Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive262

User:Spotter 1 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Note that this *is* in fact a revert, of an edit from Nov 1 22:19 . Basically, with this revert, Spotter 1 is resuming an edit war that occurred on Nov 1.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  slightly different from the previous, but essentially the same. The slight difference in the tagging is a pretty transparent attempt to WP:GAME the system and circumvent the 3RR restriction.

Previous edit warring on the article - note that these were not strictly speaking 3RR violations but rather tip-toeing right up to the line then backing off. Then coming back a few days later to resume it:

3 Reverts in less than 2 hours on October 29:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Depending on how you count it, either 3 or 4 reverts, over the same issue, on October 22:


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

It very much also looks like Spotter 1 is either tag-teaming and coordinating with User:Kenfree or actually is that user. The pattern is the same: make 3 reverts in regard to the POV tag, and after being reverted by multiple editors, come back in a few days and repeat. It's also quite possible that these are socks of indef banned user User:LarryTheShark (same issue, same style). Users other account User:Spotter 11 (possibly created in good faith).

By my count Spotter 1 has been reverted on this article by 5 or 6 different editors (including admins). So this isn't a two sided edit war, it's just one (actually two, if you include Kenfree) users who refuse to listen to others and are edit warring with a stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. User responds/posts walls of text, rants and soapboxing (these are just on the article talk page, he also posted similar to other venues, including other user's talk pages) or engages in some kind of "I know you are but what am I?" argumentation (exs., , , ). Basically, rational discussion is impossible with this user.

Comments:

The edit warring today constitutes 4 reverts in less than one hour and 45 minutes. The edit warring on the two other days is 3 reverts in less than 2 hours, each.
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the first place, user:Volunteer Marek is using this administrative space to cast aspersions against me. This is typical of his sneaky, backbiting style (with which he has populated the talk page of the RT TV Network), but my one protection against this is supposed to be that users are required to inform those users whose names are involved in incident reports.  Volunteer Marek did not follow this policy.  I only learned of this incident report when visiting the talk page of its victim (no exaggeration, see below), Spotter 1, this morning.  I have an unblemished history of editing here are Wikpedia over several years, and if Volunteer Marek believes that I am engaged in any illicit practice, or have assumed alter-identities on Wikpedia, he has the responsibility to report it and have the problem openly addressed.  He should not be at liberty to continue his incessant calumny against me here in this administrative area, and especially not without some notification, so that I might defend myself.  This by itself should lead honest administrators to question his motives and integrity.


 * As to his report of supposed "edit warring" and the subsequent, peremptory ban of Spotter 1 (before he has even been given an opportunity to defend himself -- it would appear from Spotter 1's talk page history that this user was banned by Bbb23 only 17 minutes after being notified of the "discussion" by user:Volunteer Marek, strongly suggesting collusion between the two ):


 * "Edit warring" as Wikipedia officially defines it relates to content disputes, which is to say, to the content of Wikipedia articles themselves. But the reversions in this case were clearly attempts to restore, not content, but a tag, an NPOV/Secttion tag that fairly and accurately reflected not only the ongoing editorial dispute over this question in the RT TV Network talk page, but also in the recently initiated discussion on Wikipedia's Administrators' Neutral Point of View noticeboard.  Thus, the tag SHOULD be automatic for that page.  That Spotter 1 made these attempts to place it there is to his credit...it is not edit warring at all, but rather editorial responsibility. I am astounded that someone who has been assigned administrative responsibility, such as the administrator who banned this user for this responsible effort, chose to ban this user, instead of confronting those, like Volunteer Marek, who wish to keep Wikipedia readers in the dark about this editorial dispute by deleting the NPOV tag each time it is posted.   Volunteer Marek's "report" on this page must be understood in context of the scrutiny his tendentious editing of the RT TV Network page has received on the NPOV noticeboard.


 * I request an immediate review by a responsible administrator of this penalization of a responsible editor, a travesty that runs counter to both the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies, as above cited. Kenfree (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:190.99.0.119 reported by User:Mega-buses (Result: Blocked)
Page: and others (associated with Disney Channel)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Last revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:18 (UTC), 5 November 2014‎
 * 2) 20:56 (UTC), 6 November 2014
 * 3) 17:31 (UTC), 7 November 2014
 * 4) 06:49 (UTC), 10 November 2014 (Last IP edition)
 * 5) 00:17 (UTC), 9 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Italy)
 * 6) 19:40 (UTC), 8 November 2014 (on Disney Channel (Europe)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This IP add several times the File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png in diferents articles (like Disney Channel (Latin America)). This image may only be placed on the article "Disney Channel". See. Disney Channel (Latin America) was protected one day, but the next day, the IP restored the file again. --Mega-buses (discusión / Talk) 16:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:   

Comments:

Outrageous, vulgar and disruptive behavior for any editor. Far worse for an ADMIN! What kind of example is this in how to calmly and rationally resolve disagreement and edit collaboratively toward an NPOV result? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted three times, not four. The IP has been edit-warring all weekend (from various IPs), and the article has now been protected. I recommend the IP be given a strong warning about WP:BOOMERANG. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor just admitted he edit-warred. But his defense was that he "reverted three times, not four?" Interesting, since I don't believe it's called "4RR". But I actually listed five times. Also, the editor made absurd assertions he cannot support. Namely, who was I edit-warring with "all weekend" - and where is their 3RR complaint? And if it was "from various IPs" how in heaven does that point to me? Obviously, not all similar IPs are the same person. This editor just needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and stop finger-pointing, rationalizing and deflecting. He admitted here that he edit warred. Even before that, he dared me to report him. As though, because he's an admin, he is some entitled entity, above the rules. Perhaps he is. If he isn't blocked, like any other editor would be - and for a significant period, because of the totally unnecessary and vulgar tone he took from the beginning in the edit summaries - then I guess he's right. Also, the page certainly doesn't need IP protection. You'll notice that the last edit before protection wasn't from an IP. It was from him. But to semi-protect/block such a prominent page, over a single disagreement regarding a single word,(now addressed), is, I think, pretty excessive and unnecessarily extreme. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:Edit warring to see the definition of a revert and what a 3RR violation is? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. And just which part (that you seem to believe justifies your behavior) would you have me read? This part?: Which defines a revert as: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Or the part right below it: "any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times?" Meanwhile, may I suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:IMPARTIAL to see the definition of neutrality and what is meant by: "A neutral characterization." Or may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is? 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you really tell him to read WP:CIVIL even though you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar"? This is truly a WP:BOOMERANG. In fact and just like he said, two of the links you provided us (here and here) are actualy self-reverts which are not counted as "reverts" per WP:EDITWAR. No matter how much you would like to WP:WIKILAWYER, it does not change anything. Ironically, you reverted four times in the last 24 hours (here: ). You also reverted twice on November 8th as well (here: Once again, just as Malik said, you did consistently revert throughout this weekend. In the end of all of this, you will be the one blocked and not him. Better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow: My questions for you would be, did you really just ignore his posts that I "cut the bullshit... your head is in the sand" and his continued personal attack calling me a "wing-nut"? Not to mention my request that he "Save your editorializing for another project." and my efforts at "neutrality"? Plus, did you really just ignore the fact that it was me who attempted compromise by leaving this message on his talk page: "I have replaced it with a less inflammatory term - since you also had problems with the word "purported." Hopefully, this resolves the issue to your satisfaction."? Yes, apparently you did. Also, I hate to burst your bubble, Acid, but just because I read newsworthy articles and reviewed their edit logs, doesn't make me every other IP who did the same. I saw recent issues raised in the edit summaries and I agreed with some of those editors. So my edits reflected that WP:CONSENSUS. Or did that common sense reality never cross your mind while you were busy leaping to your false conclusions? In fact, my first edit was a revert of a similar "looking" IP here. So, sorry, but your obvious cherry-picking, make you a pretty bad, and a pretty transparent, attack dog. So you should try again, Acid. But next time, perhaps you should stop hurling ridiculous accusations of policy vios while at the same time accusing someone else of WP:WIKILAWYER. It makes you look hypocritical. But worse, you just come off looking like a troll.


 * And again Bbb23, I think it does a disservice to the readers of this project to block a currently newsworthy article because of a debate over one word: that is already being addressed in this forum. That's the definition of overkill. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You honestly must be joking. I missed nothing and let alone was I "cherry picking". I am well aware of what Malik stated bur you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it. You also stated, however, "may I even suggest that you actually, you know, read WP:CIVIL to see the definition of civility and what blocking for incivility is?". Shockingly, this is comes just after you called him an "ignorant ass" and a "boldfaced liar". So it's a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG to tell him to be civil when you fail to do the same, which is very hypocritical. You even created a false Edit War Report and attempted to pass two edits as reverts when their not (once again see WP:EDITWAR). That being said, it doesn't matter wither or not you had "consensus" "backing you up" nor does going to the talk page first change anything; what does matter is who broke 3RR even after they were warned not to do so. Ironically, you don't even bother to refute the evidence (,, , , , and ) that I brought forth regarding your consistent reverts throughout this weekend. That being said, this IP that was edit waring earlier this weekend is yours which once again rDNS confirms (yours and pervious IP). This IP not only comes from the country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! Coincidence? Highly unlikely. You can deny this all you want but it's don't change reality. As anyone can see, none of my statements were "ridiculous" which you oddly claim them to be so. By the way, calling me an "attack dog" and a "troll" after I asked you to remain civil does not help your case even the slightest but rather greatly diminishes it. Nor do I get anything if you or Malik is blocked. So better luck next time IP. But In the end of all of this, I will encourage you once again to remain WP:CIVIL. AcidSnow (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Acid, pull up a chair. This is going to take a while. There is an old saying, attributed to Einstein, that: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" is the definition of insanity. By that definition, you must be certifiable. Because for what purpose do you continue this harangue? I suspect you're just one of those unpleasant little people who is taken with the sound of your own voice. While I won't give you the incessant platform you clearly crave I will address the nonsense that are your various claims this one final time.

But first, we have to establish foundation and you have to establish your standing in this discussion. So the obvious first question is: "Who the hell are you?" A review of your personal page is, perhaps fittingly, obtuse. Hello, my name is AcidSnow...... says nothing. But even more telling than what it says, is what it doesn't. It doesn't say you're an admin. It doesn't say you've been entrusted with any particular rights or privileges by this community. But further review does say your account has only been around since 2013 - yet you spend an unusual and inordinate amount of time on messageboards; and pages so obscure that, over a year later, your last edit on them is still the most current. But how any of that qualifies you to insert yourself into this particular discussion has yet to explained. As you are personally powerless to impact this process. Nor have you established any direct relevance, if any, that you have to it.

But now having established that you failed to pass voir dire here, on even the most basic level, I'll nonetheless address (again) your various and specious claims.

If you had even the slightest concept of balance, you actually would have avoided my claim that you were blatantly cherry-picking the record to craft your attack at me. If you had any notion of balance you would have said "yes Malik did this, but so did you." Instead the best you could muster was this tripe: "I am well aware of what Malik stated but you had already covered it so there really was no point in repeating it." To use another of your favorite phrases: "You honestly must be joking." But then you doubled down on your own hypocrisy, by then feeling the need to "repeat" the same nonsense you posted originally. To quote you again: "there really was no point in repeating in." But yet, you did! I guess there are no mirrors in your world. So here again - and for the last time - are your answers. More than, frankly, you deserve. Because once again: "Who the hell are you?"

I correctly pointed out the section regarding blocking for incivility, which you've referenced now twice. But where have you even once acknowledged Shabazz's original comments or condemned him for making them - which caused my mentioning that section in the first place? Nowhere. So that reduces your "condemnation" to that of a one-sided hack. Feel free to quote me, because, based upon your actions, the characterization is entirely accurate. You're like the clueless and incompetent ref who calls a personal foul for the retaliation and does nothing about the originating offense. Quote me there too. You - or Shabazz - insults me? I let you know what an insult feels like. That isn't uncivility. That's retributive justice. This isn't a church and I don't "turn the other cheek." Besides, he - and now you - have made a false claim twice. That I edited "all weekend" when I edited one day. Second, you keep regurgitating WP:EDITWAR while you are clearly oblivious to WP:3RR within it. Please read it so you'll actually understand the rules you're quoting. My report factually chronicled his edits. There's no way to falsify the edit log. It is what it is. Regarding your claim about what "matters" WP:CONSENSUS always matters. It is a policy here. I suggest you read that too. While you're at it, also read WP:TALKDONTREVERT because, despite your failure to mention it, that is exactly what I did here, here and here. And again, I was the one who warned Shabazz about 3RR here and even noted his continued edit warring after that here. So before you make claims, you would be wise to get your facts straight. Regarding the IP issue, already asked and answered. I worked on a current and newsworthy article. One that hundreds, if not thousands, of people read just this past weekend - because it was in the news. The fact that I also read the edit history, because I found something of concern in the article and saw that others had found the same thing, would be unspectacular to all but the most myopic conspiracy theorists, like you. The fact that my IP is also in a major city populated by a few million people would also be unremarkable to all - but the conspiracy theorists like you. They're not all me. In fact, you also ignored the fact that my very fist edit was to undo another similar IP from the same - wait for it - country, state and city (apparently)! But maybe in your conspiracy world, I undid myself just to later, throw you off the scent. And FYI, other editors have addressed the exact same issue I did, since we started here! But in your conspiracy world, maybe we're all just the same person! Just wow. It would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Because you do make a truly ridiculous prosecutor. Which once again, begs the prevailing question: "Who the hell are you?"

