. See all the exemples I provided on my talk page. Don't use them any more."
 * 5)  "1) Incorrect, see last paragraph. 2) I think you should read WP:GENREWARRIOR and WP:OR."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 632896100 by Harout72 (talk) Did you read my edit summary ? You cannot use AllMusic sidebars, they are unreliable."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 632894264 by Harout72 (talk) AllMusic sidebars are unreliable, see WikiProject Albums/Sources."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 632896100 by Harout72 (talk) Did you read my edit summary ? You cannot use AllMusic sidebars, they are unreliable."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632894264 by Harout72 (talk) AllMusic sidebars are unreliable, see WikiProject Albums/Sources."


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


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

Harout72 continue to add poorly sourced material to both Baltimora and Den Harrow while I provided rules which prove that the editor's edits are not helpful. AllMusic sidebars and other poorly sourced material is not acceptable in music-related articles. Also just because one song is described as "new wave" is not enough to prove a band usually performs "new wave music" (which is obviously not the case because I found a highly reliable book associating these two acts with the Italo disco genre). Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Harout72 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Template:Infobox musical artist restricts no such thing. Your removing source Genre is nothing but disruptive."
 * 2)  "Infobox can have as many Genres as the group has had. Even if it's only one song that belonged to a certain genre, it can be included. Unless you can show me the Policy that it can't, DO NOT remove it again based on you personal views."
 * 3)  "New wave was one of their Genres, and it can be included in the infobox as long as there are sources for even one song."
 * 4)  "There are other sources than allmusic that say Baltimora was new wave."
 * 5)  "Providing one more source that supports Baltimora being new wave."
 * 6)  "Allmusic is ok to use until a better source is located. We currently do not have one."
 * 7)  "Reverted 1 edit by Synthwave.94 (talk): Yes the table you're referring to doesn't have Allmusic there. (TW)"
 * 8)  "Reverted 1 edit by Synthwave.94 (talk): Your explanation for this revert is? (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Synthwave.94 (talk): Your explanation for this revert is? (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Please note that User:Synthwave.94 persistently removes sourced Genres from the Infoboxes of both from Den Harrow and Baltimora claiming that the sources talk about one song only, therefore, it isn't enough for that Genre to be included. The user Synthwave.94 has so far failed to back up his/her removals with such policies that restrict Genres from being included, if sources provided speak of one song only.--Harout72 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not cause to edit war. And indeed it looks like you're both past 3RR at Den Harrow, too. If you can't resolve these issues via article/user talk pages, take it to dispute resolution or, if you find his/her actions particularly egregious, it may be appropriate for WP:ANI. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Potential superpowers. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Potential superpowers. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Adding unsourced material. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . This is a single-minded WP:SPA adding the European Union as a superpower to this and to other pages. As far as I can tell, that's all the user has done since creating the account.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

User:187.189.154.153 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

IP continues to edit war, despite being asked to discuss their content changes. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 08:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Saadkhan12345 reported by User:Faizan (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "i have removed afghan militants because it is the view of User:Faizan and User:TheSawTooth....according to rules ... discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. will hve to wait until the mattr is resolved on talk.Pg"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 632949361 by Saadkhan12345 (talk)"
 * 3)  "I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...User:TheSawTooth and User:Faizan view that ''afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first."
 * 4)  "TTP is involved in cross border attacks...for reference TTP(infobox) and talk page"
 * 1)  "TTP is involved in cross border attacks...for reference TTP(infobox) and talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Operaation Zarb-e-Azb. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR at Operation Zarb-e-Azb */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Continuous edit-warring there at Operation Zarb-e-Azb. Made a 3RR violation between 7 and 8 November 2014 with 4 reverts. Fai zan  08:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Self-reversions don't count (and consecutive edits only count as 1). So the 3 edits between 12:37 and 13:01 only count as 1 revert, placing them at 2 reverts in 24 hours. Stickee (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Djcheburashka (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

The reverts are of the POV template. When the editor refused to discuss POV issues in the article, and reverted changes, I opened discussion on the POV dispute resolution page and added the POV template. The editor has now, less than a day later, tried to remove the template three times.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The user deleted the warning from her own talk page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roscelese&oldid=633052627

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:False_accusation_of_rape  See also the POV dispute resolution page.

Comments:

Same issue applies to David Lisak -- the editor refuses to discuss on the talk page, then reverts edits to the page, then when this is raised as a POV dispute continues to try to revert the template without consensus. I've also requested protection on the page.


 * User:Djcheburashka and User:Roscelese you were both edit warring. I've fully protected the page. If I had seen the Lisak page before I got here I would have blocked the pair of you. I will fully protect that page as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:172.56.20.97 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

Philg88 ♦talk 11:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Lake4455 reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:
 * by Philg88. Stickee (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NasiKK reported by User:Avono (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633048377 by Mkativerata (talk)  undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633040514 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632990305 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 632921288 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 632594004 by Mkativerata (talk) undid vandalism by Mkativerata"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

removal sourced content as "vandalism" dosn't discus consensus in talk page Avono (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It is transparent as glass that this is an undetected sock of Roman888. The exchange above, including the trademark use of the expression "serial vandaliser" are straight out of his play book. Block on sight. --Drmargi (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for one week., if you believe the editor is a sock, then open a new case at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Caitlanowen2001 reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Cast */"
 * 2)  "Added active account"
 * 1)  "Added active account"
 * 1)  "Added active account"


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


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


 * Comments:

adds twitter handle https://twitter.com/BenMcG1 into The Passing Bells article even though I said thats unencyclopedic (twice). Only engages after final edit-war warning to insult me and do 4th revert. Avono (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

violation of WP:Twitter Avono (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