Finally, here's the way it works, since you've also consistently failed to assume good faith, I'm really not feeling particularly constrained by your vacuous calls for "civility." Your entire attacks have been decidedly uncivil. So here's the bottomline: if you lie about me, my actions, or my intentions, then you're a liar. Plain and simple. I said Shabazz was a liar for no other reason than that he was. You've made the same claims, so you too are a liar. You've maligned me with no proof. That's called lying. If you find that uncivil, then the solution is simple: really, just stop being a liar. So, better luck next time to you, Acid. But in the end of all this I will encourage you in future, to a) get your facts straight before you go tilting at windmills and making asinine and unsubstantiated accusations; and b) stop sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Someone far less civil than myself, is very likely to take offense. And the response, which you will have entirely deserved, won't be nearly as measured as mine has been. And will likely and justifiably be decidedly more uncivil. Meanwhile, what I can't help but notice, loyal Sancho, is that even Shabazz, has had preciously little to say lately in his own defense. Likely because even he now knows he went too far. As an editor, but esp. as an admin. If he can't hold himself to a higher standard, then he's in no position to balk at anyone else. So while you've been yapping, all we've heard from him is crickets. But apparently, that's just the arrogance that comes with the knowledge that his fellow admins wouldn't block him, no matter how deserving or egregious his conduct is. Policies, no matter how sacrosanct, are only enforced based upon who is breaking them. And depending on that, if you complain about the wrong person, the open secret here is that you'll submit yourself to a chorus of folks shouting WP:BOOMERANG. It's actually quite funny. It's certainly not how the policy is written, but clearly it's how it is enforced and the game is played around here. I request a block for edit warring and instead the page itself gets blocked - er, "semi-protected" - but only for all IPs. Yet curiously, neither individual party was blocked. So I guess both editors were right, and the page was wrong. Funny what passes for a proper solution around here, isn't it? This, even after I've already said I'm done with that article. But no matter. In the caste system that is WP, IPs are the untouchables. Nevermind WP:URIP2. Also, no need to wonder why having my own account does not appeal to me in the least.

But the truly saddest part that you, and the actual admins on this board have consistently failed to address, is why we're here. Which is because I complained about an edit that was biased on a BLP and I tried - several times - to rewrite it neutrally. If you don't understand that, you can review everything from WP:BLP to WP:NPOV and everything in between. That's the real issue here and yet it's the one thing you consistently have avoided addressing because you wanted to talk about other crap. And you'll likely want to continue this too. But we're done here. I won't ever change your mind and you're not the type to ever admit you're wrong. And ultimately, it really doesn't matter what you think. Because for the final time: "Who the hell are you?" SO yup, we're done. Have the last word. But I won't bother to come back here to read it. I'm done feeding the troll. Whew, that was long! But in the words of Shabazz, to "cut through this bullshit" it had to be done. The End. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Once again, you have failed to listen or at least stop your attacks against people on Wikipedia. Normally in these situations I would just leave, but seeing how you have chosen to blacken my name by still calling me a "troll" along with a "liar", "incompetent", "clueless", and "ridiculous" even after I asked you to stop for the second time. Ironically, this shows how "civil" you are even though you claim to be. First, off not being admin doesn't change anything. I may not posses any of the things you call "privileges" but that doesn't ban me from being Involved in discussion here or anywhere else. Nor does not having a completely User Page change the fact that I am a long standing contribute here on Wikipedia. That being said I have yet to make any WP:PERSONALATTACKS against you or any one else on Wikipedia. Ironically, I can't say the same about you ("ignorant ass", "boldfaced liar", "attack dog", and "troll"). Calling someone out for their mistakes and failing to adhere to Wikipedias polices aren't personal attacks which you oddly claim them to be. So you fail to understand WP:PERSONALATTACKS. If you truly believe that I have made a personal attack against you then why don't you make a report? You seem very confident that I did so the report should go smoothly. Anyways, you seem to love to WP:WIKILAWYER but fail to understand other policies as well, for example WP:Edit War. If you had actually read it instead of only asking other to, you would know that It clearly states: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")". This is quite relevant seeing how you accused him of violating 3RR. In fact, two of his edits are clearly self-reverts (this one and this one), which according to the policy don't count. As anyone can see, not only did he not break it you also created a false Edit War Report. Ironically this comes after you demanded others to read the policy. So it's not surprising that your the one who broke 3RR by revert four times: here, here, here, and here. In regards to Malik's statements were you claim I don't condemn them, I did. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS and it's regards to it: "If no one responds, you have silent consensus ". So I clearly did acknowledge it and did condemn it by not going into detail. So my actions weren't a "one-sided hack" which you foolishly claim them to be. Consensus may count in regards to editing Wikipedia but not at the Edit War Noticeboard where one is discussing violating another policy which doesn't need it. Not only did you fail to comprehend WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS, the same can be said about WP:BOOMERANG. You state that your actions don't reflect "this policy". First off, it's not a policy at all in fact, it's simply just a concept. So it's quite clear that you haven't even read the majority of policies that you have asked others to read. That being said, the essay states: "In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves.". This is exactly what's going on in this discussion. You oddly claim that: "not how the policy is written", when it certainly is! Shockingly, you also fail to understand the simplest of policies such as assuming good faith. I will quote the policy once again since you refuse to believe anything that I have stated:  "When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them". You, however, did the complete opposite by making numerous personal attacks, edit warring, and ultimately violating 3RR (here's all the diffs for everyone to see:, , ,, , , , , , and ). Ironically, you accuse me of failing to do the same. This is quite the opposite and if you had actually read the policy you would know this as well: "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns". As anyone can see, none of my actions were personal attack let alone disruptive.This exactly what I did. Anyways, ,that IP you reverted does not come the from the same location as you. It may live in the same country but not the same state let alone city which even rDNS confirms (yours and theirs. As I stated earlier, you were a matter of fact edit warring throughout this weekend with this IP. As pointed out earlier, both of you come from the same country, but also the same state and city. In fact, they are edit warring on the same article and even the same issue! In other words, it's simply just you which a simple rDNS check can confirm (yours and theirs). In fact, the IP stops editing on Wikipedia upon your "arrival". Coincidence? Highly unlikely. If it isn't you why don't you just message it and ask it to defend you? Oh wait you can't because it's a Static IP and you don't poses it now. You can deny this all you want but you can't gain the system. That being said, I wouldn't need to responded to any of your other replies seeing how your "done feeding the trolls". Which is basically "when the heat gets to hot" you choose to run. So better luck next time IP. AcidSnow (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Way to go, my friend. "Bad page!" 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:E835:AD18:9168:84EF (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to Bbb23 protection of the page, it was for the best. Your a static IP and blocking you won't do us any good since you can just reappear as another IP. This is exactly what you did when your router pushed you into a fresh IP that had yet to be used on Wikipedia. That being said, protecting it squashes all of your IPs in move. AcidSnow (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Choor monster (Result: Restrictions lifted)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Comments:

This is a continuation of a previous report, now archived, of me by Winkelvi:  That concluded with: "Both editors warned. The next person who undoes any change by the other party may be blocked without notice, unless consensus was previously obtained on the talk page. EdJohnston"  The edit diff'ed above removed "obscurely" (my text), without attempting to use the Talk page first, as per EdJohnston's instructions. Choor monster (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm completely confused. Further, this report seems petty to me and not in the best interest of the article.  I wasn't trying to edit war or cause disruption.  There was a cite needed tag there for  weeks, nothing was produced cite-wise to prove the book was published "obscurely".  To me, the use of "obscurely" seems/seemed POV and unencyclopedic -- especially without any kind of reference to support it.  I was perusing the article recently, saw the tag had been untouched and nothing referenced applied, so I simply removed the word.  I honestly didn't even remember that it was a bone of contention prior to that.  No edit warring intended. If he has something to add reference-wise to support use of "obscurely", I certainly see no reason then why the adjective can't be put back in.  But to accuse me of edit warring in what appears to be an obvious move toward retribution is looking for punitive action, not something that will keep disruption from occurring at the article.  Indeed, this report smells quite disruptive to me.  There was no attempt from Choor Monster to discuss on the talk page further after the last post I put up there nearly a month ago (see here:).  In fact, four days after I last posted on the article talk page, Choor Monster put a barnstar on my talk page that stated "A barnstar for fixing peacock language and other minor fixes on Helen Hooven Santmyer" (see here:).  To say I'm completely confused by this report in light of all this is an understatement.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . It looks to me like one of the bones of contention in early October was over the material you just changed (removing the word obscurely). The only issue for me is whether after a bit over a month from 's warning, you should be blocked. Although it has nothing to do with conduct, the word "obscurely" is supported in the cite to the NYT obituary, although I might have worded the material in the article slightly differently. My weak inclination is to block you (self-reverting might help, btw), but I'm punting this to Ed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, Bbb23, I am not in any way trying to be disruptive. I have no problem self-reverting, but do wish other wording would be used.  Reading "obscurely" in the obituary doesn't convince me that it's really the case.  In fact, if anything, it seems that some too-close paraphrasing has occurred by lifting the term directly from the obituary.  Moreover, I now remember noting the too-close paraphrasing of sources back in October, this just further solidifies it.  Especially without a better source than the obituary to support that the book was "obscurely" publiished. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a complete revert, but you did restore the word "obscurely"., are you okay with closing this with no action based on Winkelvi's good faith revert? BTW, Winkelvi, the NYT obituary is a perfectly reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that obituaries are considered reliable sources for factual information such as family names, dates, and the like. That said, celebrity obituaries in the NYT are frequently written by writers who choose to use prose and embellished language in tribute rather than just reporting the facts about an individual.  "Obscurely" is used, but why is it used?  There is no explanation as to why the author of the obituary believes Ohio University Press published the novel in obscurity.   We wouldn't accept such vagueness in an article (it wouldn't pass GA or FA without explanation) so why are we accepting it as it is just because it was included in the obituary?  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree with your take on the obit, but, no matter. It's a content issue and, as such, you can go the usual route of seeking a consensus on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with User:Winkelvi's self-revert which restores 'obscurely'. But why isn't it possible to clarify the wording? The obituary explains (a) only a few hundred copies were sold by Ohio State University Press, (b) they didn't normally publish novels (Per the Edwin McDowell article in the NYT). So the point of 'obscurely' is that the novel didn't come to general attention. The original 'obscure' publication is intended to contrast with the 'real' publication by G. P. Putnam's Sons a few years later. If we keep only the word 'obscurely' in our summary it loses the meaning of the original. It doesn't need any further citation since the facts come from the obituary and the other NYT article. It just needs the context to be explained better. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering your response further, Ed, it seems the appropriate thing would be for Choor monster to make that change, unless he indicates here he would be fine with me making the change. Whatever the case, I'm now wondering how long it will be before we are free to freely edit the article and if the no reverts mandate is interminable.  Further clarification would be appreciated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Any evidence of cooperation between the two of you would be enough reason to lift the mandate. It would be a good idea for User:Choor monster to respond to the list of proposals you put on the talk page on October 11. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ed, you are reading the Talk page incorrectly. WV made a short list on 10/7, I gave a long detailed response the same day of how WV was incorrect on several of those issues, and on 10/11, WV gave a one-line unindented WP:IDHT.  I believe the lack of indentation is fooling you.  I think you meant to say it would be of interest for WV to respond to my list: for example, actually explaining his reasons for standing by the misreading of a source I pinpointed.
 * As for the slipshod status the article is in, refs and all. Well, no kidding.  I was in the middle of editing the article in bits and pieces, slowly assimilating all the WP:RS I'd found on Santmyer, when WV comes in and without bothering to even discuss things, elevates this to the noticeboard. That, to me, is blatant bad faith, especially after his previous "nyeah nyeah nyeah" on his talk page  that he plans to continue to Template my talk page, and lo and behold, this edit-war he set up happens one week later.  With Ed's mandate and WV's WP:IDHT, it seemed obvious there was nothing doable.
 * As I said in my 10/7 response, I agree there is a lot of work needed. As an experiment, I am willing to go ahead and start editing the article again with the understanding that Ed's mandate is suspended.  My first edit will be to remove the refs-needed tag at the top (but not the section cites-needed tag).  My second edit will be a cite to a source&mdash;one of the "Hollywood people", actually&mdash;saying "[the OSUP edition] sold approximately 200 copies and probably would have experienced a short, obscure literary life if not for an extraordinary, fortuitous series of events."  (emphasis mine)  The next round of edits will mostly be to implement the changes supported by my 10/7 list and to which WV never actually replied.  If for one week things look good with interested parties watching, excellent.  If not, rollback the article and unsuspend the mandate.
 * Note that my time is generally tight this semester, so I sometimes take a day or two to actually respond. Choor monster (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: OK, back to normal editing and there are no more restrictions on either of you. If a new edit war breaks out the usual rules apply. And, if either party makes a new 3RR report without evidence of trying any WP:Dispute resolution the results may not be good. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:PBS (Result: Resolved)
Page:

User being reported:

This is not a 3RR report but a request to stop an editor edit-warring on a talk page in the Wikipedia name space.

Version before reverts: |diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * diff, Initial talk page edit by user:PBS Revision as of 12:43, 11 November 2014 -- edit comment: "Problems with the consensus and problems with the wording"
 * diff, Revert by user:RGloucester, Revision as of 14:01, 11 November -- "Go away, and restate your opinion for the millionth time elsewhere."

Interlude on User talk:RGloucester (diff) 
 * == You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission ==

"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." (WP:TPOC).

You do not have permission to delete my comments as you did here. I am going to revert your delete. If you revert my revert then I will take it to AN/I. -- PBS (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll follow the more subtle approach of ignoring everything you write, going forward, and collapsing all remarks by you that are disruptive. Thank you for your time. I hope you remember that you're not allowed on this page. You ought not breech that restriction, lest you face God's wrath. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * diff, revert by PBS, 19:47, 11 November 2014 -- "You should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"
 * diff, collapse template used by RGloucester 19:48, 11 November 2014 -- collapse disruptive forum-shopping

Given the last sentence of RGloucester's talk page comment "" I decided to bring the issue here rather than comment again on  RGloucester's talk page.

The use of template collapse top in this situation is a breach of the lead in WP:Refactoring, the advise in the documentation of collapse top and WP:TALK:
 * "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."
 * "These templates should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:Refactoring guideline; they should never be used to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing."
 * [alledged] "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic ... editors may hide it using the templates collapse top... —these templates should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."

Comments:

I (PBS) object to the refactoring of my comments with the use of the template collapse top and collapse bottom by an RGloucester who is an involved editor.

I do not want this to escalate into more of an edit war (so I brought it here) rather than revert RGloucester collapse, and I do not want any administrative action taken against RGloucester, instead could someone get RGloucester to either revert the collapse or allow me to without any further edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Desired outcome by PBS

I am not actually involved in this, but surely there is a threshold beyond which one as gone too far? Regardless of the outcome here, such a comment as that by RGloucester may be deemed as threatening (in some manner, depending on interpretation and other things which I will not go into at the moment), and even if he was completely non-serious, still should not be reasonably allowable. Dustin ( talk ) 21:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! Monsieur le PBS seems to have been quite cursory in his examination of the situation, given that I decided to remove the collapsing half-an-hour before he filed this report. I decided that I would let his absurdity stand, for all to see, much like a tired old man whinging whilst bound in the village stocks. He may have briefly broken out of said stocks to ramble over to this forum, but he is whinging all the same. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mcgyver2k reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Biography */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards */"
 * 3)  "/* Awards */"
 * 4)  "/* Awards */"
 * 5)  "/* Awards */"
 * 6)  "/* Awards */"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 633267882 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 8)  "/* Awards */"
 * 9)  "/* Awards */"
 * 10)  "/* Awards */"
 * 11)  "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
 * 12)  "/* Awards */"
 * 1)  "/* Awards */"
 * 2)  "/* Awards */"
 * 3)  "/* Awards */"
 * 4)  "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
 * 5)  "/* Awards */"
 * 1)  "/* Awards */ Fixed an alleged claim that was proven false"
 * 2)  "/* Awards */"
 * 1)  "/* Awards */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Myles Munroe. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2014 */ customize"
 * 3)   "/* November 2014 */ resp"
 * 4)   "/* November 2014 */ resp"
 * 5)   "/* November 2014 */ +"
 * 6)   "/* November 2014 */ cmt"
 * 7)   "/* November 2014 */ fix"
 * 8)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Good edits coming */ resp"
 * 2)   "/* Good edits coming */ indent"
 * 3)   "/* Con artist is dead */ rem defamatory comments per wp:blp as blp standards apply for up to two years after article subject's death"
 * 4)   "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver2k"
 * 5)   "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp"
 * 6)   "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
 * 7)   "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ add sinebot sig"
 * 8)   "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"
 * 9)   "/* Using honorary degrees as titles */ resp"
 * 10)   "/* OBE (Order of the British Empire) citation missing */ resp to mcgyver"


 * Comments:

Issue over this content is still in discussion at the resolution noticeboard, but Mcgyver2k refuses to stop edit warring over this content. Yes, I have also reverted him several times, but only in the interest of keeping the article as it is with the referenced content. I have attempted several times to explain that a reliable source gives credence to keeping the OBE title in the article, Mcgyver2k refuses to listen. He insists on edit warring. I was more than willing to go through the resolution process he started, but have met with hostility and a brick wall with him there, as well. The edit warring over this needs to stop - but, more importantly, I think that the editor needs to understand that referenced content meets the threshold of inclusion. A separate matter, but playing heavily into his actions is a misunderstanding of verifiability policy. Not looking for punishment, just a stop to the disruption and combative nature of Mcgyver's editing at this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I used her own source to discredit her so she is all upset now. My source is the most definitive one available. I poste a list of ALL recipients for the year in question and Myles Munroe is not one of them. Should be case closed.voiceofreason 05:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)


 * . Seems like both of you have been edit warring for the last couple of days.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not really. The article was just semi-protected.  It's been quite active with vandalism and IP edits because of the death yesterday of the article subject, his wife, and daughter in a plane crash.  Mcgyver2k went to dispute resolution, I participated, he refused to wait for the process to work, started reverting again even though we were still in the midst of discusssion there.  Myself and another editor tried to discuss with him at the article talk page, the edit warring from Mcgyver2k continued.  My most recent reverts of Mcgyver's removal of content were because discussion was still in process and change in content/consensus/agreement had not yet happened. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  06:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. According to the report at WP:DRN, both parties have agreed to leave the OBE out of the article until discussions are concluded. This agreement was said to have happened about 22:00 on 11 November and I see no reverts since then, so it appears to be holding. I'll remind User:Mcgyver2k that believing you are correct is not a defence to WP:3RR. Also there is a problem with Mcgyver2k's signature that I'll explain on that editor's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Tutelary (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 2 edits by Torga (talk): Unsourced and undiscussed changes. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Torga (talk): Bring up your proposed changes on the article's talk page when they are challenged with a revert. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633192207 by Torga (talk)"
 * 4)  "this is a ref that NorthBySouthBaranof mistakenly doubled that was then removed from the article text but not from the references list; note that this ref is identical to the one IDed as "OTMGrant""


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This will be the third time I have reported Ryulong here. The first time was the 15RR report which was marked Stale 15 hours later, 2nd time was an amicable solution of remaining and urging himself to 3RR, and this time, fragrantly breaking 3RR in that same promise. Tutelary (talk) 05:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the attempt to resolve the dispute? Or the warning to the user?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixing someone else's mistake in reverting something wrong should not be considered a revert here. I'm not at 3RR.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 05:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Tarc reverted Torga. Torga reverted back. You reverted Torga. Additionally, Ryulong is an ex administrator. Ryulong has been on this site for years and has 200k edits. I have to assume by now that they are competent enough to monitor their own reverts. Tutelary (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted Torga three times, made an unrelated edit, and saw that Tarc and Torga were now edit warring over that unrelated edit rather than what Torga was originally trying to put onto the article. That re-correction should not count as a revert.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 06:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Two cents Ryulong's repeated presence on this board is neither coincidental or innocuous. At some point somebody with the tools required should take into account the broad ramifications of his continued battle ground mentality on the small slice of this project which manages to engender so much anger. At some point the possessive, yet technically permissible, agitation needs to stop. It's rare that an editor so vulgar and aggressive is given a pass, so many times. GraniteSand (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . It looks to me like is correct in his analysis, but I'd like to hear from .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with anything?— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 09:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It has to do with your endless presence here because you're combative and rude. But, I'd imagine you knew that. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editors taking potshots at participants from the sidelines is not helpful. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, there was a bit of confusion within that specific time frame., a single-purpose account who has done little but edit-war against consensus and post continuous screeds about same on the talk page, was up to the usual.  During the attempts to restore the neutral and supported-by-sources text, Ryulong and I appeared to overlap, as when I thought I was removing Torga's junk, it was in fact accidentally restoring an unused ref.  Ryulong's edit to fix this was a revert in the technical sense, but it was to fix my error.  It should not be counted towards anything.  The filer needs to be reminded that in the future, it'd be a good idea if he actually investigated first rather than simply making 1, 2, 3, 4 tic marks on a tally sheet. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Thanks, Tarc. Based on the unusual sequence of events, I'm not taking any action against Ryulong.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's intolerable. It used to be that if you could not use the site without breaking the rules every day you'd be warned not to 3RR, even if you thought you had an excuse, and that would be the end of it, or else there would be another end to it. It's not intolerable that Ryulong would behave in such a way because humans are humans, but it is untolerable that they are praised for it regularly and that most of the editors they encounter are new and take or are blamed for sock puppetry. why are there not so many sock puppets on the contested articles where people do not behave like Ryulong? But who cares. This site is about making a laugh and a name for yourself isn't it? Isn't that why we all use our real names? Ryulong is brought to this page many times per week and even 15rr does not illicit an admin intervention. Culturing a hostile environment. ~ R.T.G 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Somebody please tell me I'm seeing things. The subject of an ANI removes a negative comment about them and gets nothing but a friendly revert?  Hello? &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss   &#9742;  06:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad, the negative comment was a procedural error because the ANI was closed. I got it. I still would have preferred the late comment be removed by an "uninvolved" party. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:GeorgeLees1975 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 633548015 by Thomas.W (talk) Undoing repeated revision made without talk or explaination"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633546448 by Dr.K. (talk) Revision made by Dr.K has made while refusing to talk. Please comment on the talk page before deleting sections of useful sources thanks"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633544409 by Thomas.W (talk) Dr K and Watts seem to be the same person and do not explain their removal of useful information except to claim I am someone I am not."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633543522 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 631928400 by Dr.K. (talk)"


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


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


 * Discussion on talk


 * Comments:

Brand new account, probable sock. Very first edit of account to undo my reversal of the OR edit by CU blocked sock. He is rapid-fire edit-waring, reinstating an edit by Gasmonitor: diff while adding the SYNTH map of indeffed which has been rejected on the talkpage. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC) I am not a "sock" I think the information you have removed is relevant, interesting and well sourced and discussed (one sided as nobody resopnded to me before repeatedly reverting my edits but still). I can not help thinking there is a modicum of bias in this removal of information Kind regars (George Lees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLees1975 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: The sock is edit-warring even as this report is active. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, pr WP:DUCK, a very clear case of socking: same edits as indefinitely blocked, with same style edit summaries and on the same article, edit-warring to get the same OR image, a self-made map, into Akrotiri and Dhekelia. As for Gasmonitor I have no comment, since I'm not familiar with that editor, but I have no doubts about the connection between GeorgeLees1975 and Alexyflemming. Thomas.W talk 17:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Never heard of him - just because I think his references on the Cypriot sea are useful does not make me the same person! Can you discuss the actual issue - it seems to me to be well soursed from original texts George Lees
 * We did previously discuss the 'actual' issue at quite some length, and I've replied to you on the article's talk page as well. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment He's now moved on to throwing personal attacks. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He just announced his purpose on Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

as a sock of Alexyflemming by. Thomas.W talk 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

User:98.234.107.204 reported by User:Aura24 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Repeatedly adds in false detail about cancelled Legend of Spyro movie being "confirmed", that wasn't mentioned anywhere in the source provided.
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Since March 2014, User:98.234.107.204 has also been adding the same false information on the cancelled The Legend of Spyro 3D movie many many times for months on movie release date articles without providing any official sources whatsoever that shows evidence of the Legend of Spyro movie being made (it was confirmed to have been cancelled back in 2009). He just recently started adding the false info again on the Spyro (series) article, and shows no signs of stopping. -- Aura24 (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . The IP has been warned of the unsourced change only twice (both times this month). Not even enough warnings to justify a block for vandalism. The edits have been few and far between for the most part. You or someone else reverts them each time. You've never warned the IP for edit warring, although given the nature of the "war", that's understandable. You didn't even notify the IP of this report. I see no reason to take action on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

User:50.51.38.150 reported by User:Tutelary (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""Well established fact?" He was listed in the special thanks of Depression Quest! Contact was made, but the nature of the contact is in question (no claim can be made regarding it, positive or negative)."
 * 2)  "Clarification is our friend."
 * 3)  "No, I've seen you "discuss." You're more interested with pushing bull**** then using whatever wiki law you can to excuse yourself than you are with making a good article. Really, who added the Salon citation?"
 * 4)  ""Nobody ever argued" Then why even note it?"
 * 5)  "Holy crap, the mental gymnastics are just amazing. Thezoepost did not claim that a review happened. YOU need to cite the claim. Do you not know how the burden of proof works?"
 * 6)  ""Eron never made the claim" is too hard for you? Really, now you're just avoiding discussion. Is Salon even an acceptable source?"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 633597093 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) The claim itself is unsourced. thezoepost doesn't make that claim."