User:FortLauderdale1911 reported by User:Elvey (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Offender was warned 4x today, 2x before the most recent revert. I see no way to "select[] edits where [I] warned the offender. Elvey(t•c) 00:34, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (full) for one week. The new user's motives may be suspect, but the material they were removing cannot remain in the article. First, there are copyright violations. Second, there are WP:BLP violations (one of the two sources is a dead link, and such controversial material cannot be sourced to a dead link). And why in the world is there a quote from Jesus in the article? Did anyone read the material? I've therefore locked the page, as too many editors believe the material belongs, and removed the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note that I'm off to eat dinner and won't be able to respond for a while if editors complain about my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool. Some fair criticisms.  Now lets separate the chaff from the wheat.  I'll give it a shot.  --Elvey(t•c) 03:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to hear. Two more criticisms. First, the dead link source is not reliable. It's a political rag. Their About Us says: "Firedoglake.com (FDL) is a leading progressive news site, online community, and action organization consistently ranked as one of the most influential political websites." Second, the article is short, and that much material attacking the subject is clearly WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been interacting IRL... can't follow up, at least for a while. Encourage you to copy relevant bits of your comments on the article content to the talk page for other editors to see, or give me the OK to do so.--Elvey(t•c) 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NebY reported by User:Jackboston (Result: Filer indeffed)
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer:

NebY:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=632304135

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633124596
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633126190
 * 3) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer&oldid=633125860

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freshfields_Bruckhaus_Deringer

Comments:

I've watched this page for some time before creating an account, and the above user is engaging in disruptive and frankly unnecessary behaviour on the above page which borders on some form of edits war/vandalism. The user has repeatedly edited the page to remove sourced material and has acted utterly arbitrarily in so doing. The user removes historical references in the "history" section of the page and seems incapable of understanding why this is in fact relevant when explaining the above firms "history." The user also considers him/herself so educated on the subject that they dismiss as irrelevant a book precisely about the above firm. The book is not as he/she states by the firm itself, but is written by the legal historian Judy Slinn http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-History-Freshfields-Slinn-Judy/dp/B002622CHO

The user has also removed information from an interview with the firm's former managing partner which was clearly relevant and sourced - purely because the interview was reproduced online in a blog. While there may be a couple of Peacock words on the above page, following Wikipedia guidelines, this does not mean that the user should simply "gut" the page of all useful or relevant information. Nor does it explain why the user removed information regarding the firms legal work on the 2012 Olympics, or information about the location of Freshfields offices - which would be relevant to any user of the page.

Information like this - historical and otherwise - is common on other international law firm pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell

The users behaviour is inexplicable to me, and is not at all consistent with Wikipedia editing guidelines.

Should this page be protected?
 * Jackboston indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:McGeddon reported by User:Urammar (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:Alien (creature in Alien franchise)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alien_(creature_in_Alien_franchise)&oldid=633070133

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is intentionally attempting to abuse the RFC system, resetting it under false pretense after it elapsed naturally, with an overwhelming majority for change of article, the user is continuing to block the majority approved change of article, restarting the edit war that got us here in the first place

Urammar (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Urammar for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism (Result: No violation)
Users Borsoka and Fakirbakir used disruptive edits and vandalism in order to erase an idea and a reference of a scientific work in the pages of Origins of Romanians.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians) and section: Georgescu's statement They censored an historian who have several citations in that pages. Personal points of view and original research are not admitted. Eurocentral (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The censored phrase is: Romanian historian Vlad Georgescu wrote about the political reasons of the debate: Saxon and Hungarian scholars placed the origins of Romanians South of the Danube; Bulgarian historians do not admit that the Romanians had originated South of the Danube; Russian historians admitted the continuity theory but excepting Moldavia.{{sfn|Georgescu|1991|p=12} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 06:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

They acted together in order to censor a reference. It is not the first time they acted together trying to censor data. Eurocentral (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . This report is, of course, malformed. No action against the reported users. However, I recommend some sort of sanction against the filer based on this. ?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have topic-banned User:Eurocentral from Hungary and Romania for six months per WP:ARBEE and logged it in the case.  See his talk page for details. EdJohnston (talk) 06:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Torga reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Unsourced claims that makes this article bias"
 * 2)  "Making it little less biased"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633191953 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633192157 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 633192329 by Tarc (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633192157 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633192329 by Tarc (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* November 2014 */"
 * 2)   "/* November 2014 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  (I'm not sure if this counts)


 * Comments:

Torga has made undiscussed and controversial changes to the lead paragraph. I reverted him once, informed him he should go to the talk page to seek consensus, and he has not. He has also repeatedly removed a larger personalized message I sent to him on his user talk regarding almost identical edit warring he did last week. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC) I'd no idea that he had been edit warring, but just noticed that he has reverted a change of mine removing an ancient and outdated POV tag that was supposed to be removed several days ago. Perhaps the term should be "tendentious editing" rather than 3RR. --TS 12:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . If you're correct,, about the refererence misunderstanding (see below), then it follows that Torga is off the hook for his reverts of the ref and did not breach WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He clearly violated 3RR as he was intending to restore his contested content but when Tarc reverted the wrong thing he kept reverting Tarc again.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Although I understand Ryulong's logic, which goes to motive, I've not blocked tendentious editors whose reverts were BLP-exempt, even though their motive was obviously biased. However, Torga had the chutzpah to revert yet again (Tony's edit), which put him over the top regardless. Reverting while a report here is pending and without commmenting here as to why is generally not a good idea.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)