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


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


 * Comments:

Obviously over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Love how I'm getting flak for this but the one that first did the 3RR-ing was North. 50.51.38.150 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An addendum to my original report. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. The IP is giving policy names I'm not sure he knows and citing North's edits as 'vandalism'. (Hint hint, they're not, but they are over 3RR.) Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. does not clean have clean hands and should have stopped, but blocking them would be punitive since there will be no more disruption. NorthBySouth, you have acted foolishly; don't do it again. Just to make the case clear: the IP's edits are atrocious., your diligence is greatly appreciated; I hope you are pleased that the disruption is now over. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tutelary (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As per the reliable sources which have reported on this matter. Take it to the talk page."
 * 2)  "/* Conflicts of interest and pressure from game publishers */ This is well-established and discussed in reliable sources."
 * 3)  "Reverted edits by 50.51.38.150 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
 * 4)  "Please discuss your issues on the talk page and stop writing an ungrammatical and nonsensical sentence."
 * 5)  "Nobody ever argued that Gjoni wrote about Quinn or Depression Quest, so why are you writing a sentence which states that?"
 * 6)  "It doesn't make sense to say "Gjoni didn't review Depression Quest" because nobody's claimed that. If it needs to be clear that those accusations were by others, then write that."
 * 7)  "Unsourced and the sentence doesn't make sense. Discuss your proposal on the talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Over 3RR */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Over 3RR */ sign"
 * 3)   "/* Over 3RR */ c"
 * 4)   "/* Over 3RR */ r"


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


 * Comments:

User is over 3RR on the article with what appears to be a good faithed IP. As a result, I am reporting them both. North has not claimed an exemption within edit summaries and neither has the IP. In the event that either of them do, I'll let an uninvolved admin review such claims. But both editors are edit warring over the page. Tutelary (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is patently a bad-faith report by an ideological opponent. The IP has refused to engage in talk-page discussion despite multiple attempts and is inserting (a) completely ungrammatical, nonsensical sentences and (b) unsupported insinuations of unethical behavior by a living person that contradict the conclusions of all of the reliable sources. I claim both the vandalism and BLP exemptions in this case and I request that Tutelary be sanctioned for this bad-faith report, one of a continuing series of such unfounded reports made against their ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An addendum to my original complaint. North and the IP appear to be reverting several more times now. North is rollbacking said edits without an edit summary. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've merely reported two edit warriors and would merely like said edit warring to stop. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, sure Tutelary. You're just an innocent bystander who's never said anything about Gamergate and just magically happened to drag me to AN3. Come off it. The bad faith here is apparent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I note that the user in question has been blocked for disruptive editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. And you acted foolishly. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drmies and I am content with this result for both the IP and North. Thanks again. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the opinion of Drmies, but can not help to note that the version of Northetc. is backed up by the given source] and the version of mr. IP. not. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Banner, thanks Tutelary. I can't stress this enough: edit summaries are necessary, and in cases like these, when a 3RR exemption is claimed, that needs to be explicit. Even that doesn't mean exemptions are always granted, and I hope that will be more careful next time. At the same time, I am well aware that editors of good faith who wish to stick to the rules have a harder time than others who don't (in this case an IP editor). Drmies (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:71.7.239.21 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Campaign for Governor of Texas */ added Washington Post eval, non copyrighted text."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633619831 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633620185 by NewEnglandYankee (talk) NeilN deleted NEW material, not otherwise repeated material as he claimed.  He never read it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633621173 by NeilN (talk)How can you get a consensus when you keep deleting it from the talk page NeilN?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Wendy Davis Lost */"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring to add poorly written material to a BLP <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Blocked 31 hours--poorly written and a BLP violation too, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SargentSignals reported by User:NG39 (Result: Page in question deleted, user warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fuck off..."
 * 2)  "Fucktards keeps trying to delete.."
 * 3)  "Fucktard keeps deleting..."
 * 4)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 5)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 6)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 7)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 8)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 9)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 10)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 1)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 2)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."
 * 3)  "SargentSignals Super Soccer Schedule..."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User:SargentSignals. (Twinkle)"


 * Comments:

User Keeps removing MfD template from his userspace. Uses "fucktard"in his edit summaries.  NG39  (Used to be NickGibson3900) Talk 04:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Userpage deleted: Wikipedia isn't a webhost. Will address behavioral issues with the user.  Acroterion   (talk)   04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the user page on my watchlist now and if the editor returns and restores or adds similar material, where should I report the activities? Please instruct on my talk page as I am not watching here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kwm1975 reported by User:BranStark (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Same as last edit."
 * 2)  "Replaced intentionally false and misleading post that has been repeatedly re-posted."
 * 1)  "Replaced intentionally false and misleading post that has been repeatedly re-posted."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 15:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633315588 by Sitush (talk) Dear Sir,, Sardar Patel was gurjar, as already mentioned in Wikipedia Page of Mr. Vallabh Bhai  Patel.  Don't remove his picture. No copyright violation."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633503102 by Sitush (talk) Debate ::what you need? I already talked on talk page  November 2014e. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633505306 by Sitush (talk)YOu have changed whole gurjar history content and their Icon like Samrat Mihir Bhoja & Sardar Patel images. We oppose your act. Being admin you can not do this."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633616998 by NeilN (talk) We means Wikipedia writer, Please do not remove images with references. Thanks"


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


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


 * Comments:

3RR warning and discretionary sanctions notice given by earlier. Discussion on talk page <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * COMMENT, usual tag-teaming by non-Indian editors against a single Indian editor to insert dubious material. @NeilN, why did you reinsert that notorious Kurbanov myth / concoction originally from Ardir Banerji '62 ? If you see pg 58 of the source it clearly says the evidences of the Huna survival in Mewar are fourfold traditional, literary, epigraphic and numismatic. Balderdash and original research. This edit war needs an expert 3rd opinion between the 2 POV warriors. MonaPisser (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to discuss article content, do it on the article's talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The content was to illustrate competence, or the lack thereof of intervenors. The edit history shows 2 disputants for the reverted article content, who have already discussed it on article talk and got nowhere, essentially because they are talking past each other, with atrocious edit summaries. This is a classic 3rd Opinion situation if either of them requests it, and "we" should encourage it. The article itself is sufficiently important in the Indian context for me to volunteer to assist them, if AGF prevails. The article talk was perfunctory ending with one editor saying So please do not undo till the answer from your side to counter my facts provided you. Seems to be a case of IDHT MonaPisser (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't accept you as a neutral WP:3O and I'm pretty sure wouldn't either. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would want disclosure of any prior accounts, for sure. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you care to discuss Ghurye instead ? as I've already revealed my real world identity and other Wiki accounts (unlike you). MonaPisser (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – Gurjeshwar blocked 48 hours for 3RR violation, based on the four reverts listed above, which begin at 09:23 on 12 November. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: No blocks)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Contributions" beginning 03:54, 13 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian

Comments:

Eh, this one is messier than usual because the 3rr violation wasn't editing of a single page but repeated movement and blanking of content. The original content at Argentine, not Argentinian was an essay by RGloucester that (mho) ignored the relevant policy (common English practice) to focus on Spanish usage and POVy complaints about "proper" usage based on a (mistaken) history of the words' usage. I corrected the mistakes, removed the POV commentary, and included some additional and better sources. Those were almost instantly reverted.

Not really wanting to fight such a clingy page owner, I just moved the page to his user space where personal essays of one person's support belong. He couldn't move the page back and led it on a bizarre path around Wikipedia before sending it to my user space. That was fine and I just left it for speedy deletion.

The original namespace now being vacant, I restored the improved essay, which RGloucester has repeatedly moved or deleted without discussion, occasionally making specious edit commentaries that I am in copyright violation of myself, having pasted back the material from my original edit. He seems like a common appearance here and would appreciate the guy having the procedure explained to him again by people he will listen to.

Resolution of the placement of the original POVy content or my improvement of it would be nice as a sideline (He seems to accept leaving his in his user's section here but I'm not sure how genuine that is given his conduct today or as evidenced by his talk page and sarcastic reply there), but this might be the wrong forum for that. — Llywelyn II   04:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha! As I said, I'm fine with leaving my version of the essay in the user space, if his version stays in the user space. His is a skewing of the sources, and quite frankly, a total commentary. If mine is somehow no good for the Wikipedia space, then certainly neither is his. Yes, he committed a copyright violation by doing a cut-and-paste move. Nothing about the essay I wrote "ignored" policy, it just explained what the Spanish usage was, and what the etymology of the damn thing is. Never mind that, though. This is a total kibosh. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is obviously the wrong forum for this, but you can explain your concerns about my "skewing" and "commentary" on article's talk page. I can't see it at all, but perhaps I missed something. In any case, use of my own words is not a copyright violation as bad as cut-and-paste moves are for other reasons. — Llywelyn II   04:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a copyright violation because there is no attribution. By the way, as far as my behaviour is concerned, I do believe I left a comment on the essay's talk page in reply. Instead of granting a reply, Mr Llywelyn, presumably of fair Wales, started moving the page and messing with redirects. None of this would've started if he had simply talked it out first. However, was I meant to sit idly by whilst the essay I wrote was usurped because of apparent "PoV" problems, and then see him put his own heavily skewed version in? How on earth could I do that? It was an attack on my character, and so I defended myself. It was not an elegant affair, and I can't say I'm proud of myself for it. However, sometimes, one must do what one must. I believe the stout leek is quite aware of this, given his usual countenance to serve in winter's grasp. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, for anyone looking for the original essay and its edit history, it now resides here. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the page back to the original location, where it has been for the last 2 years, and opened a move request. That's what should had been done from the begining, a move request. Explain the reasons for moving or keeping it there, and if you want to move then where to move. Cambalachero (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Left a note for User:Jimfbleak who is an admin since he had redirected the article to Name of Argentina. Unless he responds here with an objection, I think this 3RR should be closed with a recommendation to let the move discussion run its course at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian. Nobody should do any further moves or redirections until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In any case, I don't think that redirect could be acceptable anyway, as it would be a redirect from the wikipedia namespace to the article namespace. Cambalachero (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I didn't realise what I had inadvertently wandered into <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  18:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No blocks. Everyone should wait for the outcome of the move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Argentine, not Argentinian. If you have some other opinion (such as delete the essay) why not express that in the move discussion and let the closing admin figure it out. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lamcy0803 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633691493 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 633689931 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 633688214 by Jaam0121 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 633680910 by Jaam0121 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Lamcy0803 seems to prefer edit warring over communicating as he's now reached 7rr, I had hoped both these  edit summaries would've been enough but clearly not, Jam0121 even attempted to discuss  but to no avail, I have also unintentionally reached 4rr without even realizing so my apologies for that, Cheers, – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  18:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * True, the user is indifferent to the warnings, does not comply with standards, just create an edit war in the article.Jaam0121 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. User:Davey2010, please be careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

121.73.130.151 reported by (Result: Anon blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * diff1
 * diff2
 * diff3
 * diff4
 * diff5


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

This IP address is edit warring with Drmies and me.VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 06:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Dreadstar ☥   06:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dreadstar. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

New Meat/sockpuppet IP
Please take a look at the Padmasambhava page .VictoriaGrayson<b style="font-family:Helvetica Neue;color:#707">Talk</b> 20:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article. Dreadstar  ☥   21:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

User:68.98.224.182 reported by User:Spshu (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred]

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

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Discospinster warning about deletion

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

Comments:

IP editor was already banned for edit warring on MGM. I have previously attempt a request for page protection on the article to get him to discussion to no avail administratively except for the acknowledgement of the block. He has also been using foul or attacking language in his edit summaries. Spshu (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A few more reverts have been done by this IP editor, since the initial report and have been added to the above lists. Spshu (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He has now expanded to reverting other articles that I have recently edit and is making threats in the edit summaries.

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred

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

Spshu (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough a registered user, Nathaniel43284, that has not been editing for 2 years all of a sudden is editing again and reverting my restorations and then some. Spshu (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP's edit summaries are blockable on their own, so I've blocked for 72 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathaniel43284 was presumably editing while logged out. I've blocked for 72 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, PhilKnight. Spshu (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: Both warned; Prisonermonkeys subsequently blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (In short, the user keeps deleting the "Ties with Unity" section)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff of 06:39, 11 November 2014
 * 2) Diff of 19:58, 11 November 2014
 * 3) Diff of 22:37, 11 November 2014
 * 4) Diff of 06:18, 12 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has started an edit war on this page. They keep removing this section on the technicality that the whole game synopsis has not been written yet. When this game was released it was strongly noted by Ubisoft that the game would have a clear tie to Assassin's Creed Unity, which came out on the same day. That information needs to be on the page. This user keeps removing that section for no policy-based reasons. If you think a section is incomplete, you either fix the problem or put an incomplete notice on it, not remove it. Actions need to be taken against this user. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also to be clear, the only reason that I did not revert the third or fourth revert (which is still active) is because I would rather not accumulate three reverts in 24 hours myself. I am waiting for someone else to fix the problem or for my reverts in 24 hours to drop to 1. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As I have repeatedly outlined on the talk page, the information does not need to be on the page. It is "information" that is presented without any kind of context whatsoever, which is what my issue with it was. There may not be a specific Wikipedia policy that applies here, but when did we need a policy for common sense? Given that Thegreyanomaly has admitted he waited for editing to continue, I consider his actions here to be an attack on myself, demanding admin action to try and silence an editor who he does not agree with. He has made no effort to resolve the issue, instead accusing me of trying to introduce censorship into the article on the grounds that I don't want the article to contain spoilers. At every step, he has been aggressive and under-handed, trying to force edits through with no discussion or attempt at resolving the problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless whether your edit is justified or not, you cannot unilaterally revert a page four times in 24 hours. I am not the only user to revert you. I have made efforts to resolve the issue, you didn't show up at the talk page until right before your third revert. Reporting a user for edit-warring is not attacking. If the section lacks context, you note that the section is incomplete or complete it, but you do not remove it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You haven't made any efforts. You showed up, posted what amounted to "NOPE" and ignored WP:AGF. You decided what you wanted the article to say before you considered the arguments. Then you arbitrarily ruled on the best direction for the article to take, despite the way you're involved in a content dispute. The fact is, you're using 3RR and SPOLIERS to try and shut editors who disagree with you up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not make any rulings. I just noted you have no policy to back you up. "Editors" is a little much, as you are the only one deleting the section. My 24 hours since my first revert is up. I have re-added the section and partly expanded it Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I showed up to the talk page rightfully saying nope, because before you changed your story, your edit summary was "The game hasn't been released yet, so this is completely unverifiable," which complete nonsense as people had the game and live footage. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why I should heed any of that when you have taken up edit-warring yourself? You might be outside the 24 hour window, but your most recent edits to the page, push your preferred version. That's edit-warring. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You told me the section was incomplete, I contributed towards completing it and cited a reliable IGN source in my claims. Two reverts in 24 hours from a user without a history of edit-warring is not edit-warring. You are the only one who wants your version, it's more like I am pushing against your preferred version of which only you prefer. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You are miscounting Revision as of 21:45, 11 November 2014 = 1 (me logged out) Revision as of 21:26, 12 November 2014 = 2. Two in 24 hours. The "zeroth" revert was before 21:26, 11 November 2014, it was 18:14. You are miscounting, and I had made it clear in the report that I would revert when my count fell. Also, you are letting a user with a clear cut history of edit-warring go unscathed. That is highly problematic. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * both and  that any more reverts of any kind in this article may be met with blocks without notice. Prisonermonkeys clearly breached 3RR. Thegreyanomaly reverted three times in 24 hours, not two, as a third revert was without being logged in (admitted). Although their third revert was outside the 24-hour window, it was ill-advised to revert after filing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thegreyanomaly, you are correct; I miscounted. You reverted twice in a 24-hour window. I've struck the language in my warning above and reworded the last sentence. My warning still stands, despite the difference in the number of reverts. Your announcement here doesn't let you off the hook. That said, if another administrator wants to take a different action, I have no objection. I will also give the matter some more thought.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Prisonermonkeys for one week for reverting despite my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Saadkhan12345 reported by User:Akmal94 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user is constantly editing the gallery page by adding new pictures of his countrymen therefore he is being biased. He changed my edit once when i sent him a message not to and then he did it again. I don't know what his problem is but he is constantly editing the gallery page by re-adding the same pictures over and over again even though i changed it. He does not get that we are a community and we must respect each other's edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmal94 (talk • contribs)
 * . Obviously, the report is malformed (no diffs listed), but there's also been no breach of WP:3RR, or even close to one by the reported user.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1989–94: Born Into the 90's and 12 Play */"
 * 2)  "What's the point? Jive was merged to RCA and he was signed in 1991, not 1989"
 * 1)  "/* 1989–94: Born Into the 90's and 12 Play */"
 * 2)  "What's the point? Jive was merged to RCA and he was signed in 1991, not 1989"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Previous AN3 here, blocked for edit warring and warned by Admin after page protection here: ; Editor immediately reverted/censored content against consensus as soon as their temporary block expired. See diffs in report above and article's talk page. Editor has a long pattern of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and appears to have no desire to reach consensus nor compromise on content and repeatedly violates WP:NPA, WP:CIV. I have been exceptionally patient but if nothing else is done on this matter they will continue to WP:DISRUPT the encyclopaedia. -- dsprc   [talk]  04:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AsharaDayne reported by User:Ventic (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Hey! The case seems not too simple also because I am involved.

I am editing usually another language wikipedia, so I'm not very involved in English version which has so many good users and articles. I was at the time it began reading about communism in North Korea and I saw that there's no North Korea in a list of Communist states, so I thought I'm changing a small misunderstanding. But it seems that since at least one year someone cancel any form of mentioning it using such or similar statement: "North Korea is still called communist by some western media to demonize communism" "Right wing radicals often call it "communist" to demonise Communism." etc.

Ok I understand that considering NK as communist may be disputable but in a source trying to be an objective one that should be mentioned from as neutral point of view as possible. The person accepts only two solutions: no mentioning or statements like "de facto feudal state", "not communist any more" etc. The discussion with the guy seems to be a bit emotional from his side ("you're blind" etc). Any of my propositions of compromise was rejected.

I agree with this silly "war" there was also my fault. I am not en wiki user; unfortunatelly for a short period of time I thought it's funny even. But it's just silly. So I want to report myself here too.

I suppose that three persons (AsharaDayne, 南天星斗 and 110.33.66.212) fighting over time with possibility of NK being communist are in reality one and the same person. At least they use the same slogans.

I think that nowadays when a lot of people uses wiki as their source of knowledge it's not good to present some things from non-neutral perspective. And it's not good that the point of view presented in wiki articles may depend on people who are fighting more efficiently for their beliefs.

I didn't put here links of various versions because there's a lot of it. You may see it in article history though. And there was a discussion in the article's talk page.

Thank you for your assistance in resolving this small issue. I hope it's a right page.

Have a nice day!

Ventic (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Akmal94 reported by User:Saadkhan12345 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] 9 November
 * 2) [diff] 9 November
 * 3) [diff] 9 November
 * 4) [diff] 9 November
 * 5) [diff] 11 November
 * 6) [diff] 11 November
 * 7) [diff] 11 November

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

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

Comments:

Please check history of the article to see how he's been reverting my edits "not being popular etc"...despite the fact they are well known. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

and regarding POV pushing and pro-afghan propaganda which thanks to User:Faizan has been kept in check: Propaganda proof User:Krzyhorse22 im surprised that you can still blame me for POV pushing meanwhile one can easily, by a quick glance at you talk page, notice something quite more extreme here... the only dispute i had was on Zarb-e-azb.Btw if you think User:عثمان خان شاہ is me and User:UsmanKhanShah was me thn plz open up an SPI investigation lol Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per my observation Saadkhan12345 is not only an extreme P.O.V.pusher and an edit-warrior but he is also very likely abusing multiple accounts and evading sanctions. I strongly suspect that he is indef-blocked User:UsmanKhanShah and was using this now-blocked IP and is currently using User:عثمان خان شاہ/Saadkhan12345 IDs on the same pages. This edit and this one strongly indicate that the person using the now-blocked IP is Saadkhan12345. I don't think SPI is necessary at this point, the evidence is convincing.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Krzyhorse22 is quick to lay blame and point fingers but I think it would be quite interesting to note your history on the article Operation Zarbe-azb:
 * 1) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 2) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 3) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 4) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 5) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 6) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 7) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 8) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 9) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 10) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 11) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 12) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 13) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 14) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 15) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 16) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 17) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 18) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan
 * 19) [diff] November 6 edit war with User:Faizan

User:UniGuard reported by User:Avono (Result:Sock blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633812324 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) damage"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 633798930 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk): Better known version. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633806902 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) it's an important award in the silver jubilee of "Kerala formation". You are just considering your individual point of view."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633805125 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 633804945 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 6)  "Reverted to revision 633553704 by UniGuard (talk): A trial revert for avoiding edit conflict while sourcing. (TW)"
 * 7)  "Reverted 3 edits by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) to last revision by UniGuard. (TW)"
 * 8)  "Reverted to revision 633553704 by UniGuard (talk): Revert over vandalism. article under maintenance.unsourced will be reliably sourced within 2 weeks. Don't remove contents. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 633553704 by UniGuard (talk): Revert over vandalism. article under maintenance.unsourced will be reliably sourced within 2 weeks. Don't remove contents. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAvono&diff=633790799&oldid=633750297] User talk:UniGuard
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

edit warning over unsourced content, unreliable sources and layout? seems to be issues with ownership, also went forum shopping over the removal of the unsourced content. Avono (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * also personal attack at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATheRedPenOfDoom&diff=633808547&oldid=633770245] Avono (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * also tried to refactor my report at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&diff=633839546&oldid=633835375] Avono (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

indefinitely as a sock of User:Wiki-senetor. Amortias (T)(C) 21:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Overdtop (Result: No violation--at least not by Thomas.W, Overdtop blocked for personal attack)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#Calling_of_Bosnia_and_Herzgovina.27s_government> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Don't have 4r because User:Timbouctou seems to be a sock-puppet of the reported User:Thomas.W: a behavioral pattern is clear as they pass the DUCK - their accounts were created 8 and 9 years ago, and the sock puppet made sudden, first-ever appearance when making the 3rd revert, conveniently enabling the reported user to avoid the 3RR. Also, the duo repeated the exact same behavior in the article Presidency_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina too, over the same 24h period. So it's hardly a coincidence that only these 2 users are involved in the same game of avoiding the 3RR, in 2 separate articles and in the same 24-hour period, while having a problem with the same edit (stating of regime type for country of Bosnia and Herzegovina as being protectorate, as per 100s of reliable media/scientific/legal sources). Please run a CheckUser if necessary. Reason: these are the most important articles about a country, and the user uses most unbelievable scare tactics like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Overdtop#Discretionary_sanctions_notice Overdtop (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So apparently User:Overdtop seems to have read a book review (not even a book) in something called Peace Magazine in which a reviewer casually interpreted someone else's article on Bosnian politics as proof of it being a "protectorate", as opposed to a sovereign country. Overdtop then went on to insert this "reference" into a series of articles on Bosnia and Herzegovina, basically redefining the concept of Bosnia and Herzegovina. ThomasW reacted and reverted, then engaged in fruitless discussion at Overdtop's talk page, and told him to seek consensus first. The said consensus was never reached - his edits were actually opposed by other editors at Talk:Bosnia and Herzegovina . He reverted, I reverted, and then he ran over here to file some pointless report, ingeniously suspecting me and ThomasW are one and the same. Oh please oh please oh please do run a CheckUser. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou  (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing to see here. The edit warrior is Overdtop; Thomas has reverted only twice. Now, Overdtop has been given the obligatory BALKAN warning and hopefully they'll stop this now, but just in case, I'll remind that those discretionary sanctions govern a lot of the articles they've been editing, and that, depending on circumstances, one single revert can be blockable, especially given their apparent penchant for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Overdtop blocked for gross personal and national attack.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:UniGuard (Result: Sock blocked, opponent warned.)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Asianet Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 2)  "/* Asiavison Tv Awards (Dubai) */ unsourced"
 * 3)  "/* AsiaVision Amma Malayalam Movie Awards (Dubai) */ unsoruced"
 * 4)  "/* CNN-IBN */ unsoruced"
 * 5)  "/* Kerala State Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 6)  "/* Indian Medical Association */ unsourced"
 * 7)  "/* National Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 8)  "/* South Indian International Movie Awards */ unsourced"
 * 9)  "/* Mathrubhumi Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 10)  "/* Kerala Film Critics Awards */ unsourced"
 * 11)  "/* Jaihind TV Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 12)  "/* Kerala Film Audience Council Awards */ unsourced"
 * 13)  "/* Filmfare Awards South */ unsourced"
 * 14)  "/* Amrita TV Film Awards */ rem unsourced"
 * 15)  "/* Other awards and recognitions */ unsourced / non reliably sourced"
 * 16)  "/* Other awards and recognitions */ format"
 * 17)  "/* Vanitha Film Awards */ unsourced"
 * 18)  "/* Star Screen Awards */ unsourced"
 * 19)  "/* Titles and Honours */ unsoruced"
 * 20)  "/* International Indian Film Academy Awards */ unsoruced"
 * 21)  "unneeded hatnote"
 * 22)  "poorly sourced and written"
 * 23)  "gramm"
 * 1)  "gramm"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Heavy vandalism, damaging wikipedia articles. UniGuard (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * this is not edit warning, bring it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents instead, these look like legitimate edits Avono (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing this: UniGuard already blocked as a sock. But...eh...may I?, you are playing with fire and you need to be much more careful. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Agile Falcon and User:Calssico reported by User:Iselilja (Result:)

 * OK, I tried to handle this without the use of blocks, but seems I failed. They have about twenty reverts each on Moroccan genetics. Warnings: 1, 2 and more. Iselilja (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mfield (Oi!) 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * also semi protected as IPs appear to have been involved most recently Mfield (Oi!) 05:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ComfyKem reported by User:DrogoChubb (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1 diff 2

Comments: He needs to compromise about the section and attempt to work together.--DrogoChubb (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Both and  are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR (three reverts each in a 24-hour window). If either persists in their reverts, they may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Kenfree (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Also, this issue is under discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, where Marek's disruptive behavior has also been discussed

Comments: Volunteer Marek has shown himself an incorrigible edit warrior, who will not tolerate edits to the lede that fail to maintain the negative tone he desires. Dozens of examples could be adduced, but this is my first formal report. Marek has clearly reverted Sidelight 12's good faith edit three times in less than 24 hours, without reasonable cause. Please review the editorial history of this page and earlier examples of intolerance of editorial revision by those not sharing this user's POV will be evident. --> Kenfree (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here are all edits by Kenfree in article space. During the entire year of 2014, he did only one thing: reverts in the article he now complains about. This is clearly a case of WP:Not here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This report by user:My very best wishes is false on both accounts (see my editing history) and irrelevant on all accounts, as is the fact that user:My very best wishes has not contributed anything constructive in the whole of my experience in this conflict.Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by VM

There is no 3RR violation here. Yes, I reverted Kenfree. That is because this is an issue which has been discussed TO DEATH. On the article talk page, , , , on WP:NPOVN and several other venues which I can't be bothered to look for right now. User:Kenfree, along with a tag-team buddy User:Spotter 1, who was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on this very article has been engaged in a long running edit war against multiple users for close to two months. By "multiple users" I mean about half a dozen, including one administrator, User:Ymblanter. And of course, these two are just the latest in a long list of single purpose accounts, most of which have shown up on this article to push POV, get banned, and then come back with new usernames. Needless to say, this is edit warring by Kenfree against consensus, involving repeated attempts to remove well sourced information from the article. This consensus has been strongly established in the above mentioned discussions. Kenfree is simply engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and reverting away.

In addition to today, Kenfree tried to impose his views on the article via edit warring on November 1st  (note that this is him edit warring with OTHER editors, not me), October 27th  (again not me), October 25th, , October 21st  , ,  (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported, AFAIK), October 17 , , October 13 , October 9 , , , ,  (another unreported 3RR violation).

I should also add that constructive discussion with this user is impossible. They have repeatedly claimed that the five sources provided for the text under dispute don't support the text. In response, detailed explanations and direct quotes showing that they DO in fact support the text have been repeatedly provided. This was done on the talk page and at the noticeboard discussion linked above. In response Kenfree ignored these explanations, only to repeat their false claim again in some other venue. It's a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The typical conversation goes something like this:

Kenfree: "The five sources provided don't support the text"

Other user: "Yes they do, please read them, here are the links"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "Yes they do, here's a quote from all five sources which shows that they directly support the text"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "What do you mean they don't? I just gave you exact quotes. Here's some more..."

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "? Can you explain how?"

Kenfree: "No they don't"

Other user: "I just explained that they do, how, and provided quotes"

Kenfree: "No you didn't"

Etc.

That's basically the level of discussion here. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  17:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The above referenced discourse is also both falsely reported (note that it is not referenced) and irrelevant to user:Volunteer Marek's violation, which was not, as he reports, initially a revert of me, but of Sidelight 12, whose constructive edit, reflecting the current discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, Marek personally opposes, but is manifestly incapable of rationally critiquing there or elsewhere.  So he edit wars.  Anyone with questions about my capacity for constructive discussion, as compared to Marek's, is referred to the NPOV noticeboard discussion on this topic, rather than his highly fabricated wall of text. Kenfree (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "(note that it is not referenced)" - come on, I give twenty two diffs as evidence. You do realize that people can read and see those for themselves, right? They're right above. See what I mean? <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  18:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Marek, it is because I know that people can read for themselves that I am confident that if they go to the Wikipedia record, rather than relying on your tendentious paraphrase of that record, they will soon enough discover that it is you, and not me, who continues to defend a list of largely irrelevant citations to a very serious allegation against the RT network, and that at each turn your claims about their relevance have been refuted by me and other editors. They will also discover that it is you, and not I, who have been reverting without explanation.  My constructive and well developed contributions to the talk page and the current NPOV noticeboard discussion will certainly speak for themselves, and the glaring ABSENCE of yours will as well. Kenfree (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Ymblanter There is a clear consensus at the talk page that the current version is appropriate. Kenfree refuses to accept this consensus and is therefore forum-shopping and edit-warring. I suggest that they get blocked for disruptive editing instead.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that anyone with administrator status should be required to show at least a semblance of neutrality, but this is never the case with Ymblanter, whose service as a sidekick for Volunteer Marek is unceasing, suggesting that there is either ideological consanguinity or some other kind of reward for his services involved. In any case, his statement above should be compared to the raging dispute among the editors on the NPOV noticeboard, to which Sidelight 12's edit represented a constructive attempt at compromise, making Marek's reversion all the more damaging.  But Ymblanter persists in supporting this ideological bully, and not those who are striving for neutrality and balance. His administrative privileges urgently stand in need of review! Kenfree (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Ymblanter, just so we're clear on this, you're not getting any "kind of reward for the services involved"! <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, here is the opening statement by Kenfree on Neutral point of view noticeboard. He tells: "The following editors were previously named in the mediation request because of their support for this tendentious editing: 37.214.122.178 Volunteer Marek Sidelight12 Galassi Capitalismojo Ymblanter NE Ent." There are 7(!) editors who disagree with him. And what Kenfree does? Brings this to various noticeaboards, reverts and endlessly argue. This is WP:DE classic. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't it interesting how whenever these tendentious editors are caught in a contradiction, as was user:Ymblanter here, they just blithely change the subject (to yet more ad hominems, lol). Even if there were any truth to user:My very best wishes' claims in the preceding paragraph (and there is little) what does any of this have to do with whether or not user:[[Volunteer Marek is guilty of edit warring? This user and others continue to turn the subject to me instead, but I am not the one reported for edit warring, so it is all so much deflection. As to user:My very best wishes' argument above, this user falsely counts six named editors as seven, and omits mention of the three editors who support changing the lede, so as to make it seem like I am the only editor who advocates this. This kind of one-sided reporting is precisely what is meant by "tendentiousness," of which this user' actions demonstrate endless textbook examples. The reference to WP:DE above is a real hoot because these are exactly the traits demonstrated by Volunteer Marek and those few editors who collude with that user.  I have noticed this regular tendency to project unto (blameless) others the precise behaviors they themselves perennially exhibit.  Kenfree (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not caught in any contradiction, please stop lying. I seriously suggest that WP:BOOMERANG should be applied here. Kenfree created enough disruption and they truly deserve some rest.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The continual abuse of the term "disruption" for opinions not shared by this administrator, coupled with his recent threat to block users "guilty" of it, should be enough to bring into question his fitness for the status. The contradiction is very clear above between the evident fact of editorial dispute, documented on both the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, and his ridiculous claim that there is editorial "consensus." He strips the term of its clear meaning, to reserve it for only those on one side of an open question. Kenfree (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: There has been no 3RR violation by either User:Volunteer Marek or User:Kenfree. It's possible that there is long-term edit warring but to show that it we need a well-organized complaint, which this is not.  People are reverting about the term 'disinformation' but I don't see any RfC or well-organized talk discussion about that word. It implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof. It may be possible to gather together some examples so that the reader will figure it out on their own, if that's really the case. If you want people to be blocked for long-term revert-warring against consensus you should be able to point to conclusive discussions somewhere.  I see a talk page thread to remove the NPOV tag; that one seems conclusive.  While we wait for this report to be closed, I am alerting User:Kenfree and User:Spotter 1 to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE.  The vehemence of some of the statements on the talk page is starting to fall under the criteria for WP:ARBEE enforcement, in my opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the report, this issue was discussed in the talk pages here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#NPOV_dispute:_Slanting_of_lead_is_out_of_control, and I would now add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RT_(TV_network)#Recent_edit. More importantly, as the disruptive editors were not forthcoming in explaining their position in Wikipedian terms, the discussion on the NPOV noticeboard, also referenced in the original report,which has a more public character, is vital for understanding the positions (and editorial practices) in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#RT_.28TV_Network.29...neutral_feedback_desperately_needed.21  After reviewing these, it would seem impossible to say that there has not been "well-organized discussion about that word."  The principle stated above, " It [the allegation of disinformation]implies that RT is being deliberately untruthful which ought to require a fair amount of proof." should be self-evident, but as this fair amount of proof is nowhere to be found, and as the many appended references do not provide any, the statement does not belong in this artice, AND CERTAINLY NOT IN THE LEDE. But dozens of attempts to clean it up have been blocked by Marek's reversions, as the history page will demonstrate.  I would request that if the edit warring charge does not pass muster, that Marek (et al.)be instructed to accept the deletion of this allegation until such time as sufficient proof is discovered to merit its inclusion. Is that asking too much? Kenfree (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe that a separate AE request should be filed about Kenfree, I can certainly do it, however I am not so sure given the outcome of my previous AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, and backed up with close to twenty diffs, Kenfree has been reverted on this issue by seven or eight different editors. They're clearly edit warring against consensus. They're also engaged in forum shopping, bringing the same thing to one noticeboard after another in search of a result they want. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  16:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is the board where you are supposed to explain the problem in itty-bitty diffs which admins can understand without them needing to read 20,000 words of prior discussion at other noticeboards. Don't worry about needing to file at AE, if you make a case here which is convincing enough, admins will follow up. A long list of he-said she-said diffs doesn't really parse. There is a lack of adequate talk page discussions which have a clear result. Hotly disputed pages need RfCs very badly. Why doesn't somebody propose draft paragraphs for the lead and then have an RfC. If the well-organized debate about the POV tag is any example it may not take long to get a result. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While the evidence of wrongdoing by Kenfree (two personal attacks on Ymblanter and persistent edit warring in EE area) is right here (see above), one probably can not report him to WP:AE, because he received an official warning about this only today... My very best wishes (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Another of Ms. Harpy's growing list of fabrications! For the record, I have not been officially warned about any "wrongdoing" as she alleges, and my talk page and its history are evidence enough (please see). Kenfree (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No action against User:Volunteer Marek. Whether sanctions are needed against anyone else depends on a better case being made. Those of you who think you are the consensus, prove it by holding well-organized discussions on the article talk that reach definite conclusions about the wording. Those who may fear they are in a minority should work on finding better sources and showing their skill in negotiation. Anyone who seems unable to edit neutrally on this topic should be aware that article bans are possible under WP:ARBEE. I don't recommend any use of WP:AE until more thorough discussions are held. EdJohnston (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war & abuse at Tomb Raider (Result: Locked and one block)
Users Peacemaker67 & Parsecboy are persistently reverting from the agreed UK spelling to US spelling, also:
 * greed spelling is shown here
 * user Peacemaker67 is being abusive, see and now
 * This is an ongoing ENGVAR "issue" that this IP-hopping "coward" is driving, see history of Tomb Raider and other articles. It is a clear block-evasion. User:Parsecboy and I are well aware of the disruption. The IP is block-evading and has no business here. EOS. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker67. The spelling variant for Tomb Raider has long been agreed and is clearly stated on the Talk page. Also, there is no excuse for abuse such as name calling which includes your repeated use of 'coward' as well as and
 * Rubbish, this is a clear call-out for your ongoing ENGVAR crusade. The articles should just be semi'd to protect us all from the waste of time you represent. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Peacemaker67. There's nothing rubbish about noting you have been abusive, as can be seen from the above links. There's nothing rubbish about noting you are changing from the agreed spelling variant, as can be seen from the above link.


 * is at 4RR, but can anyone else hear a duck?


 * . The article has been locked and Peacemaker blocked by .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And ??  and  were both firmly in the wrong because, as the talk page states, the WP:ENGVAR is British English.  The British English spelling of the word is 'centring'. and not 'centering' as both  and  repeatedly edit warred over.  The fact that  is an admin makes it even more serious as admins should abide by the rules that they expect others to follow. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , neither you nor the IP is signing your posts. If you don't start doing so, I'm going to close this discussion. As it is, it's difficult enough to parse.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 'Twas not deliberate, but purely an oversight. I think the sig got lost in the move from WP:ANI  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue was wider than just the Tomb Raider article (which should indeed be in BrEng, I did not notice that it was in fact a British topic - all I saw was the IP changing the variety of spelling on yet another article). See for instance this edit with the summary "non-US subject so incorrect to use US spelling" - a bit of linguistic imperialism that's unfortunately all too common amongst residents of Britain, I'm afraid. There's a reason we have WP:RETAIN. I'll also be blocking the OP for evading the block on the other IPs he's used. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that I was not notified of this discussion as per the bright red instructions. Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm assuming your justification for edit warring was block evasion. If that's correct, why was Peacemaker blocked? Wouldn't they be able to claim the same justification? (Sorry about the notification. It's the OP's burden to do so, but I usually check and do so if they don't. Here, the report itself was malformed, so I neglected to do that.)--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed - I attempted to discuss with the OP on his original IP but he apparently had no interest in that. As for Peacemaker, I don't know, exactly, but I'd wager the less than civil edit summaries probably factored into it. A week may be a bit excessive, though, but perhaps the blocking admin was just matching the blocks I had applied to the IPs (which, incidentally, started at 31 hours and was only lengthened after he started evading the block). And no worries, it's not your responsibility to notify me (or anyone else involved). Parsecboy (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Seanwal111111 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Stale and warning multiple editors)
Page:

User being reported:

Editor notified:

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:

Seanwal has been reverted by 3 different editors. His response to being reverted is, "Undid revision. You have to explain and justify your edit with respect to the MOS:BIO guidelines."

On November 5, I posted the following on Favonian's talk page:

"I need some advice as to how to proceed. On the Al-Karaji article, user:Seanwal111111 has been removing Persian from the lead. He has been reverted by user:HistoryofIran and myself. I initiated the discussion on the talk page, in which Seanwal's reasoning is his interpretation of MOS guideline, "Ethnicity... should not generally be emphasized in the opening [paragraph] unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.".

My response was that if sources state the subject's ethnicity then we are required to mention it. Seanwal responded by stating, "I note that you haven't any concrete historical fact to offer bearing on his ethnicity; rather, you just assert a label.".

I responded by posting numerous sources on Oct 15th. After waiting until Oct 26th and receiving no response from Seanwal, I restored the reference and referenced information.

Nine days later(Nov 5th) and without even making an effort on the talk page, Seanwal came back to remove the reference and referenced information, making the same blanket statement, "I invite Kansas Bear to try to explain why his edit should get an exception from the MOS:BIO guidelines. It appears Seanwal does not have to participate on the talk page(he has not used it since Oct 14th) and continues to use his interpretation of MOS guidelines to edit war."

As of today, November 12th, Seanwal has not posted on the talk page since October 14th, yet has reverted the article 4 times. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply by Seanwal111111. The insertion I am repeatedly deleting is in clear violation of the guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography given at Manual of Style/Biographies. I explained this at Talk:Al-Karaji a month ago. Since then two Persian flagwavers have repeatedly re-inserted Persian ethnicity in the opening paragraph at Al-Karaji. They have been doing this without justifying it on the talk page with respect to the Manual of Style guidelines for the opening paragraph of a biography, and, in fact, without even attempting to justify it. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply by Kansas Bear. I would strongly suggest that Seanwal not issue personal attacks such as, "two Persian flagwavers. I am neither a Persian or a flagwaver.
 * If his opinion of Manual of Style/Biographies is correct then I am sure there are proper venues to support it, however his opinion of a Wikipedia policy does not give him license to edit war as he has done. I am curious as to why this policy has not been applied to Frédéric Chopin, Ludwig van Beethoven, Galileo Galilei, Johann Sebastian Bach, just to name a few.
 * Also there are three editors that he has reverted(Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran, 46.143.214.22). Unless Seanwal is implying sockpuppetry.
 * Lastly, there has been an explanation on the talk page,
 * "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."
 * "Notability is dependent on source(s). Therefore, if a reliable source mentions al-Karaji's ethnicity we are required to mention it." Since Seanwal did not like this response, he quit the talk page(Oct 14th) then returned to edit war(Nov 5th). --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, Seanwal111111 is plainly correct about Manual of Style/Biographies. The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear, but it discourages ethnicity unless the ethnicity is notable.  The Al-Karaji page does indicate his nationality.   I don't know whether Al-Karaji's ethnicity is relevant to his notability (haven't a clue who he is), but if it is relevant the page at the moment does not explain why.  I'm not saying anything about whether the edit war was proper, but he's definitely right about the WP.  Djcheburashka (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "The WP requires nationality, which is the reason for the content on the pages cited by Kansas Bear.."
 * Not to take this further off topic but;
 * "Chopin was born in what was then the Duchy of Warsaw, and grew up in Warsaw...", therefore Polish is being used as an ethnicity not nationality.
 * "Ludwig von Beethoven, Born in Bonn, then the capital of the Electorate of Cologne and part of the Holy Roman Empire.....", therefore German is being used as an ethnicity not a nationality.
 * "Galileo Galilei, Galileo was born in Pisa (then part of the Duchy of Florence)....", Italian is being used as an ethnicity.
 * "Johann Sebastian Bach, Bach was born in Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach, into a great musical family." same as Beethoven.
 * I believe this had made my point. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Quite the opposite, and this isn't really off-topic- -- you've thoroughly confirmed that you don't understand the policy:
 * Chopin has an entire section discussing the notability of his Polish nationality.
 * Bach was born in present-day Germany, and the article extensively discusses his role in the development of the "German style" of music.
 * As for Galileo and Beethoven, we don't generally distinguish nationalities between different states of the Holy Roman Empire. Instead we generally treat people born in the parts that became Italy as Italian, and the parts that became Germany as German.  If they were using ethnicity, the Beethoven lede would list him as a "Belgian" composer.


 * What's becoming increasingly clear here, is that this was an incident in which three editors who insisted on a completely mistaken understanding of a rather simple rule, ganged-up on a fourth who actually understood it. Looking at the talk, he expressed his view in clear and concise terms. He was met with attacks, anger, nastiness, threats, accusations of bias, and an obvious abject refusal to engage in reasonable discussion.


 * The simple solution here would have been to take "Persian" out of the lede, and have a separate section of the article discuss the sources and notability (if any) of his Persian heritage. In fact, the poster proposed that, but the three opponents refused to entertain it.  Why?


 * I'm not defending the 3RR -- but the context is one of an outside editor trying to do the correct thing (improperly), first raising the matter in talk in a reasonable way and seeking compromise and discussion, when three other editors abusively and unreasonably refused to include him/her in the discussion and instead insisted on a mistaken position that coincidentally coincides with the known POVs of at least two of them. Djcheburashka (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . There haven't been any edits to the article for a few days. Otherwise, I would have locked the page for the edit war among all the parties, not just the reported user. At the moment, Seanwal's preference is in place, but that's purely happenstance. The MOS guideline is (1) subject to interpretation and (2) is not a policy and is therefore overridable by consensus. I'm not taking sides as to whether Persian should or shouldn't remain in the lead. Nor am I saying there is a consensus at the moment. That said, I'm putting the article on my watchlist, and any editor already involved in the battle on the article, which includes, , , and , may be blocked without notice if they revert without a very clear consensus on the dispute. An RfC might be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:24.167.37.227 reported by User:Avono (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633979631 by Avono (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633979423 by Avono (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633978570 by Avono (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 633631244 by MartinezMD (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Vaquero. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

editwarning IP, makes unconstructive edits that Vaquero are racist Avono (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:76.201.60.184 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - where he reverts this removal by A. Parrot of redundant and poorly sourced material the IP added
 * 2)  - where he seems to make some bizarre claim that everyone else constantly reverting him means I'm edit warring and he's not, or something?
 * 3)  - where user explicitly refuses to discuss matters
 * 4)  - falsely accuses others of vandalism for removing his redundant and poorly sourced addition
 * 1)  - falsely accuses others of vandalism for removing his redundant and poorly sourced addition
 * 1)  - falsely accuses others of vandalism for removing his redundant and poorly sourced addition

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Orion_(constellation)

Comments:

IP has a history of edit warring for specific fringe views (focused on Orion and Osiris), refusing discussion, and ignoring other users under different addresses that locate to the same area (such as at 66.214.143.68 at Hayk). This address is static, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Indefinite semi. Appears to be the same kind of edits coming from multiple IPs over several years. Looks to be sockpuppetry. See the protection log. According to recent discussion at Talk:Orion (constellation) this IP might be WP:Long term abuse/Ararat arev. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit with no reason for many many times, warned him would be considered "vandalism" already but no avail. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – Indef for long-term edit warring and refusal to communicate. The last block was in September for one week, but User:Ymblanter warned him that the next block (if there was one) might be indef. This block can be lifted if the user will agree to engage on talk pages and work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * 2)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * 1)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * 2)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * 1)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"
 * . The account is new and has not breached WP:3RR. Nor is their own version in place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Fortrade59 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '
 * 1)  "←Replaced content with '


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of sourced content, EW */ new section"


 * Comments:

Note multiple notices on user's talk page. MrBill3 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I withdraw this report Apparently the editor is the creator and subject of this and another article on their pen name and wishes the content removed due to privacy concerns. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aku Indonesia reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Locked and warnings)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 634060227 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* First-team squad */"
 * 3)  "/* Players */"
 * 4)  "/* Intercontinental competitions */ This is Wikipedia! Everyone can edit. As long as the correct and sourced. Consensus? That is only talk with few people.  not important"
 * 5)  "/* Performance in AFC competitions */"
 * 1)  "/* Performance in AFC competitions */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Persib Bandung */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The article has an history of edit-warring and a consensus was reached to remove the informations he keeps on adding. MbahGondrong (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately,, there's been too many reverts by too many editors since the lock I placed on the article expired. Although I warned editors on the article Talk page that reverts might be met with blocks, that warning was not necessarily seen by everyone. At one point in the last few days, I thought of blocking any editor who reverted on the article but had not participated in any discussion on the Talk page, but even that block might be unfair based on lack of warning. Part of the problem is there are too many editors. Another part of the problem is even those who have taken the time to discuss issues have not necessarily reached consensus, or the consensus has been very limited. With respect to the section added by , where is there discussion on the Talk page for that issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The case for the section that was added by actually was included in the first discussion here. There was discussed about the informations that should and should not be included in the article as a whole. As for the 'Performance in AFC competitions' section, this was included in the 'Honours' already and a separate section is seen as redundant information. MbahGondrong (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't find that month-old discussion very clear with respect to this section, and even some of the edit summaries regarding this section complain about other issues rather than "too much".--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I suppose there could be another discussion again to reach a consensus for this section, but still I cannot see that the user involved will participate as he already said that consensus does not mean anything. It will be pointless, unless you have any other way to solve this issue? MbahGondrong (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for two weeks. Apparently, Walter Gorlitz disagrees with you and reverted. I've therefore locked the article, this time for longer. Hopefully, the discussion on the Talk page will be more robust. Keep in mind that other content dispute resolution mechanisms exist as well.
 * . The following editors are warned that any reverts on the article after expiration of the lock may be met with blocks without notice:, , , , and . These are the editors who have reverted in the article after the first lock expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. What do I disagree about? There was a discussion on the talk page and the material there is what I reverted to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought it was pretty clear. You reverted MbahGondrong. That usually means you disagree with the edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you mean the edit where he stated that the content was already contained earlier in the article, yes, I disagree since it's not earlier in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * 2)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"
 * 1)  "The former version of this sentence wrongly assumes that no one believes intelligent design to be a scientific idea."
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Of Pandas and People. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent edits reverted */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Pseudoscientific in Lead Paragraph */ r"


 * Comments:

Second report, first was declined. Editor is now beyond 3RR. MrBill3 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed! They seem to have no intention to stop. A block is due. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  deleted heavily debated consensus material
 * 2)  asked to revert self, snarky response
 * 3)  2nd revert after another editor restored said material (note this is a 1RR Community Sanctions article)
 * 4)  sanitizing ISIL actions
 * 5)  disruptively tagging high traffic article with an essay tag.
 * 6)  engaging in disruptive arguments
 * 7)  Notified of disruptive editing
 * 8)  more strange behavior and false accusations
 * 9)  and more strange disruptive posts

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This article is under active 1RR Syrian Civil War and ISIL Community Sanctions. These edits seem to constitute edit warring.

Other involved editors:
 * , I'm not sure what you mean by "involved", but please notify the other four editors of this report; you can use the template at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gowtham avg reported by User:Davey2010 (Result:Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 633950973 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 633909631 by Davey2010 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 633874387 by Davey2010 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Unlink */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Unlink */ And again....."


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


 * Comments:

After coming off an edit warring block myself I've been extremely cautious with this - After the first and second reverts I left 2 messages on the users talkpage explaining my reasons for reverting ,, The only response I got was him telling me to "Mind my own business" So as clearly shown I've got absolutely no where and don't think it's going to improve anytime soon, Cheers, – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  05:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well he's stopped after the warning so see no point in leaving this open any longer. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kenfree reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked Kenfree and User:Sayerslle)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (revert of this edit )
 * 2)
 * 3)  (same issue, different part of article)
 * 4)  (the usual (see below) edit warring about the word "disinformation")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (asked Kenfree to stop reverting and edit warring on the article talk page)

Kenfree filed a 3RR report on me several days ago. This was closed by User:EdJohnston as "No action against User:Volunteer Marek. Whether sanctions are needed against anyone else depends on a better case being made." The "anyone else" refers to Kenfree, I presume. The fact that he's back at the article edit warring left and right against multiple users, again, makes it a "better case".

Discretionary sanctions notification:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  (and a host of other venues, like NPOV noticeboard)

Comments:

Previous edit warring (including several 3RR violations which went unreported) on the same page (all are reverts, some within a very short period of time):

November 13th

November 1st

October 27th

October 25th ,

October 21st, ,  (that one was a 3RR violation which went unreported)

October 17 ,

October 13

October 9, , , , (another unreported 3RR violation).

<font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  19:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: additional problematic edits AFTER this report was filed and user was notified of the report:. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  21:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Kenfree for 48 hours and User:Sayerslle for one month for violating WP:3RR. Neither editor was blocked pursuant to WP:ARBEE, although both editors were alerted to the sanctions. Although Sayerslle was not reported, they have an extensive history of edit warring and should know better. Part of the reason I didn't block Sayerslle pursuant to the discretionary sanctions is because the duration was based on their history, and I wasn't sure that would be clear if logged as a sanction. And if I wasn't going to do one, I didn't want to do the other as much of the battle was between the two of them, although other editors were involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

JeremeK reported by Clent225 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: By Clent225:
 * 1) Revision as of 01:44, 18 November 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 01:33, 18 November 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 01:26, 18 November 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 23:35, 17 November 2014
 * 5) Revision as of 02:22, 18 November 2014
 * 6) Revision as of 23:28, 17 November 2014

By JeremeK:


 * 1) Revision as of 01:21, 18 November 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 01:29, 18 November 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 01:37, 18 November 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 01:51, 18 November 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A new book by a Dr. James Presley,a Pulitzer Prize-nominated author, has just been released. He is a documented expert on the Phantom Killings. Included as a reference is a video of a criminal expert interview stating that a Board of Inquiry should be held, and that he believes the evidence will close the case. The person reverting the edits does not want this information published. I feel that is a miscarriage to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clent225 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm seeing 4 reverts and possible WP:OWN (, though at least a third, if not half, of the revisions are by him and those edits added lots to the article) by JeremeK, but WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW (possibly due to a WP:COI?) by a WP:SPA who has been editing WP:PRECOCIOUSly. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing 4 reverts and WP:OWN by JeremeK, but WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW (possibly due to a WP:COI?) by a WP:SPA who WP:PRECOCIOUS editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, wait, I'm seeing six reverts by Clent225:, , , , ,


 * Since he clearly knew to report JeremeK, he is aware of 3rr and should understand that he's edit warring as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I fixed your report to include both parties. AcidSnow (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . No clean hands; will leave a note with an expectation to use the article's talk page to resolve their dispute during the protection. Kuru   (talk)  02:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:134.223.230.156 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The same or similar material has been added by other anonymous editors recently; it's probable that some are related.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * for two weeks by .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Hughey reported by User:PBS (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Type: A slow edit war.

Previous version reverted to: link permitted as the reverts involve the deletion of material, this is the last edit before the first delete

First delete: diff 17:25, 11 September 2014‎ "The Siege of Drogheda: Not true, see above"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 17:59, 7 November 2014‎ "Undid revision 625117315 by Pinkbeast"
 * 2) diff 14:37, 12 November 2014‎ "Undid revision 633355211 by Pinkbeast"
 * 3) diff 13:30, 14 November 2014‎ "Undid revision 633658369 by Pinkbeast (talk)While it may be true that Reilly argues a point, that in itself does not add any substance. Maybe User:Pinkbeast should start a page on Reilly"
 * 4) diff 20:07, 15 November 2014‎ "Reilly's book has been refuted by other historians"
 * 5) diff 19:07, 17 November 2014 "The Siege of Drogheda: Removing vandalism"

Diff of edit warring warning : diff (Revision as of 20:53, 15 November 2014)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (Revision as of 21:16, 15 November 2014)

Comments:

Slow edit war. Hughey repeatedly deletes the same sentence that has now been reverted by four different editors: Pinkbeast (x3), user:Dhtwiki, PBS and Jdorney. Hughey has yet to edit talk:Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

-- PBS (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Gurjeshwar (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
User Kashmiri deleted heavily debated consensus material

Previous version reverted to

cur | prev) 13:27, 17 November 2014‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (42,832 bytes) (-2,091)‎ . . (Reverted edits by Gurjeshwar (talk) to last version by Kashmiri) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 03:22, 17 November 2014‎ Gurjeshwar (talk | contribs)‎. . (44,923 bytes) (+2,091)‎. . (Undid revision 634143514 by Kashmiri (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:19, 16 November 2014‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎. . (42,832 bytes) (-2,091)‎. . (Undid revision 633619018 by Gurjeshwar (talk) Nope, previous version was much better) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 03:35, 13 November 2014‎ Gurjeshwar (talk | contribs)‎. . (44,923 bytes) (+2,091)‎. . (Undid revision 633616998 by NeilN (talk) We means Wikipedia writer, Please do not remove images with references. Thanks) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:01, 22 October 2014‎ King vishal singh (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (46,317 bytes) (+145)‎. . (→‎Gurjar rulers) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:23, 9 November 2014‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (42,832 bytes) (-1,981)‎. . (Reverted edits by Kashmiri (talk) to last version by Sitush) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 21:12, 9 November 2014‎ Kashmiri (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (44,813 bytes) (+10)‎. . (Image resize, wikilinks) (undo | thank)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Kasmiri and other 1-2 writers are continuously reverting the contents which was displayed on Gurjar since long time and lots of debate and discussion has already be made by many writers in this regard. Images and article are removed by Kashmiri & Sitush without presenting the appropriate reasons. First image is of Samrat Mihir Bhoja which was provided by Ashok Harshana with all copyright, he himself has contributed in Gurjar Wikipedia as a prominent historian with user Chhora and AP Sing and myself. We have done great effort to improve the artilce by providing full references from authentic public and government sources. I request you to block writing of Kasmiri on Gurjar. No body has owned this article so no body can revert or remove the authentic conyents written by other writers without presenting the proofs and proper debate. Till then i request you to block kasmiri to write on article and Article be on previous version which i reverted yesterday.I am writing on Wikipedia with all trust and good faith from 10 years.

This for your kind information. Thanks.. Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 12:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gurjeshwar reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 634143514 by Kashmiri (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User continues edit war even after recent (barely outside 24h) release of block. The block (re. the same article) was clearly not educative enough, especially in the light of fairly long history of edit wars and blocks on the part of this User. The User has reverted the page several times in the last week or so (the ARV tool missed most of these reverts, hence they are not listed above). Thank you to act. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  13:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTHERE. They have been nothing but trouble on this troublesome article, and they've been warned (by different people) of both the WP:GS/Caste and WP:ARBIPA sanctions recently. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While this seems a plain and simple issue of disruptive editing inviting a long term block, I'm just hoping the editor might see better sense from hereon. Although I think it might be just a waste of time, I'm still inclined to wait and see if Gurjeshwar responds here and accepts to back off from the warring. If the editor reverts again, he will be blocked immediately. In the meanwhile, may I suggest that either one of you could again open up a discussion on the talk page of the article inviting the editor back to discussions? Thanks.  Wifione  Message 17:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did ... and BOOM. - Sitush (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * [Edit conflict] The issue is, edits are in WP:GF, the problem I see is with his WP:OWNERSHIP of this article (which NB talks about his own caste) as perfectly evidenced by Gurjeshwar's reporting of me above. He would not accept deletion of any information added by him and a "prominent [Gurjar] historian", even if strongly justified as Sitush did. Considering Gurjeshwar's overall contributions to WP, I would be tempted to look for other methods than a long-term blank block on contributing to WP. Perhaps a selective block, or removal of WP:AUTOC tag so that all their edits will have to be manually approved? Just an idea. <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;"> kashmiri  <sup style="color:#80F;">TALK  12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 11:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet, User:Ramiericson and User:Burhanhusain reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: No action)
Page:

Users being reported:, and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of the talk page: 

Comments:

Different members of Dawoodi Bohra continually revert my addition to the article of the 90% female genital mutilation rate within the sect. They claim that the statistic is partisan or hate speech, but the same information is confirmed by many reputable sources, several of which I cited. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV because the article is about the sect which they personally belong to. There is no valid basis for deleting this information as it is verifiable fact, not opinion.

Md iet has been involved in previous edit wars to make non-NPOV edits about Dawoodi Bohra and has been blocked from editing the article before. Non-NPOV Bohra-related edits by Ramiericson have also been discussed by the user that got Md iet blocked.

PolenCelestial (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your addition seems quite in the face. Firstly, there did not seem any need to paste the particular bit of information about female genital mutilation in the lede. You could have, using editorial discretion, inserted the same within the article rather than right at the top to make a point. As it looks right now, it does look non-neutral. Secondly, your statistic that 90% of women's genitals are mutilated, is one that is apparently a primary quote from one of the interviewees in your references. So that again seems synthesis and against NPOV. Thirdly, you've already crossed 3RR and should be the one who should be blocked. So do please tread carefully. My advice would be to back off. Remove the statement from the lead. Take it to the talk page of the article. Discuss its inclusion within the article, rather than within the lede. I'm sure you'll be able to make your point of view clear to the other editors without edit warring.  Wifione  Message 17:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer [], various other reactions  and my gentle request to the concerned to get the consensus before forcing material into the article in non Wikipedian manner  speaks about the truth. Md iet (talk)

The fellow seems to be a puppet for a particular group and joined Wiki for this specific purpose, may please dealt suitably.
 * . seems to have taken good effort to edit the NPOV statements in the article. The reporting user also has taken heed of the note above and shifted out the statements from the lede.   Wifione  Message 12:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcbanners reported by User:Scalhotrod (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), removed all uses of the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the template specifically for a source
 * 2), same
 * 3), same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: made by

Comments:

After a resolution to a source and content dispute was reached on the article Talk page, this (albeit new) User continues to remove sources that link living persons (i.e. Writers, Directors, etc.) to the content of the article.--SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three days. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)